Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
— X —ParticipantWell, i kinda thot you would write somethin like that. I live and breathe in West, by God, Virginia, as you know. And so I am immersed in rightwing ideas, rightwing talk-radio, etc. And so I’m familiar with the notion that there are a bunch of ‘lazy,’ enabled, poor-people out there acting like ‘victims’ and wanting ‘hand-outs’ etc.
Thing is i have spent a quarter of a century now, working with poverty-sticken people and i rarely if ever actually meet any ‘lazy’ poor people. I meet single moms working at McDonalds who make barely enough to live on, and they work a lot harder than the rich folks — they just dont win the capitalist-games. But the work a lot HARDER. But they stay poor. The system looks rigged to me. I dont think the problem is a ‘good system’ full of ‘lazy’ poor-people.
The poor work harder. Thats been my experience anyway. They just dont make money.
I would choose the socialist-island because it seems more ‘fair’ to me. You would choose the capitalist island because it seems more ‘fair’ to you.
There’s no persuading either of us on some of these core, buried, deep ideas.
I think. I dunno.Go Rams.
Well, I was kinda having fun with your question and taking it to extremes. I understand that there are people who are trying and not getting their slice of the pie. And I understand some people could use a hand. I’m no stranger to that. My mom used to feed us (me, my sister) on a whole chicken that had to last a week. We were in poverty in a stick house on stilts in Fredricksburg, VA. She (mom) recognized there was no getting ahead there and moved us to a poor neighborhood in Miami where she got a job as a bank teller while paying for us to go to what they called “Day Camp”. She, too, worked her ass off to get ahead and eventually did.
I, myself, was a roofer as a teenager, then worked at car washes/detail shops, then eventually begged the BA to get into the Elevator Union at 22 years old – and I’ve been in that field ever since. If I didn’t apply myself and work EXTREMELY hard (probably the hardest work I’ve ever done), I would have washed out of that. I studied materials every night, paid very close attention to how the Mechanics above me solved problems, and eventually became one of the better mechanics in my local. I then parlayed that experience and expertise into my own Consulting Firm. Made a ton of cash doing that too. From rags to riches, more or less. Would I be happy if someone who has nowhere near the same expertise, experience and drive making the same money as me in the name of income equality? Hell no. I don’t think everyone SHOULD make the same money. I also don’t think it would be cool if the Government took everybody’s money and redistributed it. That’s a ridiculously stupid premise, IMO. By doing so, you take away the initiative of the super successful to make as much as they can, and you take away the initiative of the have-nots to even try.
So while I would like to live on Socialist-Isle, I don’t think it’s a fair representation of how it would actually look, work, or come to be. It’s also way too small scale to make a legitimate case for Socialism. Socialism, IMO, has failed everywhere it was tried on a mass scale. Venezuela being the most recent case.
Also, I don’t think I wanna debate my ideologies anymore. There’s too many of you and only one of me, and it feels like a pile-on with shades of condescension. I like you guys too much to let this keep advancing to the point that we’re just flat ridiculing each other for what we believe. I’m Patriotic to a fault, I believe in Free Market Capitalism, Border Security, Faith, Morality, the Sanctity of Human Life, Lower Taxes, Limited Government and an Elite Military Force. There’s no talking me out of it, and I don’t feel like giving anyone the opportunity to try to make me feel shitty about it.
Let’s just talk about Football and how childish Trump sounds all the time. I don’t mind discussing that. While I don’t expect him to be a dignitary, it really would help me out a lot if he didn’t sound like my son trolling people in the YouTube comments section (he’s pretty good at that too).
Thanks Mark.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr Seuss— X —ParticipantSometimes i just want to talk to rightwingers about…Islands. Like…if there were two Islands. Each having ten people on them. And one Island had a system where 99 percent of the Island was owned by One Islander. And the other one percent was divided unevenly by the other Nine Islanders. One of the Nine was actually starving and had no land at all.
Ok so thats Island one. Lets call it Capitalist-Isle
And a second Island also had ten people on it. And they each had roughly, more-or-less the same amount of land. About ten percent each, give or take a percentage point or two. Lets call it Socialist-Isle.
Now which Island would you rather live on and why?
You left out some details.
Is the 99%er on Island one the only guy working? What if he created the island like one of those fake islands China makes in the South China Sea? Say he made the island, built machines to cultivate the land and dig wells, set up an aqueduct, built infrastructure to get from one side of the island to the other, built luxury huts with premium thatch, and provided clothing & necessities for decades upon decades.
And then 9 people showed up illegally from a nearby shitty island and demanded all his stuff.
Are the 10 people on island 2 all pulling their weight equally? What if they’re all lazy and contribute nothing to the island except for one hard working guy? Say only one of the 10 gets out there and works. He goes out and harvests the coconuts, digs the wells, does all the fishing, manufactures clothing (grass skirts & palm frond vests, I would imagine), and stockpiles it to ensure his longevity.
The other 9 do nothing but steal his shit because they’re too lazy to do it themselves.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr Seuss— X —ParticipantWell, actually, this nation wasn’t founded on “Christian principles” in the slightest.
That’s a fact, is it?
When was that decided?In 1982 Newsweek magazine published an article entitled, “How the Bible Made America.” It concluded, “historians are discovering that the Bible, perhaps even more than the Constitution, is our founding document.” 55 founding fathers who worked on the constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christian. And out of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence 24 of them were seminary graduates.
John Jay, a Founding Father, and the first Chief Justice of the United States (1789–95) said, “The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next.
Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts.”You probably have no inclination to, but read “The Myth of American Individualism: The Protestant Origins of American Political Thought.”
And finally, there is no such phrase as ‘separation of church and state’ in the Constitution, because the Founding Fathers never intended for church and state to be completely separate. They saw religion as indispensable to the moral foundation of the nation they were creating. And I firmly believe that instruction in peaceful religion is probably the only way for people to peaceably coexist and repair the rapidly deteriorating moral fiber of this Country. Attacking it because “Religion bad” is what’s causing much of the discord, IMO.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr Seuss— X —ParticipantI think this entire dust-up is absurd. If ANYONE wants to say no to artificial social rituals, it should be a given in a supposedly “free society” that this is okay.
That’s not what they’re doing though. They’re protesting America. These Athletes are doing this BECAUSE it (the flag, the anthem) represents America. Kaepernick said as much. They’re not protesting the idea that they HAVE to stand for the anthem because it’s an artificial social construct. They’re doing it because they want to illustrate to people that America is bad. Again, Kaepernick said as much and many have followed suit. That’s what people have a problem with. *I’m* not taking a position on it. *I’m* not saying it’s good or bad. Personally, I wrote to the NFL and suggested they eliminate the rule that players need to be on the field for the Anthem (did you know that?) and play the Anthem before the teams take the field (for the fans), and THEN let the teams take the field. That way, if a player wants to protest playing an America-themed game, they can stay in the locker room and get docked. Subsequently, there will be no public protests, and players will have to reevaluate how much they care about (insert social cause here) against how much they love their money.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr Seuss— X —ParticipantAlso, it’s not “universally accepted” that people see these symbols as you do, or as the people you’re speaking for do. A lot of Americans, including this one, see them as abstractions of an abstraction, and with a host of conflicting “meanings,” too many of them based on myths.
I obviously have no way to quantify this, but I think people viewing the flag as a Patriotic symbol by far outweighs the amount of people who see it as an abstraction. But you never know. I just never actually heard of there being a large group of people who protested the anthem or flag until Kaepernick’s girlfriend told him to do it. Then copy-catitis kicked in and now it’s a thing. Do you ever recall hearing about an objection to the anthem before recently? On this scale?
And it’s not really what I think or see personally. It’s what I see out there. I’m not insulated. I read a great many sites, boards, forums, social media platforms, I interact with people (blue collar guys, veterans, women, executives, policemen, firemen, etc). Patriotism – or Nationalism – is a pretty big deal outside. I don’t know how you can’t see that. It’s pretty much everywhere. You once told me I shouldn’t judge these Antifa fools because they’re a very small minority. Well, if that’s the case, then who makes up the rest of the majority?
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr Seuss— X —ParticipantAnyway, I honestly don’t see it. Disagree with his policies. I do. Most of them, in fact. But on the topic of race, the guy was a saint, given the context.
Yeah, I don’t think so. He far too often made *a thing* out of police involvement with blacks, more or less calling the cops racists. He condemned the police in Cambridge and he was wrong. He condemned the police in Ferguson, he was wrong. He condemned the police in Florida, he was wrong. This perpetuated the fallacy that cops were out there hunting down and murdering innocent black men for no other reason than they were racists. Subsequently, BLM was born. I don’t recall ONE instance of him preaching personal accountability or condemning black on black crime – or black on white crime. It was always just the cops and/or economic disadvantages.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr Seuss— X —ParticipantAren’t you talking about two distinctly different things here? The perception by some that some people are “disrespecting the flag,” and actually doing that? There’s a huge difference. What you’re talking about is “emotions” and “feelings” about symbols, not an actually, concretely “disrespectful” act. And if you want to play a numbers game here, I’d bet you that most Americans couldn’t care less about this topic, and that few Americans are actually all that bothered by someone taking a knee. Do any of us stop what we’re doing, put down the popcorn and the beer, when we’re sitting at home during the anthem?
I’d bet few do. So what is “disrespectful” about it? And, again, it wasn’t an organically derived “tradition.” It was imposed on us, by a few team-sports owners, and by two presidents, Wilson and Hoover.
Choosing the FSK song among millions of others was done via Big Gubmint fiat. We had no voice in the matter. And the anthem was played in scatter shot ways, primarily as a way of indoctrinating Americans to move in lock step during WWI. It’s had an on again, off again history since that time.
Why should ANYONE care that players express their free speech rights by NOT participating in an artificially constructed ritual of indoctrination? IMO, it’s the essence of liberty and freedom to say, “No. I choose not to go along with the crowd on this one.”
And it’s not even about the flag. It’s about the anthem. Which is racist and champions slavery, and was written by a slavery-loving, white supremacist author. Again, I’m actually surprised any black athletes stands for our arbitrarily imposed national anthem.
It’s not really about how it originated to these people. It’s about what it stands for now. Nobody is going to go back and micro analyze its origins now. And they shouldn’t. It’s taken on a specific meaning to people and it’s universally accepted to represent Patriotism and honoring the fallen. So when players take a knee to highlight some sort of manufactured social injustice, people are – rightly so – going to be offended. I don’t know why that would be a foreign concept to anyone. There isn’t anything wrong with being proud of your Country and taking offense to anyone disrespecting the sacrifice given so they CAN take a knee. Which is the richest of ironies, by the way. The anthem and flag only mean injustice. Not a nod is given to the sacrifice that allowed them to protest the thing that represents their ability to protest.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr Seuss— X —ParticipantAnyway . . .
Will only respond to a coupla.
First one is really easy. It’s not really about being “genderless.” Androgyny goes back in time as far as we can look, and has always been with us. I think the issue you’re referring to is choosing a gender not necessarily in accord with the biology one is born with.
To me, no one should care. If someone wants to pick another gender, and live that way, it’s not going to hurt another soul on this earth. Not a one. Life is soooo damn short, and we have soooo many other issues to deal with, getting worked up over that is, to me, beyond absurd. And because this choice almost always results in an enormous amount of harassment and oppression against that person, the last thing we should be doing is adding to it via public policy.
Live and let live, etc.
Will only address this one of your coupla right now.
Androgyny, from a historical perspective, didn’t mean anything like it does now. So, yeah, I’m talking about choosing your gender at a whim, pansexuals, genderfluid, bigender, trigender, non-binary, Skoliosexual
(someone attracted to non-binary people or those who aren’t cis-gendered), etc. Do I personally care if someone chooses to be one of those? I dunno. Maybe. But what you have to understand is that this Nation was founded on Christian principles and is comprised – now – of millions upon millions of Christians. So this offends them. It also offends them (and me to an extent) that they’re inventing these terms, identifying as such, and then screaming oppression for not being Championed universally.This will seem Cro-Magnon, but I’m of the opinion that men should be men and women should be women. I feel uneasy when I go into a store and there’s some confused teenager or 20something dude with a man-bun, nail polish and a skirt. I don’t know what to make of it and I don’t want to have to deal with it. Maybe I’m intolerant – I dunno – or maybe I’m just old-school. And I certainly don’t want to be chastised for misgendering. That’s stupid to me. Almost as stupid as children being abused by their parents into being taught that they don’t have to fit the model of gender normality. They can be whatever they want and should demand respect. That’s horseshit to me. But again, might be just me. But I doubt it, because there are millions of people out there who got sick of the Progressive agenda and voted differently.
Also, where does the line get drawn? Because it has to.
Can people call themselves goatarsexuals who get off on fucking goats and thereby demand acknowledgement, acceptance and special rights? Extreme example, I know, but where does it stop?
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussSeptember 24, 2017 at 7:19 pm in reply to: NFL Players Respond to Trump on Anthem Protesters… + Kroenke #74937— X —ParticipantIt just meant don’t say anything that can be applied to any poster in the thread.
If you say leftists/rightists are deluded cretins, since there are going to be leftists/rightists in the thread, then to be consistent with how the rules were written (and intended), and how they have been applied up till now, I have to take action.
Not going to debate it.
lol. Relax, man.
When I call someone a name, then you’ll have a legitimate beef.
I won’t debate it either. I get your point. And like I said – you have no cause for concern.You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussSeptember 24, 2017 at 7:15 pm in reply to: NFL Players Respond to Trump on Anthem Protesters… + Kroenke #74934— X —Participantwrong thread.
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 7 months ago by -- X --.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussSeptember 24, 2017 at 6:30 pm in reply to: NFL Players Respond to Trump on Anthem Protesters… + Kroenke #74930— X —ParticipantIt’s just avoid sounding antagonistic in a way that can be taken like that by other posters.
Micro-aggressions?
You’re going to have to define for me, then, how people are going to “take” what I say – because there’s no possible way for me to be able to determine that. Is it because I said Progressive myths and/or ridiculous social advancements? Is that offensive? Will it trigger people? I mean, Billeh spoke to me about Nationalist myths and symbols, but I didn’t get offended. Even though I vehemently disagree with the importance of this particular symbol, his opinion doesn’t enrage me or anything. Neither did Zooey when he spoke about the STFU crowd. I’m sure he wasn’t speaking to me, and I’m not the type of person to get offended for other people. Let them carry their own jocks.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussSeptember 24, 2017 at 5:54 pm in reply to: NFL Players Respond to Trump on Anthem Protesters… + Kroenke #74927— X —ParticipantX,
Ever ask yourself who “enacted” this supposed sacred tradition? Where did it come from? Who decided? Who chose the FSK anthem in the first place? The anthem came about due to Big Gubmint fiat, not through any democratic choice, and the ownership of various sports teams decided to play the anthem, at various times, for various reasons. We the people had nothing to do with it.
Also, you can’t “disrespect” a country through such an action regarding a nationalist symbol. How do you “disrespect” an abstraction via another abstraction? And if you hold up something like an anthem or a flag as “representative” of a nation, you don’t get to cherry-pick which parts of its history count. You don’t get to say, “This ONLY represents all the awesome things we’ve done and do, and NONE of the bad stuff.” If you insist that a symbol actually does “represent” this country, then it has no meaning whatsoever if you dismiss everything except for the rainbows and the unicorns. It loses any potential for meaning, and is then a symbol of a G-rated fairy tale, not an actual nation, with an actual history.
Good response – despite the fact that it took me an eon to get to it.
For the love of God, learn how to quote man!I’m gonna carry this over to the other forum and we can pick it up there.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussSeptember 24, 2017 at 5:43 pm in reply to: NFL Players Respond to Trump on Anthem Protesters… + Kroenke #74926— X —ParticipantI read further back in the thread. This is the same general territory of what I brought up with Z. There are different folks with different political views in the thread, and strictly speaking, your diction is accusing some of believing in myths and promoting ridiculous things. In other words, you speak about the left from the POV of the right, and the result pushes a line. (I used to do this myself in the old huddle political board).
I don’t know what keeps the diction cooler while also giving people the power to speak from their particular perspective (and how it colors things).
Maybe just saying “what I believe are,” or “what I see as.” Etc. That way it’s less verging (even if unintentionally) on poster to poster namecalling and more just honestly stating this is just how I see it.
I understand you have to do your job, but there’s no danger of this getting personal – at least not from me. If I say something is a myth, it should be understood that it’s my opinion. I didn’t feel the need to qualify every statement with the fact that it is, indeed, my opinion. In the world of political discourse, there is no moral authority – despite everyone claiming to possess it. I accept the fact that someone is going to tell me that certain beliefs I hold are false or fantasy. I have no problem with that. Similarly, some of you should accept that some of the beliefs or ideas y’all hold are skewed to me as well. Provided nobody uses the word “You” when discussing it, I don’t see how it should be a problem to hash this stuff out.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussSeptember 24, 2017 at 5:34 pm in reply to: NFL Players Respond to Trump on Anthem Protesters… + Kroenke #74925— X —ParticipantX,
On the above? I was hoping you’d start those threads you mentioned the other day, over in the other forum. Would like to respond, but it seems out of place on the football side.
I’d be interested in your elaboration on pretty much anything, but the stuff in the paragraph cited above might be a good place to start . . .
Okay. I’ll do that.
Understand though, in advance, that I have no formal education and that I have no training in debates. I’ll probably veer off course, misrepresent what people are saying, fail to grasp your point (or misinterpret it entirely), and some other things that will make it difficult to have a seamless discussion.
But I’ll still kick your ass. =)
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussSeptember 24, 2017 at 3:02 pm in reply to: NFL Players Respond to Trump on Anthem Protesters… + Kroenke #74911— X —ParticipantThing is, there’s a major contradiction in what you’re asking. Cuz playing the national anthem and demanding that everyone act in lock-step is ALREADY “political.”
I’m sorry, but that’s nonsense. It only became political when one person (influenced by his America-hating girlfriend) decided to make it political. It was simply a proud American tradition enacted about a 100 years ago at sporting events. The Flag isn’t a political statement, despite your claims to the contrary. It’s about honor, sacrifice, and pride. Disrespecting it, as I pointed out (and remains true) is an affront to millions of proud Americans.
And you’re especially going to have to get rid of the obviously authoritarian demand that everyone adheres to all the above without question.
I didn’t demand anyone do anything, and neither did anyone else until Trump said something. It was voluntary, and moreover, UNIVERSALLY voluntary as a matter of pride in one’s Nation. “Want this flag? Tough shit. We kept it and it’s still flying.” That’s all it is.
Trump, with his latest barrage of mindless bullying, wants to go even further and actually fire people who don’t obey. What could be more “political” than that, or more “Big Gubmint”?
So? If I went into work tomorrow with a flag lit on fire and tossed it into my Supervisor’s office – and THEN wondered why I was fired, I’d be the moron. My job, not unlike the NFL, is a private enterprise. They can write and enforce any rule they want. And they do – just without any consistency. The Cowboys petitioned the NFL to wear stickers on their helmets to honor the police who were murdered in Dallas, and the NFL said no. Why? Too political. And yet…..
To me, as long as we try to force people into group-think, lock-step adherence in accepting nationalist myths and symbols, reactions to this are inevitable. And asking people to “keep politics out of it” makes no sense when those nationalist myths and symbols already politicize the events in question.
Similarly, as long as ‘they’ try to force people into accepting progressive myths and ridiculous social advancements, reactions to this are inevitable. And asking people to “accept that politics belong everywhere” makes no sense when those Progressive myths and ridiculous social advancements have no business in politics to begin with. The Government should provide free health care? The Government should enact laws protecting “genderless” people? The Government should redistribute wealth? The Government is responsible for oppression? Yeah. Sure thing.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussSeptember 24, 2017 at 2:10 pm in reply to: NFL Players Respond to Trump on Anthem Protesters… + Kroenke #74907— X —ParticipantHey, you either agree with Nationalism and/or American Exceptionalism, or you don’t. And as painful as it may be for some, over 60 million people do agree with it. Personally, I think players should leave their political protests off the field. And again, millions of people feel the same way. The NFL used to be the only place you could go to escape this stuff, but apparently that’s no longer a luxury. And the NFL will pay the price. Not just because of the right-leaning population who are (and will) protest the league, but because it’s compounded by the left-leaning population who are sympathetic to Kaepernick’s “plight” right now and are protesting until he gets another starting gig.
Doomed. The NFL is doomed.
They should have nipped this in the bud the SECOND Kaepernick decided to use the NFL to advance his agenda. I’m not saying he’s right or wrong, because it’s irrelevant. Politics has no place in sports. It’s not what they’re paid to do, and it’s not what fans pay to see.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr Seuss— X —ParticipantCongratulations, fellow San Fran fans.
Coach you guys played the #Rams 😂😭 pic.twitter.com/MOjk91EpC2
— uSTADIUM (@uSTADIUM) September 11, 2017
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr Seuss— X —ParticipantAs the young kids used to say, kewl. Looking forward to the other threads, X.
They don’t say that anymore, Methuselah.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr Seuss— X —ParticipantIt’s just a portrait on a wall. I don’t see how it’s “subtracting from Western Civilization” to replace it with one of Audre Lorde, who, after all, is also a contributor to “Western Civilization.”
You’re immeasurably smarter than that, Billeh. Of course you know I’m not talking about the specific – but instead, the collective. It’s just (insert thing here), coupled with (insert thing here), multiplied by (insert things here), until the landscape has changed. It’s methodical, intentional, and designed to erase even the hint of white privilege. Another farce, but that’s another story.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr Seuss— X —ParticipantThanks, X, for the correction. Much appreciated.
As for worldviews: Like everyone else, it’s complicated. But trying to boil it all down . . . To me, the most important thing is that everyone gets their shot in the here and now at maxing out on their life’s potential. And I mean literally everyone. I don’t think we should just accept the fact that we gotta have billions of human beings suffering and never, ever having that shot in order for a certain percentage at the top to get that shot. Our current system, however, is set up to do just that. And I find that profoundly immoral, irrational, tragic and indefensible.
So it’s “the fierce urgency of now” for me, and this colors pretty much everything else. It means I see our economic and political systems as cheating the majority of humanity out of their one and only chance at a real life. And, again, for the worst of reasons: to ensure that an arbitrarily lucky, chosen, ultra-select few can do as they please and have ten, a thousand, tens of thousands times more than they could possibly need to live a full and rich life.
Our system sets up a zero-sum life-sphere, and no matter how many times I hear someone say it’s not that way, the evidence strikes me as overwhelmingly contrary to that view. IMO, it’s just flat out self-evident and beyond debate, it’s so obvious. Math, logic, percentages and common sense all tell us it definitely is zero-sum.
So I passionately believe we need to replace our current systems — economic and political — with something that would facilitate the widest possible shot at full and rich lives for everyone, within the context of preserving our one and only home (earth). And, again, with no one being left out.
Another factor for me: I don’t believe in an afterlife, or reincarnation — though I’ve studied world religions like Buddhism and Hinduism which do. I think this is it. One and done. The future is now, as George Allen once said. So it makes no sense to me, whatsoever, that we should have a political or economic system that acts as if it’s okay to build up to something across generations, a wee bit at a time. And in the case of soft neoliberalism of the Dems, at a glacial pace. Our economy and politics need to be geared to maximize the lives of the living, not future lives that may never be . . . while at the same time doing everything we can to leave future generations with the same shot at the fullest of lives. As in, conserving the earth, our natural resources, ending wars, pollution, etc. etc.
More later. Got some things to add about various ironies regarding “collectivism versus individualism” as I see them.
Good to see you posting again, X.
WOW do we have a lot to discuss! I’d love to delve into all of this.
I’m gonna start making new threads now, based on specific topics (many of the above too).Thanks dude.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr Seuss— X —ParticipantIn my view, making money the ticket is obscene. It’s a fiction, an arbitrary, invented fiction, that doesn’t exist in nature and shouldn’t ever, not once, not ever, be able to dictate the course of our lives.
But under the capitalist system it does, on an hourly basis. I just see that as profoundly immoral, destructive and, to be frank, insane.
Can you expand on this a little? I’m not sure I understand you correctly; and as such, don’t want to comment on it until I understand you more clearly. Are you suggesting that the pursuit of money is insane? Or that making college a pay-to-attend institution the insanity?
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr Seuss— X —ParticipantI want to ask you a few things because I think I can ask you and get a straight answer, whereas talking online with other conservatives usually goes badly. I mean…these conversations often go off the rails, and become hopeless. I know you well enough that I think if I accidentally offend you, you won’t take it personally.
Well, I appreciate that. And I don’t think there’s any way you can offend me (either intentionally or accidentally), because you know how to communicate. I’m going to – at some point – go through all of your points and address them for you, but we’ll just end up comparing ideologies.
Your last point, as offensive as it may seem, is actually a well-thought out opinion I hold based on trends I see, and they tie into my point about higher education. Namely:
Students in college have voted the American flag off their campus. Where did these students learn their unprecedented contempt for America?
European countries continue to welcome in millions of Muslims, adding to the tens of millions of Muslims already in Europe. Many of whom, if not most, have no interest in adopting Europe’s values.
The University of Pennsylvania, in its left-wing English department, has removed its long-standing portrait of William Shakespeare because he was white and male in favor of a more “diverse” writer. Is that not subtracting from Western civilization?
The prime minister of Canada announced that his country has no core identity. You don’t think that counts as an example of a declining civilization?
Last year, Stanford University students voted on a campus resolution that would have their college actually require a course on Western civilization. Students rejected the proposal 1,992 to 347. A columnist at the Stanford Daily explained that teaching Western civilization means “upholding white supremacy, capitalism and colonialism, and all other oppressive systems that flow from Western civilizations.” Is erasing Western Civilization from Universities entirely not a way of destroying it?
Another small example (very small) is the fact that the west was largely built on standards, but those ‘standards’ are now somehow viewed with contempt. How dare we uphold any standards! The left (not all leftists) now somehow view a piss-Christ or a plain old rock as the equivalent of a Rembrandt. Because, impressionism. Where are the artistic standards anymore? That’s just a personal pet peeve, probably.
Anyway, I’ll expand on this more later. I would, however, ask that we tackle these things individually instead of in one big all-encompassing post. It’s just easier to have a discussion about one thing at a time as opposed to seven things at once.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr Seuss— X —ParticipantI agree it’s pointless to try to argue ideologies. I would love to just sit and discuss issues with someone on the right sans the heat.
My triggers are Science denialism, income inequality and healthcare. I would love to talk with you about these subjects sometime but not today. Today is about football and the Rams.
What that means is you have to come around here more often so we can talk about this stuff and whatever issues trip your trigger. Don’t be such a stranger. Deal?
Absolutely!
When you feel the urge, just make a new thread about one of those things and we can discuss.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr Seuss— X —ParticipantOK, I think a free college education at state owned institutions would be a long term benefit for this country. Having my daughter at BU and my son at Northeastern (each over $60k per year), I’m keenly aware of the burden paying for college puts on parents and students.
Education is king for a competitive work force. We need more engineers and scientists, period. These shouldn’t just be rich kids, because most have crappy work ethics.
In principle, I don’t disagree. However, what impact would free public college have on the delivery system of higher education? Do you really think that top-down Government regulation of education would be efficient? Would it not be more beneficial to foster more entrepreneurship in higher education while giving all institutions a real stake in their students’ success? Also, should *everyone* be able to waste the resources of higher education? Aren’t there enough people who go to college for no other reason than to go, and don’t finish? Wouldn’t that particular problem be exacerbated with an open door policy?
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr Seuss— X —ParticipantHey, X, hope all is well.
It looks to me like you’re engaging in the same thing you say the left does: painting with a broad brush, indicting everyone of a particular political view for the actions of a few. In your case, you even cite one personal encounter, as if that can be used as an indictment of the entire left.
“The left is out of control, plain and simple.”
Hey Billeh.
Yeah, you’re right. And I’ve corrected that. I would like to gain a better understanding of your world view and some of your beliefs, so I’ll refrain from doing that. The original article just rubbed me raw is all. My apologies.
As for your comment about white supremacy. Not following that at all. Are you saying “the left” made all of that up?
The evidence says right-wing extremist groups are on the rise:
I didn’t say they made it up. I said they made up the epidemic we’re apparently facing. I’m sure it has its ebbs and flows in terms of violent expression, but it’s not an epidemic as I’m led to believe through the media.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr Seuss— X —ParticipantHi X. Always good to see you on the boards. I have missed your posts.
As for politix, we disagree on a lot of stuff, obviously. But i can tell you this — nobody on ‘this’ board thinks all Trump supporters are racists/fascists. We (this little board) know (and have talked about and agreed) that there are different factions that make up the Trump core. Several different factions. The neonazis are just one faction among others.
Plenty of nonfascist Conservatives like you also preferred Trump.
You are respected here, X. But we are leftists (Bernie types, Jill Stein types) (not Democrats), so we disagree with you on a lot of your politix.Lets hope Goff has the right stuff
w
vFair enough. I won’t paint all you leftists the same anymore. Unless you’re out there exhausting your energy battling statues and the idea of islamophobia as opposed to actual islamic extremists and actual threats to the Country.
I’m not a Goff fan, but I do hope he was just the beneficiary of poor mentoring.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr Seuss— X —ParticipantGlad you’re posting again, X.
I think the lack of tolerance for differing viewpoints goes both ways.
In rightwing circles, if I say we don’t need a border wall, I’m a soft-on-crime libtard.
If I say that much of the money going to the military could be better used elsewhere, I’m a terrorist-loving libtard.
When I point out that 97% of climate scientists and 87% of all scientists in general agree that anthropomorphic climate change is real, I’m part of the libtard conspiracy.
If I say the growing income inequality is the biggest threat to the prosperity of this country, I’m a communist libtard.
Etc, etc.
This is also true. In a perfect world, people would just talk.
I, myself, am Conservative leaning. That doesn’t automatically make me an “ist” or someone with deep-seated “isms”. What’s more, it doesn’t mean I have an “ism” but am unaware of it because of my “privilege”. It only means I have core values that I’d like to see advanced in the Country. Tax reform, border security, a strong military, limited Government intrusion into my life, less regulation, and so on.
Wanna debate me on that? I’m not interested. Debating means there has to be a winner (and there can’t be one in a battle of ideologies). Wanna have a conversation about the contrasting virtues we both hold and whose is superior? Meh. Also subjective in accordance with personal perspectives.
Just talk. Learn something about me, and teach me something about you. Don’t teach me about your political mouthpiece (the person who does your thinking for you), just tell me why you think (a)(b) or (c) is beneficial to the Country in which you live and leave the assigning of motives out of it.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr Seuss— X —ParticipantI don’t look at right wing sites so I don’t know the equivalent thing you’re talking about.
It’s not a matter of looking at selective ‘sites’ to get a perspective of how out-of-whack the number of these Antifa fucks are in comparison to neonazis, or the KKK, or racists, or Supremacists, or whatever else we Conservatives are now. I’m not a fan of White Supremacists either, but let’s not pretend they’re suddenly some huge organization that benefited from Trump being elected President by having their ranks swell exponentially via the awakening of dormant supporters (which is what the media is leading people to believe). Their numbers are miniscule in comparison to the population. Antifa, on the other hand, isn’t some club you can join. It’s a movement consisting of members from all walks of life who don’t possess the intellectual capacity to differentiate between Conservatism and pure, unadulterated hate groups. And for that, I blame the education system. Specifically Universities. The shit young adults are being taught now is negligent.
Talk about the need for border security – you’re a racist.
Talk about the need for a stronger military – you’re an imperialist.
Talk about the decline of morality – you’re a religious zealot (and intolerant)
Dispute the claim that global warming is indisputable – you’re a moron.
Failure to acknowledge income inequality – you’re privileged (horeshit)
You’re white? Holy shit are you evil.
and so on, and so on.I don’t expect you (or 99% of this board) to acknowledge that the left is destroying Western Civilization. It’s only my opinion based on the way I see things unfolding now (and over the past decade). But I do expect some of you to acknowledge that this whole “White Supremacy” thing is WAYYYYYY overblown, and only became a dangerous threat about 8 months ago. And again, for no other reason than it was suggested and/or conjured. Not because it’s any more prevalent than it was 8 years ago.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr Seuss— X —ParticipantOne group expresses their right to free speech (not exclusive to neonazis).
The other group terrorizes anyone who expresses their right to free speech.Have to differ. Both groups do that. Famously. As is very well documented.
Let me ask you this, then.
Where’s the footage of Conservatives terrorizing Obama supporters en masse?You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr Seuss— X —ParticipantOne group terrorizes non-white, non-christian minorities for no other reason than they are not white and christian.
The other group terrorizes nobody EXCEPT the group that terrorizes non-white, non-christian minorities.
Disagree.
One group expresses their right to free speech (not exclusive to neonazis).
The other group terrorizes anyone who expresses their right to free speech.There’s a reason Trump supporters are being attacked, and it’s not because they’re freaking Nazis. It’s because they dare to show their allegiance to the President in public. The same holds true for speakers like Milo (don’t agree with his provocateur nature), Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, Nicholas Dirks, Action Bronson, John Brennan, Janet Mock, etc. Even if you don’t agree with their talking points, violently attacking their supporters, intimidating them, blocking them from attending speaking engagements, disinviting them from speaking, disrupting their lectures, and coddling/counseling the “victims” of their very existence is flat ridiculous. It’s also bullyism. A prime example is pummeling someone with a “no hate” sign. lol. Idiots.
White Supremacy is no more prevalent today than it was 8 years ago. It did, however, become an epidemic in the mold of The Plague of Justinian as soon as the left spoke it into existence. I, myself, have already been called a racist and a Nazi for absolutely no other reason than being a conservative. Five more minutes in that “discussion”, and it would have come to blows (out of self-defense). I walked away, because I wasn’t going to give them what they wanted.
The left is out of control, plain and simple.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr Seuss -
This reply was modified 6 years, 7 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
