|
|
Post by wyattstorch on Oct 29, 2021 13:12:45 GMT
Then I don't get your initial response, as it sounds like you are on the side of the folks ridiculed in the OP. Its complicated. I support people working to ensure their associations reflect their values, but I also have a particular set of values I champion, which puts me at odds with the folks from cancel culture 1.0. The folks from cancel culture 2.0 are more my people. But you seemed to be deriding what you now call "cancel culture 1.0", but are also in agreement with their desire to get sexually explicit and racist books out of schools. I haven't said anything about being equally valid. But I don't see any problem with letting kids read Huck Finn, or the history of what past peoples understood (and misunderstood) about the universe, Earth, Earth's place in the universe, etc. alongside present day understandings of the various issues involved. It isn't that hard. "People in the time period and geographical setting of Huck Finn had views on race that have since been found to be misguided". "Hundreds of years ago, people didn't have the sort of telescopes, scientific advancement and mathematical abilities that have been discovered over time and we now have today, which led them to very different understandings of the make up of the universe. Understandings that we now know to be wrong, and here is what we now know about the universe...". |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 25,970
|
Post by petep on Oct 29, 2021 16:55:25 GMT
And we must remember the people a hundred years ago thought the people a hundred years before them were Neanderthals.
And I can guarantee a hundred years from now the people will look at us and some of our accepted progressive practices and shake their heads.
When and if driverless cars are perfected and road deaths are down by large percentages the progressives of 2200 will be tearing down Henry ford statues as he will be vilified as a killer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Oct 29, 2021 17:32:29 GMT
When and if driverless cars are perfected and road deaths are down by large percentages the progressives of 2200 will be tearing down Henry ford statues as he will be vilified as a killer.
You really don't understand a damn thing about why those Civil War memorials were brought down.. do you?
If anything Ford statues would be torn down because of his anti-Semitism.. his connections to the KKK and his admiration by and support of Nazis ..
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,411
|
Post by thor on Oct 29, 2021 18:01:58 GMT
When and if driverless cars are perfected and road deaths are down by large percentages the progressives of 2200 will be tearing down Henry ford statues as he will be vilified as a killer.
You really don't understand a damn thing about why those Civil War memorials were brought down.. do you?
If anything Ford statues would be torn down because of his anti-Semitism.. his connections to the KKK and his admiration by and support of Nazis ..
Pisspot, et al:  |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 25,970
|
Post by petep on Oct 29, 2021 18:39:38 GMT
Kids get ur stories straight. I thought they didn’t teach crt in schools.
|
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Oct 29, 2021 19:23:33 GMT
I’d argue it’s cultural in the us. The blacks in a place like Bermuda are excellent and put many whites in the us to shame. In terms of family, work ethics, value on education, dress etc. the blacks on the island despise what they see blacks in the us doing who are involved in poor activities. For whatever the reason In the states there’s is very much a gang culture, no family values culture etc. Blacks often will trash Ben Carson and celebrate a black star with 10 kids by 5 women who he bears up. I recall Oprah having Whitney Houston and her husband at at the time on after he beat her up pretty good. And they were doing or for the couple. And Oprah gushed over bobby brown and did nothing but compliment the dirtbag. It made me sick. But that’s a cultural issue. In some parts of this country we have despicable white cultural issues. I had a couple - white married tenants who are drunk / drug addicts and fought all the time. To them that was normal. And their families who I met are just like them. But it is Ok for you guys to trash good white people like Alexander Vindman and Michael Fanone. While praising scumbags like Donald trump. Gang culture, no family values etc. is not a black thing. It is an American thing as you presented in your last paragraph |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 25,970
|
Post by petep on Oct 29, 2021 20:02:37 GMT
Well. Gangs. 50 percent Hispanic. 35 percent black. Remaining 15 percent are made up of all other race groups
Relative to the share of each races percent of total in the entire us, I think it’s quite clear gangs are not part of white culture.
|
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Oct 29, 2021 20:40:23 GMT
Well. Gangs. 50 percent Hispanic. 35 percent black. Remaining 15 percent are made up of all other race groups Relative to the share of each races percent of total in the entire us, I think it’s quite clear gangs are not part of white culture. That depends on what you call gangs. Of course white supremacy groups and motorcycle gangs are not included |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,198
|
Post by demos on Oct 29, 2021 20:47:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Oct 30, 2021 15:36:19 GMT
It doesn't though. It is specifically a way of dealing with those that aren't. I suppose.. that is if you're looking to waste your time.. It doesn't though. It is specifically a way of dealing with those that aren't. Hitler and Mussolini did more than just "speech". What do you mean "if that worked"? I haven't claimed speech will stop governments from acting. Or that speech alone is sufficient to resolve all problems. Nor have I said that there is any way to make the world perfect. I'm not even sure the extent of your strawman since there are some questions regarding what you are actually talking about, but it definitely seems to be a strawman going on here. More speech, in the face of attempts to cancel it, is how the world came to better understand the universe and Earth's place in it. More speech, in the face of racist laws, is what brought an end to Jim Crow and segregation. More speech, in the face of government abuse and speech restrictions, Snowden and others choosing to speak have brought abuses into the open, driving reform. And on and on. Waffling between 'speech is' and 'speech alone isn't' doesn't do much towards making your point, now does it? Obviously the notion that " More speech, in the face of racist laws, is what brought an end to Jim Crow and segregation." is particularly false. Every sea change was preceded by actions that focus the attention of those unwilling to engage in good faith 'speech' .. The Haymarket Riot lead to labor rights legislation.. "Speech" followed. The Birmingham Riot of 63 and the Harlem Riot of 64 lead to Civil Rights legislation. "Speech" followed.. The Stonewall riot lead to galvanizing the LGBT community.. "Speech" followed.. The Boston Tea Party FFS .. "Speech" only works when the actors are willing and interested in acting good faith.. That said.. I'm certainly not advocating for such violence but it seems obvious that autocrat and bullies seldom develop a conscience because you made a compelling argument. History says that's incredibly rare .. More speech, in the face of government abuse and speech restrictions, Snowden and others choosing to speak have brought abuses into the open, driving reform. Buggy code and clumsy use of technology has done more. |
|
|
|
Post by wyattstorch on Oct 30, 2021 15:57:19 GMT
It doesn't though. It is specifically a way of dealing with those that aren't. I suppose.. that is if you're looking to waste your time.. LOL. Then why does anyone continue to speak to political ends? Why did Reagan tell Gorbachev to tear down the wall? Why did the US founders write the declaration of Independence? Why give the Gettysburg speech? Why have political rallies? Why use LNF? Why have fact checkers? Should I go on? Brakes on a car protect drivers from crashes. Brakes alone don't protect drivers from all crashes. Are you saying this is a level of nuance that you consider harmful to the general point of brakes being helpful in preventing crashes? Explain to us how the speeches of Dr. King didn't help to counter the narrative that folks ought to be judged by their race. Explain how the speaking in favor of the rights of LGBT folks didn't help counter the narrative that they should be treated differently? Like I said, speech alone isn't enough to stop someone from doing violence against you. But that isn't the topic. Or the claim I have made. Speech can build popularity behind an idea. It is impossible to doubt that. But let's not forget the thread we are in. We aren't talking about using speech as a counter to violence. We are talking about using speech as a counter to other speech that we find offensive or disagreeable. And countering ideas with better ideas can and does lead to debate and improvement of society. Much more than simply addressing objectionable speech with shutting down and destroying the objectionable speech. In part because sometimes the speech that the majority finds objectionable is actually the speech that ends up being right. The unpopular speech of King. The unpopular opinions of scientists stating that earth is not the center of the universe, or that the universe began with a "big bang". The strategy of shutting down and destroying objectionable speech could quite easily have led to losing the debate about whether there should be racial equality before the law. Or the make-up of the universe. In short, debate is better for society than locking down the voices of the minority. I haven't said otherwise. The US founders weren't speaking against the tyranny of the British monarch to convince the monarch. They were doing it to convince their fellow would-be Americans. OK. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2021 16:02:58 GMT
Its complicated. I support people working to ensure their associations reflect their values, but I also have a particular set of values I champion, which puts me at odds with the folks from cancel culture 1.0. The folks from cancel culture 2.0 are more my people. But you seemed to be deriding what you now call "cancel culture 1.0", but are also in agreement with their desire to get sexually explicit and racist books out of schools. That's right. Read the article. There are some books in their list that don't seem sexually or racially problematic but made the list anyway & for obviously political reasons. Whatever you take away from this conversation, hopefully the one thing you're certain about is that these folks in Texas are getting a big wag of my finger. I am with you in support for the study of the evolution of ideas and their history. In that context, I support it 100%. But would I be okay with putting a current publication from the flat earth society in a school library? No! Not so much because of the faulty earth science but more for the nutty baby-eating, satan-worshipping lay lines bloodlines bullsh*ttery. At some point, if you let *all* the noise in, you're going to lose the signal. |
|
|
|
Post by wyattstorch on Oct 30, 2021 16:22:58 GMT
But you seemed to be deriding what you now call "cancel culture 1.0", but are also in agreement with their desire to get sexually explicit and racist books out of schools. That's right. Read the article. There are some books in their list that don't seem sexually or racially problematic but made the list anyway & for obviously political reasons. Whatever you take away from this conversation, hopefully the one thing you're certain about is that these folks in Texas are getting a big wag of my finger. I am with you in support for the study of the evolution of ideas and their history. In that context, I support it 100%. But would I be okay with putting a current publication from the flat earth society in a school library? No! Not so much because of the faulty earth science but more for the nutty baby-eating, satan-worshipping lay lines bloodlines bullsh*ttery. At some point, if you let *all* the noise in, you're going to lose the signal.
I disagree. If you blackout bad ideas from the public square, those ideas don't simply go away. They go underground. They likely grow more radical. They find ways into the minds of people. And they do so without public counter, because the open, public sphere has barred one side of the debate.
If LNF simply barred discussion, for example, of objectionable descriptions of migrants coming across the US border, those objectionable opinions wouldn't cease to exist. They would simply exist un-countered. You and I would be far less likely to ever discuss the benefits of migration, the ideas regarding how beneficial and good the majority of these people and their desire to come to America is. In turn, far fewer people would come to understand those benefits and far more might come to the same misunderstanding as those that deride migrants.
With supervision and good raising and direction, kids, too, need to see and understand the bad ideas and the good ideas. Kids learn about and understand the ideas behind slavery and the holocaust. And they should. They should also learn how things have changed and why we don't do those things anymore. But I wouldn't want to bar them from the writings of the confederacy. Or the writings and speeches of the nazis. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2021 16:45:02 GMT
That's right. Read the article. There are some books in their list that don't seem sexually or racially problematic but made the list anyway & for obviously political reasons. Whatever you take away from this conversation, hopefully the one thing you're certain about is that these folks in Texas are getting a big wag of my finger. I am with you in support for the study of the evolution of ideas and their history. In that context, I support it 100%. But would I be okay with putting a current publication from the flat earth society in a school library? No! Not so much because of the faulty earth science but more for the nutty baby-eating, satan-worshipping lay lines bloodlines bullsh*ttery. At some point, if you let *all* the noise in, you're going to lose the signal.
I disagree. If you blackout bad ideas from the public square, those ideas don't simply go away. They go underground. They likely grow more radical. They find ways into the minds of people. And they do so without public counter, because the open, public sphere has barred one side of the debate.
If LNF simply barred discussion, for example, of objectionable descriptions of migrants coming across the US border, those objectionable opinions wouldn't cease to exist. They would simply exist un-countered. You and I would be far less likely to ever discuss the benefits of migration, the ideas regarding how beneficial and good the majority of these people and their desire to come to America is. In turn, far fewer people would come to understand those benefits and far more might come to the same misunderstanding as those that deride migrants.
With supervision and good raising and direction, kids, too, need to see and understand the bad ideas and the good ideas. Kids learn about and understand the ideas behind slavery and the holocaust. And they should. They should also learn how things have changed and why we don't do those things anymore. But I wouldn't want to bar them from the writings of the confederacy. Or the writings and speeches of the nazis. I know we are supposed to be disagreeing with each other but I don't find a lot to take issue with here. I also wouldn't bar kids from the writings of the confederacy or Hitler. But I think that can be done without having a copy of the Turner Diaries sitting on a library shelf, sans context or commentary. I think it can be done without lowering the bar all the way to the floor. I feel like there is a false choice being presented here in your argument, an element of all or nothingness that doesn't find a home in my thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by wyattstorch on Oct 30, 2021 16:59:39 GMT
I disagree. If you blackout bad ideas from the public square, those ideas don't simply go away. They go underground. They likely grow more radical. They find ways into the minds of people. And they do so without public counter, because the open, public sphere has barred one side of the debate.
If LNF simply barred discussion, for example, of objectionable descriptions of migrants coming across the US border, those objectionable opinions wouldn't cease to exist. They would simply exist un-countered. You and I would be far less likely to ever discuss the benefits of migration, the ideas regarding how beneficial and good the majority of these people and their desire to come to America is. In turn, far fewer people would come to understand those benefits and far more might come to the same misunderstanding as those that deride migrants.
With supervision and good raising and direction, kids, too, need to see and understand the bad ideas and the good ideas. Kids learn about and understand the ideas behind slavery and the holocaust. And they should. They should also learn how things have changed and why we don't do those things anymore. But I wouldn't want to bar them from the writings of the confederacy. Or the writings and speeches of the nazis. I know we are supposed to be disagreeing with each other but I don't find a lot to take issue with here. I also wouldn't bar kids from the writings of the confederacy of Hitler's speeches. But I think that can be done without having a copy of the Turner Diaries sitting on a library shelf, sans context or commentary. I think it can be done without lowering the bar all the way to the floor. I feel like there is a false choice being presented here in your argument, an element of all or nothingness that doesn't find a home in my thinking.
The context is all the other books. Including the ones that counter and probably far outnumber the ones that are widely known to be objectionable.
I am not proposing an all or nothing false choice, where the only option are "all" or "nothing". I am merely choosing "all". You can choose to put the line wherever you want. I have made no attempt to limit where someone else might stand or what choice they might make.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2021 17:00:26 GMT
I know we are supposed to be disagreeing with each other but I don't find a lot to take issue with here. I also wouldn't bar kids from the writings of the confederacy of Hitler's speeches. But I think that can be done without having a copy of the Turner Diaries sitting on a library shelf, sans context or commentary. I think it can be done without lowering the bar all the way to the floor. I feel like there is a false choice being presented here in your argument, an element of all or nothingness that doesn't find a home in my thinking.
The context is all the other books. Including the ones that counter and probably far outnumber the ones that are widely known to be objectionable.
I am not proposing an all or nothing false choice, where the only option are "all" or "nothing". I am merely choosing "all". You can choose to put the line wherever you want. I have made no attempt to limit where someone else might stand or what choice they might make.
Well, I think the "all" choice is unattractive in many contexts. |
|
|
|
Post by wyattstorch on Oct 30, 2021 17:07:11 GMT
The context is all the other books. Including the ones that counter and probably far outnumber the ones that are widely known to be objectionable.
I am not proposing an all or nothing false choice, where the only option are "all" or "nothing". I am merely choosing "all". You can choose to put the line wherever you want. I have made no attempt to limit where someone else might stand or what choice they might make.
Well, I think the "all" choice is unattractive in many contexts.
OK. I disagree.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Oct 30, 2021 23:52:54 GMT
Well. Gangs. 50 percent Hispanic. 35 percent black. Remaining 15 percent are made up of all other race groups Relative to the share of each races percent of total in the entire us, I think it’s quite clear gangs are not part of white culture. That depends on what you call gangs. Of course white supremacy groups and motorcycle gangs are not included
Hell's Angels, for example.
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Oct 31, 2021 6:43:51 GMT
Being an overt racist and a shining example of being far less than human. I'm not sure that's what I was banned for. I think it was because my speech was violent. And maybe racism is inherent to being human, and not being racist is artificial suppression of our inherent tendencies. Evolution often happens through competition between different varieties of a species and the eventual domination of one as the fittest and elimination of others that are less fit. Part of that might be for the races to fight each other and compete for resources and survival. Rather than calling me a "racist," a more descriptive term would be "pro-evolutionist," which implies that I favor unlimited competition between the varieties of hominids and the inevitable outcome of that competition, which is evolution and progress. I believe you were banned when almost every other regular on this longtime forum agreed that your behavior warranted a ban. Now you are back. If you post like anything other than a devotee of white mass murder of those of lesser pedigree or potential, then there is more than a fair chance that you will remain as currently constituted. If not, I'd wager that you'd be banned again. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,198
|
Post by demos on Dec 9, 2021 18:13:46 GMT
|
|
