Fascism Alive and Well in 2012


Off-Topic Discussions

301 to 350 of 788 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:

Ok, so the last Black man was lynched 48 years ago. Thats terrible.

Equally terrible is the unreported acts of violence against Whites by minorities.

We live now, not in the past. Everyone in this country is hurting to get by and succeed. Everyone has an equal opportunity for advancement. Nobobdy is holding anyone down. Its my opinion that race should not be a factor in college admission and it should not be a factor in the work place.

This might not go well with some but its the truth. Qualified and/or over qualified Whites are being passed over in college admissions and the work place to minorities.

As a son of immigrant parents who came to the US with nothing I would scrap affirmative action.

last black person in the country lynched 48 years ago? Never heard of jasper Texas, huh? Crimes against whites by minorities going unreported? Where do you live, friend? Whites are far more likely to call the fuzz than any other group along ethnic lines unless they are living here illegally. As for wanting to keep race as a factor out of schools and workplaces,, that's all well and good, but it has always been historically hard to account for bigotry. If you want to roll the dice on that, fine, but you're still going to have a leg up on me as I'm still a minority and you still are (probably) not.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
But doesn't teaching about it just promote racial hatred and division?

Does teaching about WW2 promote hatred and division towards Germany and Japan?

Or do people just use the history as an excuse for the hatred they already bear?


Things get ugly when we rationalize emotions.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But doesn't teaching about it just promote racial hatred and division?

Does teaching about WW2 promote hatred and division towards Germany and Japan?

Or do people just use the history as an excuse for the hatred they already bear?

I know that, I'm just using the Socratic method here. He condemns the ethnic studies classes but wants more people to know about Indian Schools.


Steven Tindall wrote:


? ok now I'm slightly confused. At what point in this thread have I ever excused the horrible things that have been done by our government or their agents?

Here

Because according to the governing bodies of international law the land was NOT theirs due to the fact that they had no standing army, no government, none of the basic qualifications for a government. --- you saying it was ok to take their land, ignoring both the fallacious logic AND inaccurate statements

Here

slaughtered the buffalo to starve them to death,the buffalo were out of control and disrupting commerce. Nonlethal methods were used to try and remove them from the railroad tracks but they had to be culled just like any other over populated animal species. - you trying to justify the extermination of buffalo on grounds that are complete, total, and utter BS.

And here.

BigNorseWolf: At that time of American history from what I remember about the census there really weren't enough people to do all the farm labor that needed to be done with wages or not.<------ you justifying slavery as necessary.

Quote:
I believe we have a disagreement as to whats wrong or right and as to whats just or not but we both agree some mistakes have been made in the past.

But you don't think they were mistakes. You think they were necessary, and you use some rather incorrect facts to reach that conclusion.

Quote:


It still amazes me that so few people know about the fact that government agents kidnapped an entire generation of Indian children and sent them away for reeducation. Took away their right to speak their own language and culture then justified it as a way of helping them assimilate to modern culture. I can never find any justification for things like that but at the same time I can do nothing to fix it either. Whats to be done? we learn from it, never repeat it and move on.

Well, they had to learn english or they'd forever be stuck on the reservation. weren't you the one saying they could always leave the reservation? That wouldn't be possible without the program you're decrying, by your logic.


Freehold, you ninja'd me before I finished reading the new posts to the thread; Jasper sprang to my mind too. I'd also love to know where the figure of 48 years came from.


Aretas wrote:
CunningMongoose wrote:
Aretas wrote:

"Past wrong are not to be put to rights because they are past."

So how are these wrongs put to rights?

"How long? Yesterday, last generation, a century ago, a minute ago?

I do not think the idea of justice has an expiration date."

Dispensing justice will have clear winners and losers. Look at history.

Your conception of justice seems to be quite biblical. Why should the person or group giving a just compensation be seen as "loosing" something?

Violence and retaliation is, I hope, not the only way to be just.

Forgive your enemy Biblical?

Anyway, this coversation is rolling into the arena of reparations, affirmative action, class warfare, ect, ect. Lets just skip the topic and spend some time warming up our d20's.

Well, yes, I thing you are aknowledging only two options. Either you forgive or you retaliate. (old testament or the new one.)

I think it's a false dilemma, and don't think they are the only two way to react to injustice.

The Exchange

The atrocities of history were not committed by a nation, or a race or an ethnicity. They were committed by people. We have to keep that in mind when studying history.


Aretas wrote:

Ok, so the last Black man was lynched 48 years ago. Thats terrible.

Equally terrible is the unreported acts of violence against Whites by minorities.

We live now, not in the past. Everyone in this country is hurting to get by and succeed. Everyone has an equal opportunity for advancement. Nobobdy is holding anyone down. Its my opinion that race should not be a factor in college admission and it should not be a factor in the work place.

This might not go well with some but its the truth. Qualified and/or over qualified Whites are being passed over in college admissions and the work place to minorities.

As a son of immigrant parents who came to the US with nothing I would scrap affirmative action.

See, this is the viewpoint that racism does not impact the opportunities of minorities.

Statistics show, minority on white crime is a very small portion of overall crime. Minorities don't even account for their portion of crime against whites (ie, blacks are 12% of the population, but account for less than 12% of the crime against whites).

Minorities have suffered in this country and continue to suffer. I would also say there is a difference between a mugging and a lynching. The country has a racist past, and just because a few people say its over does not mean it's over.

Affirmative Action doesn't mean that qualified whites are passed over for random members of minorities. It means that they are supposed to look for and find qualified minorities.

Look at the statistics of CEO's of Fortune 500 companies and use that data to describe how we have a level playing field in this country.

Look at the statistics of conviction rates in the legal system and use that to describe how we have a level playing field in this country.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Steven Tindall wrote:


? ok now I'm slightly confused. At what point in this thread have I ever excused the horrible things that have been done by our government or their agents?

Here

Because according to the governing bodies of international law the land was NOT theirs due to the fact that they had no standing army, no government, none of the basic qualifications for a government. --- you saying it was ok to take their land, ignoring both the fallacious logic AND inaccurate statements *** rebuttal--
well when you put it that way I can see better what your talking about. I do in fact believe that my ancestors were justified from taking the land from my other ancestors. It's a harsh reality but yea, the strong take from the weak, the better advanced take from the lesser advanced. The Romans sure as heck didn't feel any different when they built their empire nor the Egyptians theirs. It may suck for the losers but thems the breaks.

Here

slaughtered the buffalo to starve them to death,the buffalo were out of control and disrupting commerce. Nonlethal methods were used to try and remove them from the railroad tracks but they had to be culled just like any other over populated animal species. - you trying to justify the extermination of buffalo on grounds that are complete, total, and utter BS.*** rebuttal*** by YOUR reasoning it may be BS by mine I look back at the advantages that the railroad provided for the growth and the economy of this growing nation and couldn't imagine any project at the time more worthwhile. It shortened a 6 month journey to a matter of a week or so. Thats progress not BS.

And here.

BigNorseWolf: At that time of American history from what I remember about the census there really weren't enough people to do all the farm labor that needed to be done with wages or not.<------ you justifying slavery as necessary.
***rebuttal** again AT THAT TIME!! it was and then when the society grew to realize the horrors of it and the true cost of it then it was abandoned. Not willingly, not without much pain suffering and bloodshed on both sides but it was abandoned.
Realizing it as a driving economic force(at that time) is NOT the same as justifying it. I believe on this issue we both agree that it was the darkest chapter in American history however I also think we are not comparing things equally. From my assessment you are talking solely about the moral implications and the human cost while I am addressing the economic and the technological aspects. Both arguments can be right in their own context.

Quote:
I believe we have a disagreement as to whats wrong or right and as to whats just or not but we both agree some mistakes have been made in the past.

But you don't think they were mistakes. You think they were necessary, and you use some rather incorrect facts to reach that conclusion. ***rebuttal*** If my facts are incorrect I apologize however they are the facts I know. If you can provide me with better facts then please feel free, I do enjoy learning and history is a favorite subject of mine. My favorite way to learn ifs from the autobiography's of the people that lived during the time period and while may not have been involved in earth shaking events it gives a better understanding of the overall feel of the average person at that time. I have read at least a dozen different stories from former slaves about their treatment during that era. The most interesting was from a slave that was being hanged by the northern army during shermans march to the sea in Fayettville, N.C. and after being repeatedly hung and dropped by the Yankee army at least 5 or 6 times they finally let him go because they believed his master didn't have anything hidden. He spit on the boots of the union army officer and told him how in all his years his master had never taken a belt,switch or whip to him but now that he was free the first thing that was done to him by his liberators was to hang him. It's those types of stories I like to hear about, from the people in that era not what some brain trust historian thinks the real reason might have been. My point to this rather long rebuttal is that the facts I think I know to be true are based on the best evidence I can find.

Quote:


It still amazes me that so few people know about the fact that government agents kidnapped an entire generation of Indian children and sent them away for reeducation. Took away their right to speak their own language and culture then justified it as a way of helping them assimilate to modern culture. I can never find any justification for things like that but at the same time I can do nothing to fix it either. Whats to be done? we learn from it, never repeat it and move on.
Well, they had to learn English or they'd forever be stuck on the reservation. weren't you the one saying they could always leave the reservation? That wouldn't be possible without the program you're decrying, by your logic.

Education is one thing but that was not the way to do it.


Irontruth wrote:
Aretas wrote:

Ok, so the last Black man was lynched 48 years ago. Thats terrible.

Equally terrible is the unreported acts of violence against Whites by minorities.

We live now, not in the past. Everyone in this country is hurting to get by and succeed. Everyone has an equal opportunity for advancement. Nobobdy is holding anyone down. Its my opinion that race should not be a factor in college admission and it should not be a factor in the work place.

This might not go well with some but its the truth. Qualified and/or over qualified Whites are being passed over in college admissions and the work place to minorities.

As a son of immigrant parents who came to the US with nothing I would scrap affirmative action.

See, this is the viewpoint that racism does not impact the opportunities of minorities.

Statistics show, minority on white crime is a very small portion of overall crime. Minorities don't even account for their portion of crime against whites (ie, blacks are 12% of the population, but account for less than 12% of the crime against whites).

Minorities have suffered in this country and continue to suffer. I would also say there is a difference between a mugging and a lynching. The country has a racist past, and just because a few people say its over does not mean it's over.

Affirmative Action doesn't mean that qualified whites are passed over for random members of minorities. It means that they are supposed to look for and find qualified minorities.

Look at the statistics of CEO's of Fortune 500 companies and use that data to describe how we have a level playing field in this country.

Look at the statistics of conviction rates in the legal system and use that to describe how we have a level playing field in this country.

While your looking at stats lets look at the racial makeup of the major pro athletes in the country. As far as fortune 500 then please tell Oprah to share some of the wealth my way, or bill Cosby or any number of successful African American actors that have started their own companies and are now very successful business persons.

While we look at conviction rates and prison populations stats lets take a look at African American pop culture. When Mr. Cosby made some inflammatory remarks as a key note speaking engagement( or some such affair) he was lambasted for telling his opinion of pull up your pants, learn to speak correctly, don't expect anyone to give you anything. The answer isn't simple as looking at a bunch of numbers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steven Tindall wrote:


well when you put it that way I can see better what your talking about. I do in fact believe that my ancestors were justified from taking the land from my other ancestors. It's a harsh reality but yea, the strong take from the weak, the better advanced take from the lesser advanced. The Romans sure as heck didn't feel any different when they built their empire nor the Egyptians theirs. It may suck for the losers but thems the breaks.

Ok, so is there anything wrong with building an empire by the force of arms today?

Quote:
*** rebuttal*** by YOUR reasoning it may be BS by mine I look back at the advantages that the railroad provided for the growth and the economy of this growing nation and couldn't imagine any project at the time more worthwhile. It shortened a 6 month journey to a matter of a week or so. Thats progress not BS.

Its not my reasoning. The buffalo simply were NOT overpopulated. You are not entitled to your own facts. What makes you think they were overpopulated? Can you explain how a species with 2 natural predators (native americans and wolves) manages to get overpopulated? The bison hadn't eaten themselves extinct in the 10,000 years since the last ice age, why on earth were they suddenly overpopulated as soon as americans started settling the west?

See, I don't know if this is cognitive dissonance or what, but you always seem to slide away from whats being discussed and onto something else. I didn't say lets kill whitey. I didn't say lets give Texas back (as much as i'd like to get rid of it, i don't think they want to go) and I didn't say lets not have a railroad. What i said was you don't need to exterminate the buffalo and that they were exterminated with the express purpose of starving out the native Americans.

"In 1874, Secretary of the Interior Delano testified before Congress, "The buffalo are disappearing rapidly, but not faster than I desire. I regard the destruction of such game as Indians subsist upon as facilitating the policy of the Government, of destroying their hunting habits, coercing them on reservations, and compelling them to begin to adopt the habits of civilization." (The Military and United States Indian Policy, p. 171)

Quote:
***rebuttal** again AT THAT TIME!! it was and then when the society grew to realize the horrors of it and the true cost of

...

Ok, your justification is patently false on several accounts. First of all, there can be no need to bring in more people to do more farming to feed more people.. particularly when you're bringing in folks who aren't familiar with the crops you're planting if they're familiar with farming at at all. "Bring in slaves or not have food" is a false dichotomy. Can you cite any source for this being the case, and please remember that this is a very specific question: not just we need to bring in blacks to farm, but we need to bring in blacks or starve to death.

The problem was that when they brought in free farmers to work for X number of years, the land owners didn't get a profit.

Secondly, they knew slavery was wrong at the time. They compared taxation without representation to slavery, and jefferson (ironically a very large slave owner) recognized the evils of the practice

An inhuman practice once prevailed in this country of making slaves of the Indians

There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?

Link to His book

Quote:
From my assessment you are talking solely about the moral implications and the human cost while I am addressing the economic and the technological aspects. Both arguments can be right in their own context.

Except that you are getting the economic and technological aspects completely wrong in your quixotic quest to make America better than it actually was. Its bad history on two fronts.

Both "blame america all the time" and "Ra ra sis boom ba Goooo America!" are wrong. They're both broken clocks that don't take the time to examine the issues.. the first happens to be a broken clock thats right 80% of the time though.

Quote:
If my facts are incorrect I apologize however they are the facts I know. If you can provide me with better facts then please feel free, I do enjoy learning and history is a favorite subject of mine

I'm trying but you don't seem to notice. For a start

-The bison were not overpopulated- If anything the introduction of guns and the re introduction of the horse to north america gave the native americans too easy of a time hunting them and their numbers were in decline. They were hunted because their hides were useful as machine belts and to get rid of the native americans.

-People knew full well that slavery was bad
-native americans did have governments
-Not having a government means governments can take your stuff
-Native americans were at least partially agrarian before the white folks showed up
-Native americans DID build things: The capital of the aztec empire for example had a comperable population with london when the spanish showed up.
-Whiping and beating was VERY common in slavery. It wasn't universal, but it was close.

Quote:
Education is one thing but that was not the way to do it.

Hallelujah he sees the light.

There is a difference between "x needed to be done" and "x needed to be done this way

Quote:
AT THAT TIME!! it was and then when the society grew to realize the horrors of it and the true cost

I really don't think society is growing. We see what happened to the native americans as bad.. but only because we don't get any benefit from exploiting them anymore. WE don't need bison hide machine belts


Steven Tindall wrote:

While your looking at stats lets look at the racial makeup of the major pro athletes in the country. As far as fortune 500 then please tell Oprah to share some of the wealth my way, or bill Cosby or any number of successful African American actors that have started their own companies and are now very successful business persons.

While we look at conviction rates and prison populations stats lets take a look at African American pop culture. When Mr. Cosby made some inflammatory remarks as a key note speaking engagement( or some such affair) he was lambasted for telling his opinion of pull up your pants, learn to speak correctly, don't expect anyone to give you anything. The answer isn't simple as looking at a bunch of numbers.

Your examples are anecdotal and such a small portion of the population as to be laughable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steven Tindall wrote:


While your looking at stats lets look at the racial makeup of the major pro athletes in the country. As far as fortune 500 then please tell Oprah to share some of the wealth my way, or bill Cosby or any number of successful African American actors that have started their own companies and are now very successful business persons.

While we look at conviction rates and prison populations stats lets take a look at African American pop culture. When Mr. Cosby made some inflammatory remarks as a key note speaking engagement( or some such affair) he was lambasted for telling his opinion of pull up your pants, learn to speak correctly, don't expect anyone to give you anything. The answer isn't simple as looking at a bunch of numbers.

So there's a handful of rich black people, proving there's no discrimination.

Ignore the pop culture, look at the actual statistics that show that even if African-Americans commit a greater proportion of crimes per capita (which I'm not sure is actually true), they are prosecuted and convicted at a much higher rate.


Irontruth wrote:
Steven Tindall wrote:

While your looking at stats lets look at the racial makeup of the major pro athletes in the country. As far as fortune 500 then please tell Oprah to share some of the wealth my way, or bill Cosby or any number of successful African American actors that have started their own companies and are now very successful business persons.

While we look at conviction rates and prison populations stats lets take a look at African American pop culture. When Mr. Cosby made some inflammatory remarks as a key note speaking engagement( or some such affair) he was lambasted for telling his opinion of pull up your pants, learn to speak correctly, don't expect anyone to give you anything. The answer isn't simple as looking at a bunch of numbers.

Your examples are anecdotal and such a small portion of the population as to be laughable.

Ok but yours aren't? How many fortune 500 company executives make up the population of the U.S. The example you use is the same a small portion of the population.

Since when does being a fortune 500 executive mean auto success anyway?


Big Norse Wolf: I really don't think society is growing. We see what happened to the native americans as bad.. but only because we don't get any benefit from exploiting them anymore. WE don't need bison hide machine belts.

This I believe is where our major differences are. I prefer optimism and you prefer pessimism or realism if you prefer. We can both look at the exact same thing but see it entirely differently. Neither one will change the others mind nor are either of us wrong we just see things differently.


thejeff wrote:
Steven Tindall wrote:


While your looking at stats lets look at the racial makeup of the major pro athletes in the country. As far as fortune 500 then please tell Oprah to share some of the wealth my way, or bill Cosby or any number of successful African American actors that have started their own companies and are now very successful business persons.

While we look at conviction rates and prison populations stats lets take a look at African American pop culture. When Mr. Cosby made some inflammatory remarks as a key note speaking engagement( or some such affair) he was lambasted for telling his opinion of pull up your pants, learn to speak correctly, don't expect anyone to give you anything. The answer isn't simple as looking at a bunch of numbers.

So there's a handful of rich black people, proving there's no discrimination.

Ignore the pop culture, look at the actual statistics that show that even if African-Americans commit a greater proportion of crimes per capita (which I'm not sure is actually true), they are prosecuted and convicted at a much higher rate.

The funny thing about stats is they can be skewed to say anything that the person reading them wants them to say. When you go beyond simple math to higher math and stats then you skew the facts based on interpretation.

The perfect example that first comes to mind is the data concerning Global warming. Some experts say this and have the data to back it up, then others using the same data can disprove the same theory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steven Tindall wrote:

Big Norse Wolf: I really don't think society is growing. We see what happened to the native americans as bad.. but only because we don't get any benefit from exploiting them anymore. WE don't need bison hide machine belts.

This I believe is where our major differences are. I prefer optimism and you prefer pessimism or realism if you prefer. We can both look at the exact same thing but see it entirely differently. Neither one will change the others mind nor are either of us wrong we just see things differently.

Again, you're not entitled to your own set of facts. One of you was demonstrably wrong.


Steven Tindall wrote:
I prefer optimism and you prefer pessimism or realism if you prefer. We can both look at the exact same thing but see it entirely differently. Neither one will change the others mind nor are either of us wrong we just see things differently.

I think the problem with pessimism of this sort is it's a self fulfilling prophecy. "Thing won't be better because so we can't act to make them better because they can't get better. Look at history, it's a proof things can't change."

One would be allowed to reply, I think, something along these lines: "Things won't get better because your belief they can't and your refusal to act, grounded in this belief, is the cause they wont get better. Maybe things never got better in history because people were as cynical as you are, but now that we know the cause, we also know what to do if we don't want for things to stay the same. So act, and there is a chance things will indeed get better."

I dont think pessimism or fatalism is sound. A pessimist need, in order to establish his inaction, to show that there is no way things can get better without getting entraped in a self fulfilling prophecy of this sort. That is, the only proof he can offer for his fatalism is to honestly try to get all fatalists to work to make things better, and if the sum of this work fails to make a difference, then he may say his fatalism was grounded.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CunningMongoose wrote:
A pessimist need, in order to establish his inaction, to show that there is no way things can get better without getting entraped in a self fulfilling prophecy of this sort. That is, the only proof he can offer for his fatalism is to honestly try to get all fatalists to work to make things better, and if the sum of this work fails to make a difference, then he may say his fatalism was grounded.

Pessimism =/= fatalism. Indeed, a rational pessimist, seeing that things aren't perfect and don't improve on their own, is therefore spurred to act to improve them himself. In my experience, it's the optimists who say "everything is just fine, don't fix what ain't broke," and who therefore sit back all contented-like and refuse to act, who allow things to fall into a downward spiral.


"Pessimist by policy, optimist by temperament — it is possible to be both. How? By never taking an unnecessary chance and by minimizing risks you can’t avoid. This permits you to play out the game happily, untroubled by the certainty of the outcome." Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love (1973)


Steven Tindall wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Steven Tindall wrote:

While your looking at stats lets look at the racial makeup of the major pro athletes in the country. As far as fortune 500 then please tell Oprah to share some of the wealth my way, or bill Cosby or any number of successful African American actors that have started their own companies and are now very successful business persons.

While we look at conviction rates and prison populations stats lets take a look at African American pop culture. When Mr. Cosby made some inflammatory remarks as a key note speaking engagement( or some such affair) he was lambasted for telling his opinion of pull up your pants, learn to speak correctly, don't expect anyone to give you anything. The answer isn't simple as looking at a bunch of numbers.

Your examples are anecdotal and such a small portion of the population as to be laughable.

Ok but yours aren't? How many fortune 500 company executives make up the population of the U.S. The example you use is the same a small portion of the population.

Since when does being a fortune 500 executive mean auto success anyway?

Except my example includes very large companies and is a reflection on their overall culture.

Rank Company

1 Wal-Mart Stores
2 Exxon Mobil
3 Chevron
4 ConocoPhillips
5 Fannie Mae
6 General Electric
7 Berkshire Hathaway
8 General Motors
9 Bank of America Corp.
10 Ford Motor
11 Hewlett-Packard
12 AT&T
13 J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
14 Citigroup
15 McKesson
16 Verizon Communications
17 American International Group
18 International Business Machines
19 Cardinal Health
20 Freddie Mac

That's just the top 20, there are 480 more. These are HUGE business. Walmart is the single largest private employer in the country, it also has some well documented problems with how they handle hiring and advancement from within. I'm not talking about a few specific individuals, I'm talking about millions of people and how advancement and promotion works within these subcultures.

There's two explanations for an over representation of white men (who are about 35% of the population, but hold 77% of the top positions in these companies) that I can think of. Either they're smarter and harder working, or the system is set up with preferential bias towards them.

Two people are members in the same group. One is being mentored, trained and given challenging tasks that allow for growth and advancement. The other is alienated, told they are worthless and don't belong in the organisation. Which is more likely to become a future leader of that organisation?

Looking at trends of who rises to the top of an organisation gives us a window into what traits and skills that organisation values.

My example is far more broad than Oprah and Bill Cosby.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Pessimism =/= fatalism. Indeed, a rational pessimist, seeing that things aren't perfect and don't improve on their own, is therefore spurred to act to improve them himself. In my experience, it's the optimists who say "everything is just fine, don't fix what ain't broke," and who therefore sit back all contented-like and refuse to act, who allow things to fall into a downward spiral.

Granted, my wording was poorly chosen. Granted, an optimist attitude can also be misleading.

To make my point more clear, lets call "pessimism" or "fatalism" Attitude 1 (A1) person X knows there is something wrong, but thinks he can't change was is yet to come, and "optimism" (A2) person X knows there is something wrong, but thinks he can change was is yet to come and act accordingly.

My argument is that A1 is commiting himself to a self fulfilling prophecy and that A2 is not, because the empirical proof follows the work and don't precedes it. So the only proof A1 can offer, is by getting all A1 minded person to try to get things better and fail. As A2 is already doing that, his claim is at least subject to be proven true or false, but A1 claim is always true because his inactivity, caused by his belief, may well be what makes his belief true.

That is if you accept that the good way to evaluate such claims is by providing at least the possibility of an empirical proof, A1 fails.

I think my argument stands even if the wording, I agree, was poorly chosen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CunningMongoose wrote:

(A1) person X knows there is something wrong, but thinks he can't change what is yet to come

(A2) person X knows there is something wrong, but thinks he can change was is yet to come and act accordingly.

These are fine, as is your example in the new context. I can't help but notice, though, that again you leave out:

(A3) Person X either doesn't know, or doesn't care that anything is wrong, and so refuses to act and becomes angry if others do so.

It's this (A3) attitude that has a lot of people riled up. It's the attitude that says, "Well, shoot, them Injuns prolly had it comin'." That attitude that "Well, when blacks just pretend to be white, some of them do just fine -- as long as they're funny, that is." The attutide that says, "If your ancestors had some culture/language other than mine, they need to just forget about all that and instead try really hard to be exactly like me, 'cause that's what this country is all about."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Steven Tindall wrote:

Big Norse Wolf: I really don't think society is growing. We see what happened to the native americans as bad.. but only because we don't get any benefit from exploiting them anymore. WE don't need bison hide machine belts.

This I believe is where our major differences are. I prefer optimism and you prefer pessimism or realism if you prefer. We can both look at the exact same thing but see it entirely differently. Neither one will change the others mind nor are either of us wrong we just see things differently.

You're not preferring optimism. You're making stuff up in order to support your preconcieved narative. Your "optimism" is incompatible with reality. You are the reason they had to make a seperate class, pull the hispanic kids aside and say "alright, this is what really happened..."

EVERYONE should get that kind of education.

In exactly what year did humans learn that massacring other people for stuff was wrong? When did people say that "they have resources i want, that doesn't mean i can kill them and take it" ? We're STILL doing that.

Thinking this can change is optimism. Thinking that it HAS changed is ignorance.

You're never going to learn from the mistakes of the past if you sugarcoat them with false information.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
CunningMongoose wrote:

(A1) person X knows there is something wrong, but thinks he can't change what is yet to come

(A2) person X knows there is something wrong, but thinks he can change was is yet to come and act accordingly.

These are fine, as is your example in the new context. I can't help but notice, though, that again you leave out:

(A3) Person X either doesn't know, or doesn't care that anything is wrong, and so refuses to act and becomes angry if others do so.

It's this (A3) attitude that has a lot of people riled up. It's the attitude that says, "Well, shoot, them Injuns prolly had it comin'." That attitude that "Well, when blacks just pretend to be white, some of them do just fine -- as long as they're funny, that is." The attutide that says, "If your ancestors had some culture/language other than mine, they need to just forget about all that and instead try really hard to be exactly like me, 'cause that's what this country is all about."

And that is exactly why I think removing access to history is the worst possible anwser to the problem.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

You're not preferring optimism. You're making stuff up in order to support your preconcieved narative. Your "optimism" is incompatible with reality. You are the reason they had to make a seperate class, pull the hispanic kids aside and say "alright, this is what really happened..."

EVERYONE should get that kind of education.

In exactly what year did humans learn that massacring other people for stuff was wrong? When did people say that "they have resources i want, that doesn't mean i can kill them and take it" ? We're STILL doing that.

Thinking this can change is optimism. Thinking that it HAS changed is ignorance.

You're never going to learn from the mistakes of the past if you sugarcoat them with false information.

Well said. This is exactly why the whole notion that "teaching kids the truth will make them hate America" is so bogus.

Again, we see a politically-motivated guy meddling in a curriculum, and picking and choosing what kids can learn and read because of what he (or his political party) decides what is okay to learn and not learn.

I'm thinking Mr. Tindall learned this "cherry-picked" version of US history, and is encountering some cognitive dissonance at the very real fact that the US is not always the "good guy." It moves and acts like an empire, and has for over a century.

Name any other country that has military bases all over the world, two wars in countries on a foreign continent, and surrogate wars going on at all times on most of the other continents.

Am I "blaming America first," or stating facts?

Reccomended reading:
This, and this.


Its good to be the toughest kid in a neighborhood full of maniacs, totalitarians and blood thirsty killers.

I'm sure you would greatly miss America and our freedoms if we lost our/its hegemony.

Would your model nation be China? Syria? Uganda?

My 2 copper...does anyone use electrom anymore?

Love you guys! Have a nice weekend Dice-men.


CunningMongoose wrote:
And that is exactly why I think removing access to history is the worst possible answer to the problem.

Amen.


Quote:
I'm sure you would greatly miss America and our freedoms if we lost our/its hegemony.

At the rate we're going, that'll happen in a decade or two at most.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wait, we have freedoms?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:
Its good to be the toughest kid in a neighborhood full of maniacs, totalitarians and blood thirsty killers.

Psssst.. we ARE the maniac totalitarian bloodthirsty killer. We just happen to make a habbit of not acting like a maniac totalitarian bloodthirsty killer towards certain segments of the planet. Mostly ourselves (and we're relatively new at that even.)

Those segments have, fortunately, been expanding recently.. so you know, progress, but the basic idea that some people just aren't real people and thus don't have rights because of where they were born is still with us.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Wait, we have freedoms?

We have a government that's given into enough concessions to the masses so that its generally more trouble than its worth to crack down on them. Its much, MUCH easier to export the attrocities somewhere overseas, so the people at home don't get bothered by them and pass a law to stop you, or get ticked off again an burn down your house.

Short answer: yes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You know BigNorseWolf, even if we did disagree in the past, I think you are a really decent person. It takes a lot of critical thinking to aknowledge freedom in the USA (and Canada) is but the effect of the aggressive external policies (in case of Canada, economical agressivity, usually through mining corporations) of your country combined with a false sense of endowment inside the borders.

Respect.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:
Its good to be the toughest kid in a neighborhood full of maniacs, totalitarians and blood thirsty killers.

By being even more so?

Quote:
I'm sure you would greatly miss America and our freedoms if we lost our/its hegemony.

No. I'm not from the class that benefits from it. I'm from the class that dies in their wars.

Quote:
Would your model nation be China? Syria? Uganda?

There are almost 200 countries. Could we maybe look at some others? Those three are particularly sad. Perhaps we should look at the 1st world. Problem is, we're so economically dependent on our war machine, it would be a lot of work to dismantle it much and still stay employed. Keeping it up is costing us, too, in equally sad ways.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ok, so is there anything wrong with building an empire by the force of arms today?

As opposed to building an empire in some other way?

BigNorseWolf wrote:
you trying to justify the extermination of buffalo on grounds that are complete, total, and utter BS.

Just to be clear, the american buffalo (bison) is not extinct. True it is a shadow of its former numbers, but it still exists. While there may have certainly been some that wanted to kill vast numbers of buffalo to cripple the native population, ultimately the reason the buffaloes were reduced in vast numbers was because they were not a domesticated cash animal. Same with most predators in the US, and any other number of animal species. Why allow animals to compete for food and space with your livestock when you can just kill them.

Luckily for the american buffalo, there are some people that are starting to raise them for their meat. This is likely to ensure their survival in the long run.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aretas wrote:
Its good to be the toughest kid in a neighborhood full of maniacs, totalitarians and blood thirsty killers.

Psssst.. we ARE the maniac totalitarian bloodthirsty killer. We just happen to make a habbit of not acting like a maniac totalitarian bloodthirsty killer towards certain segments of the planet. Mostly ourselves (and we're relatively new at that even.)

Those segments have, fortunately, been expanding recently.. so you know, progress, but the basic idea that some people just aren't real people and thus don't have rights because of where they were born is still with us.

AHAHAHA! Your putting me on right? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL!

Nice one Norsewolf.


Benicio Del Espada wrote:
Aretas wrote:
Its good to be the toughest kid in a neighborhood full of maniacs, totalitarians and blood thirsty killers.

By being even more so?

Quote:
I'm sure you would greatly miss America and our freedoms if we lost our/its hegemony.

No. I'm not from the class that benefits from it. I'm from the class that dies in their wars.

Quote:
Would your model nation be China? Syria? Uganda?
There are almost 200 countries. Could we maybe look at some others? Those three are particularly sad. Perhaps we should look at the 1st world. Problem is, we're so economically dependent on our war machine, it would be a lot of work to dismantle it much and still stay employed. Keeping it up is costing us, too, in equally sad ways.

So many people on these boards loathe the country they live in. You all have it so good you don't even know it. Its a savage world and the US has kept its hegemony without losing its soul. Thank God your in this country, you are blessed.


Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Steven Tindall wrote:
IF the native peoples had the north American continent for as long as they did. Which from my remembrance was estimated at around 10,000 years. They didn't do a whole lot with the place. We as a nation with only 400 years under our belts have touched outer space and have advanced in ways they could never have dreamed.
This is the most hateful, racist thing I have seen all day

Steven's statement is a factual one.

Keep in mind that the last 400 years included geniuses like George Washington Carver, Steven Chu, Einstein, and Mark Dean. All Americans. Where is your imputed racism?


There is nothing racist or hateful about the statement, its "their" way of shutting you up.

The Exchange

Benicio Del Espada wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


You're never going to learn from the mistakes of the past if you sugarcoat them with false information.

Well said. This is exactly why the whole notion that "teaching kids the truth will make them hate America" is so bogus.

Actually, teaching kids the truth so that they hate what #nation has done and resolve to do better themselves in the future, is exactly what I'd like to achieve.

You can still be proud of your nation while condemning what some people have in the past done in its name.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marcos the Black wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Steven Tindall wrote:
IF the native peoples had the north American continent for as long as they did. Which from my remembrance was estimated at around 10,000 years. They didn't do a whole lot with the place. We as a nation with only 400 years under our belts have touched outer space and have advanced in ways they could never have dreamed.
This is the most hateful, racist thing I have seen all day

Steven's statement is a factual one.

Keep in mind that the last 400 years included geniuses like George Washington Carver, Steven Chu, Einstein, and Mark Dean. All Americans. Where is your imputed racism?

The rasicm lies in using it as an argument, in counting technological progress and expansion as a virtue in itself, as opposed to the injuns simply living of and with the land, somehow implicating that it was their fault for being exterminated.

IMO their major fault was not to understand the concept of " extermination warfare". Sitting Bull propably should never have fled to Canada.

Einstein doesn´t really count as an american for me, anymore than Heisenberg or Braun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:


So many people on these boards loathe the country they live in.

I strongly doubt that they " loath" their country. It seems that rather they hate the bigotry and selective blindness, the arrogance of power, the willfull ignoring of the chesspit of atrocities, that lies under the thin paint of civilization.

The USA were primarily built on the blood of indians, the sweat and tears of african slaves and the ruthless exploitation of chinese, mexicans and assorted others.


Aretas wrote:
Its a savage world and the US has kept its hegemony without losing its soul.

You were out of town/planet, when Bush the Lesser reigned ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A short history of the United States of America, Part One

Once upon a time there was a land that had been relatively unspoiled by its human population. Certain megafauna had been hunted into extinction, but compared to other continents, America was primeval.

One of these other continents was Europe. Europe through a series of circumstances that are complex and not on topic, had organized itself into a much more complex form of civilization ("higher," some would say) and was privy to a much more sophisticated level of technology.

When the Europeans first were strong enough to sustain exploration and conquest of America, they faced off with one of the more sophisticated civilizations on the Americas and they quickly decimated it. The story of the conquistadors is an amazing one in the same way that Jack Vance's Cugel the Clever stories are amazing: it is amazing that such seemingly polite and civilized people could behave so horrendously, but they did. Boy, did they.

The Spanish and the Portugese (who were the only part of the Iberian peninsula that escaped being yoked to the Ferdinand-and-Isabella express) divied up the areas with the most silver (there never was that much gold) and started exploiting the shiznit out of it. They amassed such huge amounts of money that they dominated the European stage for a while.

But there was a problem. There wasn't enough labor power to exploit the new land as quickly as the kings of Europe would prefer. The aborigines did not work as hard or as fast as the Europeans liked, maybe because they were all dying from the diseases they contracted from the Europeans and their horses. Whatever the case, the Europeans (we can cut to the chase and start calling them Spaniards now) treated the aboriginals so poorly that they made a monk named Bartolomeo de las Casas write a history of how bad they were treated and start a successful campaign to get the throne of Spain to adequately protect its Indian subjects. Isn't that nice? De las Casas was a man of God and higher principles, but he also knew that there wasn't enough labor power to keep the wealth flowing to Europe. So, he suggested that they start importing Africans.

Meanwhile, back in Europe, the other powers realized that they better get in on this American shiznit or they were doomed. At first, the French, the English and the Dutch thought they could just set a bunch of romantic thugs to hang out in the Caribbean and jack the Spaniards' shiznit, but men with more sophisticated minds soon realized that what they really needed to do was start colonizing it themselves.

So, they set up a bunch of colonies. Some quickly collapsed. Some suffered great hardships. Some quickly prospered. Most of them were royally-granted merchant/adventurers, but at least one of them were Protestant fanatics from England. These latter were largely responsible for inscribing upon the USA's self-image as itself as a city on the hill doing God's work despite the fact that they didn't really behave any better than any of the others, as can be attested by walking around downtown Boston and seeing all of the statues to Quaker and other nonconformist martyrs. Only slightly less dramatically, Connecticut and Rhode Island were both founded by sectarians hounded out of Massachusetts. But, I digress.

In Jamestown, the labor shortage problem was solved by an ingenious form of slavery called "indentured servitude." Anyone who thinks it was all like "Hey, I'm bored and restless here in London, I think I'll sign away two years of my life and go work a tobacco farm in America!" like it was the Peace Corps are sadly mistaken. Meanwhile, Dutch slavetraders had first shown up off the coast of Virginia in, I believe, 1620 with Africans to sell. The colonists bought them, but just threw them in with the rest of the indentureds.

Meanwhile, there were more Indians to kill, tobacco to be planted and sectarian splitters to ostracize. Meanwhile, back in Europe, England had a civil war and the victor, Oliver Cromwell, was too busy overseeing a social revolution in England (yay!) and subjugating and slaughtering the Irish (boo!) to really turn his attention to America, except by bullying the Dutch into submission which is why even old New York was once New Amsterdam.

Look for Part Two soon!

Proofread and edited


Aretas wrote:
So many people on these boards loathe the country they live in. You all have it so good you don't even know it. Its a savage world and the US has kept its hegemony without losing its soul. Thank God your in this country, you are blessed.

Yes, that's the sanitized version. All you have to do to believe that is to ignore lots and lots of facts.

Acknowledging those facts doesn't mean you hate America. It just means you're being honest.


CunningMongoose wrote:

You know BigNorseWolf, even if we did disagree in the past, I think you are a really decent person. It takes a lot of critical thinking to aknowledge freedom in the USA (and Canada) is but the effect of the aggressive external policies (in case of Canada, economical agressivity, usually through mining corporations) of your country combined with a false sense of endowment inside the borders.

Respect.

Awww.. thats sweet.

You're still not getting my Bud Light.


Aretas wrote:

Its good to be the toughest kid in a neighborhood full of maniacs, totalitarians and blood thirsty killers.

I'm sure you would greatly miss America and our freedoms if we lost our/its hegemony.

Would your model nation be China? Syria? Uganda?

My 2 copper...does anyone use electrom anymore?

Love you guys! Have a nice weekend Dice-men.

I don't think anyone else said they wanted America to up and die or anything like that. Once again you seem to be putting words in people's mouths, which isn't good. America is great. It's where the vast bulk of my friends are. It's where all my stuff is. It's where I make my money... And where I pay my taxes, heh. It's where I found my wife.. And the few women I knew before her (hey, she had bfs before she met me). See It's where I will probably raise my children. It's where I work, where I so stuff, where I laugh and where I weep. It's the best place I have ever lived, although I haven't lived many other places (Panama and Barbados on vacation to visit family). However, it is most certainly not a land without blemishes, and I will not pretend it is. I will examine its flaws, both those that affect me during my lifetime and those that occurred before my time. I will do my best to understand such things and do my very best to make sure things are better for my children than through debates and voting. Naive? Maybe. But I can't strap on the weapons of either my ancestors or my modern day contemporaries and put the world to rights, primarily because eventually I'll run afoul of the authorities or people out for revenge, but also because I want any positive change I incur to outlive me. History has proven the best way to do that is through means other than the sword.


Y'see, the blame america last crowd has won the battle for this thread.

We were having a conversation about the state government of Arizona. (Where, by the way, you now have to pass an english language proficiency test to represent a populace with a 90% spanish fluency rate, true story) Now all we're talking about is who hates america more.

Not a win for reasoned discourse.


pres man wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ok, so is there anything wrong with building an empire by the force of arms today?

As opposed to building an empire in some other way?

Quote:
Just to be clear, the american buffalo (bison) is not extinct.

I know. I saw some on my way through Yellowstone when i was leaving a shirt that smelled like wolf in my dad's backpack...

I just couldn't (and can't) think of a word that sums up the severity of what was done but is still accurate. No one knows what extitpate means (and apparently the biology definition is different than the common english usage), and decimate (the loss one 1 in 10) is a horrific understatement.

Quote:


True it is a shadow of its former numbers, but it still exists. While there may have certainly been some that wanted to kill vast numbers of buffalo to cripple the native population, ultimately the reason the buffaloes were reduced in vast numbers was because they were not a domesticated cash animal. Same with most predators in the US, and any other number of animal species. Why allow animals to compete for food and space with your livestock when you can just kill them.

Well, bison CAN be managed as a food source. The native americans had been doing just that. The problem is that they need more land than any one land owner could feasibly control, and they can jump about 6 feet , making it harder to pen them in.

In other words the bison couldn't be individually owned to make people rich. Cattle could.

Quote:
Luckily for the american buffalo, there are some people that are starting to raise them for their meat. This is likely to ensure their survival in the long run.

The secret to success in a human dominated world... be tasty, but not TOO tasty...

301 to 350 of 788 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Fascism Alive and Well in 2012 All Messageboards