Welcome to the American Inquistion

[Wulaw Horn 18968]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Yeah, Wulaw is possibly the only good-faith old-school conservative who still basically identifies as such on the board. Maybe TwiceHorn too, but I'm not really sure how he'd describe his politics now.  I think Wulaw's got some huge blind spots but I truly missed his contributions while he was gone. 

I do think the fear about the French Revolution is someone telling about one (or more) of those blind spots. Despite the reputation it's gained, the French Revolution was relatively bloodless. Compared to many other revolutions, basically any European colonial project in Africa or Asia, or even just a day of covid in the United States, the Revolution killed a rather small number of people. People today don't fear a replay of the French Revolution because of how horrible it was in itself, they fear a replay because the Revolution killed the king and overthrew the entire social order. The social order that got overthrown was absolutely worse and more despotic and more violent against more people than the Revolution, but it was the natural state of things to the people on top and they didn't really care about what horrors the system they profited from enacted on people beneath them.

What we're currently experiencing is also a little similar to how the Haitian Revolution scared the ever living shit out of white people in the United States. When slaveowners realized the danger of slave revolts they didn't change their ways to try to improve conditions of slaves, they substantially increased their brutality against slaves. We're seeing similar behavior now from the police and from mediocre white dipshits who realize that if whiteness doesn't confer something special upon them in society they'd be fucking worthless. 

Thanks... I think?

This board is basically a cesspool (political board). I used to like the other board for a  long time.  I ended up here on this thread b/c I got a notification so I figured I'd check it out, but yeah, I don't need to waste my time on dolts that don't understand reading comprehension, or who ignore 20 years of shared social history on these boards, or being called a Nazi showing my privilege by a bates grad that works on K street of all places.

 

 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5105]

Hey @Wulaw Horn, found something else to disagree with you about, but thanks for the kind words, it does mean a lot.

Today the Supreme Court has decided that you can't discriminate against me in hiring practices anymore.  That would've never happened without the whole gay rights movement taking off, not because of peaceful protests, though we'd had plenty of those up to that point, but with property damaging riots with tear gas and police in riot gear.  Sometimes peaceful protests take you only so far before you have to go to the next level. 

This is something I think our forefathers would fundamentally agree with, seeing as how they started a riot that ended up turning into the American Revolution.  Rioting has a time honored seat of preference within our country and it should always be in the toolbelt of those groups that have been shit upon for decades and decades.

And sorry for not quoting where I saw you talking about peaceful protests, I didn't want to go back and find it, but I'm pretty sure it was in this thread.  Probably better to move this discussion to the Minneapolis is Burning thread though...

[TwiceHorn 31240]

33 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 Maybe TwiceHorn too, but I'm not really sure how he'd describe his politics now. 

Me either.  I haz a confuse.  I am somewhat left of Wulaw, though.

Edited June 15, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 104537]

26 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I know cancel culture was on the side of the conservatives once upon a time.  I said as much when I said in the 60's (and obviously before) liberalism great push was to hear all viewpoints while the conservatives didn't want that to happen.

And no shit on the trump stuff man- there's a reason I said French revolution.  And that acknowledges excesses of previous regime, the clap back that's a cleansing, and then the purging of everyone not in 100% lockstep.  That's what I think is coming.  Yeah, it's not fucking great.  That's what I'm saying. I picked the historical time period for a reason, and that acknowledges all sides. 

I don't disagree with your take, and appreciate your acknowledgement of the role that the politically dominant class has had to play in this.  Honestly, my response and thoughts on this are the same as my thoughts on the chaos that we're seeing and we're going to see with respect to policing, and the rioting we saw.

The best way to avoid riots and violence (the complete breakdown of the Rule of Law) is to first.....avoid undermining and voiding the Rule of Law.  And that's exactly what allowing the police to operate with complete impunity, to break the law in both letter and spirit in your face, then laugh at you and say "fuck you, what are you gonna do about it?" has led to.  Society (through its armed agents) shouldn't breach the social contract....because then we lose the benefits of the social contract.

Our political environment is much the same way.  It would be FANTASTIC if the political conversation these days actually could focus on differing takes on monetary policy, foreign involvement, etc.  But you and I both know that the dominant political class -- the GOP -- is not having those conversations, because that movement is no longer about policy at all.  It's about appeals to baser instincts (ALL the dog whistles have now been blown), and abandonment of any consistent policy in favor of what is functionally a cult.  Thinkers like George Will are persona non grata.  So, again, when you abandon core principles for....well, whatever the hell GOP is and stands for now....you end up with chaos.  There's actually a good piece in the NYT for this weekend that Trumpism has done more to shove a large swath of the country to the left than any political development in decades.

Extremes lead to extremes.  So, like, avoid them.  Don't be a deranged, despotic king, and you won't end up facing a violent revolution.  This is one of the big reasons some of us keep cautioning against the metaphorical "despotic king" route.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

As usual, I see kind of a middle ground on it.

It is troublesome to me that the current "dialectic" seems to be to suppress unpopular speech rather than to counter it with better ideas.

I'm not sure that's "cancel culture" exactly, but it's a close relative.  And I concede that to the extent cancel culture means marginalizing people, it's a #bothsides thing.

[wildcat09 29213]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Me either.  I haz a confuse.  I am somewhat left of Wulaw, though.

It’s all good. There was a time I thought I was libertarian, with a different take on what sorts of “harm” government should protect against than most other libertarians. I’m not sure my politics on concrete issues have changed much since then, but if someone called me a libertarian today I’d want to punch them in the face.

[workswithseed 2033]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

@NameAlreadyInUse

one of your posts pointed out that this is more akin to the french revolution, and you were fucking right. 

i think it's also why we see such a stark divide and why, by and large, conservatives have switched teams or otherwise abandoned this board. supporting this presidency must be exhausting. i can understand why people have tucked tail and run off.

First of all, I think it sucks that I can't take NameAlreadyInUse's name out of the quote above.

Wasn't the mass exodus after the move here? They were defending him back on tos pretty consistently until then. 

[Brisketexan 104537]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

As usual, I see kind of a middle ground on it.

It is troublesome to me that the current "dialectic" seems to be to suppress unpopular speech rather than to counter it with better ideas.

I'm not sure that's "cancel culture" exactly, but it's a close relative.  And I concede that to the extent cancel culture means marginalizing people, it's a #bothsides thing.

Absolutely -- not a fan of "cancel culture," particularly as it of course becomes a non-thoughtful reflexive action.  But by the same token, some reaction like that IS warranted.  That is, for example with respect to racism....enough talking to these recalcitrant fuckers.  If you're a racist, fuck all the way off.  At some point that social and cultural obstacle no longer warrants "good faith" debate, because it's not being presented in good faith to start with.  And that is actually a valid method of dealing with opposition at some point.  I've dealt with this in numerous organizations -- you do what you can to change minds and build consensus....but at a certain point, there is an opposition that has steadfastly chosen to refuse to listen to reason.  Cool.  Move forward, and just run over them.  It's time.

A lot of American shittiness just shouldn't be a conversation anymore.  Time to run over them and move forward.  The hazard is that, of course, some things that SHOULD still be the subject of good faith conversation will be lumped into the "fuck it, move forward" bucket.  It's a hazard of human problem-solving.  There's no way around it, but recognizing it, and trying to force some discernment between the two categories, remains a responsibility that we have.

[JBJ 3648]

@Bozo_Casanova proposed the no Bulverism rule the first week (maybe day) this site started.  It's a good rule to post by.

For those unfamiliar, it is from a Lewis essay (now part of God in the Dock). Skip to 4:30 for the TLDR, but the entire video is relevant:

 

[Brisketexan 104537]

1 hour ago, Axiom of Choice said:

General discussion on changes in online discussion over the past decades immediately prompts the mindless "white conservatives don't care about brown people" reflex.  This simple rhetorical tactic is employed because it can be employed by anyone without giving any thought or effort at all.  If you attack the moral character and intentions of the messenger, you don't even need to address their points. 

The white liberals love the brown people of the world so much.  They are their righteous guardians and protectors.  Except they didn't care to protect them from drone strikes during the Obama years.  And they seldom address the largest factor impacting the black community, which is fatherless/single parent households.  And they care so much about the ~100k brown people who will die from CV in the US, but they don't care about the 500K brown people who die every year from malaria that could largely be prevented with simple things like mosquito nets.  It's almost as if they only care about brown people when it is politically expedient for them to do so.  

Oh, and AOC, if you want to know why you don't get any "good faith conversation".....the fact that you spew utter bullshit like this is exactly why.  You don't get to say "look at me paint with a broad brush that is actually full of lies and bullshit, I don't understand why nobody will have a nice discussion with me."

Fucking seriously.  I am aware of literally hundreds of people personally, and dozens of groups, who you would characterize as "white liberals" who had problems with drone strikes under Obama, who work really hard to create an educational and social system that creates opportunities and stability for minority households, including things like reducing incarceration for minority men (a big source of "lost fathers"), etc.  And do you really fucking think that there aren't massive efforts from "white liberals" regarding malaria control?  There are literally dozens of organizations working towards this, many of them characterized as "white liberal," including one that is DESPISED by the "right," the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.

I mean, you just spewed a bunch of demonstrably false, bad faith bullshit....in a thread where you lament the ability to have a good faith conversation?  Dude.  The punch tastes shitty because you keep shitting in the punch bowl.

[Brisketexan 104537]

4 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Agree with the general points here.  Biggest area of potential disagreement is on the perceived exclusive domain of the right to determine who are the racists.  In virtually any conversation online, expressing any moderately conservative viewpoint will get you labeled as a racist.  And there is no possible way to exonerate oneself from this charge.  Sometimes you will see one try to defend themselves and go down the list of all the reasons why they are not a racist, and it will be met with the repetition of "that doesn't mean you aren't racist."  Well, what exactly does make one not racist?  Apparently one is not a racist due to their views on other races, but on whether or not they agree with a very narrow political ideology.   It is a very simple, transparent, and dishonest rhetorical tactic, but it is effective and so it is used frequently.  

And so is "I'm not racist -- I didn't own any slaves and I have a black friend."  Come on.  Your approach means that there really can't be any determination that someone is racist.  What bullshit.

[Wulaw Horn 18968]

1 hour ago, kevwun said:

You have to include Napoleon and almost 30 years of world war with it. 

Yep. Basically the French Revolution reordered Europe and the entire known world. It had huge societal events that went beyond deposing a monarchy. 

[BradInATX 9208]

I do like how this thread has done a full 360 degree turn starting at EMAwesome crying about the victimization and oppression of affluent white conservatives, with a couple of pages of some of the most random content ever on a thread, and circling right back to affluent white conservatives feeling sorry for themselves because they're being held responsible for their past behavior, then throwing temper tantrums when they don't get the kind of nurturing, "poooor rich white guy" attention they're seeking.

If you guys need to talk to someone who will not hold you responsible for enabling the terribleness that "cancel culture" is in backlash to, and give you a big hug and tell you nice comforting safe things, maybe you should call your mom. If you need her number, PM me.

Edited June 15, 2020 by BradInATX

[Brisketexan 104537]

3 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Obviously there are white liberals doing those things.  There are many white conservative doing those things as well.  But the "white conservatives don't care about brown people" line was used immediately as a reflex.  The point is we can all play this silly propaganda game.  

 

Of course there can be a determination.  But it is not based on whether one agrees with some unrelated policy. 

We literally have a dominant political class, party, and regime that has built its strength and base on demonizing and villifying non-white people.  Come the fuck on, man.  It's not even subtle.  ALL the dog whistles.

And the fact that many people purposefully have such a limited perspective that they think that anything but "you shouldn't kill black people just because they are black" (hyperbole for effect) is an "unrelated policy" when it comes to race is the problem here, dude.  Literacy tests at the ballot box was, ostensibly, an "unrelated policy"....yet it was literally one of the most purposeful and effective means of denying black people the right to vote.  Again, come on, man.  Being utterly disingenuous buys you none of the credibility you think you're entitled to.

[Wulaw Horn 18968]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And so is "I'm not racist -- I didn't own any slaves and I have a black friend."  Come on.  Your approach means that there really can't be any determination that someone is racist.  What bullshit.

That’s not what he’s saying man. It’s a larger point that being conservative is considered, ipso facto, being a racist. Which is bullshit. If you want me to put on my “both sides” hat it’s the same thing people on the right do when they say if you vote for a Democrat it’s because you hate Jesus and freedom. 

W was a stud in Africa. He ran on compassionate conservatism and I think he meant it. His education reform was written by Kennedy and called no child left behind and not “fuck you I got mine”. That’s the only GOP dude I’ve voted for at the top of the ticket. Trumpism showed more ugliness than I’m comfortable with in the party which is why I’m not voting except in minute small areas (Emmitt for Harris County judge, for example was my only 2018 GOP vote and that was by proxy through my wife) not stained by Trump, but if you don’t think there’s a bunch of groups on the left that similarly want bad things for people they disagree with you are as misinformed as I was when I saw everyone capitulate to Trump. 

[Brisketexan 104537]

Just now, Wulaw Horn said:

That’s not what he’s saying man. It’s a larger point that being conservative is considered, ipso facto, being a racist. Which is bullshit. If you want me to put on my “both sides” hat it’s the same thing people on the right do when they say if you vote for a Democrat it’s because you hate Jesus and freedom. 

W was a stud in Africa. He ran on compassionate conservatism and I think he meant it. His education reform was written by Kennedy and called no child left behind and not “fuck you I got mine”. That’s the only GOP dude I’ve voted for at the top of the ticket. Trumpism showed more ugliness than I’m comfortable with in the party which is why I’m not voting except in minute small areas (Emmitt for Harris County judge, for example was my only 2018 GOP vote and that was by proxy through my wife) not stained by Trump, but if you don’t think there’s a bunch of groups on the left that similarly want bad things for people they disagree with you are as misinformed as I was when I saw everyone capitulate to Trump. 

I agree on W.  But I'd also share this....the more time I spent looking back, and opening my eyes, the more I realized that the modern GOP is built on a proud foundation of racism and absolute disdain for minorities.  Dude, read up on the shit Reagan said and thought behind closed doors -- and even out in the open.  In the respect you are talking about -- and again, it's something I ALWAYS admired about W -- W is an aberration in the GOP lineage and messaging.  

Trumpism is the party embracing its id.  He's not the disease -- he's the manifestation of the disease of a movement built on fear and demonization of the other.  Do I think that every person who has ever voted GOP is a racist?  Of course not.  But I will say this....anyone who has been paying attention at all and CONTINUES to support this iteration of the GOP....yeah.

[BradInATX 9208]

7 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

That’s not what he’s saying man. It’s a larger point that being conservative is considered, ipso facto, being a racist. Which is bullshit.

Nope. This is a straw man. Nobody is saying that every conservative is a racist. I'll paraphrase something I saw on another thread. Not all Trump voters (or you can sub conservatives in here) are racists. But every one of you/them has decided that racism isn't a deal breaker. And that's one of the many reasons why you don't get to sit in on the conversations that, despite your lamentations of not existing, are happening; just not with people who don't find racism a dealbreaker involved.

Edited June 15, 2020 by BradInATX

[hayden_horn 11360]

2 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

That’s not what he’s saying man. It’s a larger point that being conservative is considered, ipso facto, being a racist. Which is bullshit. If you want me to put on my “both sides” hat it’s the same thing people on the right do when they say if you vote for a Democrat it’s because you hate Jesus and freedom. 

W was a stud in Africa. He ran on compassionate conservatism and I think he meant it. His education reform was written by Kennedy and called no child left behind and not “fuck you I got mine”. That’s the only GOP dude I’ve voted for at the top of the ticket. Trumpism showed more ugliness than I’m comfortable with in the party which is why I’m not voting except in minute small areas (Emmitt for Harris County judge, for example was my only 2018 GOP vote and that was by proxy through my wife) not stained by Trump, but if you don’t think there’s a bunch of groups on the left that similarly want bad things for people they disagree with you are as misinformed as I was when I saw everyone capitulate to Trump. 

here is probably the disconnect: you use "conservative" for "your side" and "democrat" for the "other side."

i would argue that identifying as a republican, in 2020, means you at least sympathize with or think racists are a useful voting bloc. there are a ton of conservatives (or former republicans, if you will) who dislike, hate trump. there are plenty of republicans, who look at trump, and all his dog whistles, and all his saying the quiet part out loud, and all his cancel culture, and still defend him. granted, much of it is defense through deflection, which is no defense at all, but it's still there. i guess some could be considered pragmatic, like tahoe (though he was at least a little racist, imo), and shrug and say "but our judges."

but honestly, and this is why people fled this board, imo, there is no honest defense of trump. so they go over to the DT threads and decry politics. some of that group, and it is a fairly large group, one that would rival in numbers what they deem the "liberal cabal that dominates CR," used to be some of the more prolific CR posters on the old site. they just cannot defend this man, or really, much of any republican behavior right now. the republicans are in a flat spin, and the gs are starting to wobble their faculties. there's a reason why trump has 95% support (give or take) from those identifying as republicans. i would argue that there are fewer that identify as such any longer. there's a reason the lincoln project exists.

we are living in interesting times.

[Wulaw Horn 18968]

17 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I do like how this thread has done a full 360 degree turn starting at EMAwesome crying about the victimization and oppression of affluent white conservatives, with a couple of pages of some of the most random content ever on a thread, and circling right back to affluent white conservatives feeling sorry for themselves because they're being held responsible for their past behavior, then throwing temper tantrums when they don't get the kind of nurturing, "poooor rich white guy" attention they're seeking.

Who exactly do you think you are talking too?  Seriously man- you are a beatdown right now. I’ve never engaged in any past behavior I have the need to be embarrassed about and I’m certainly not rich. I’m a wage slave with slightly nicer stuff because my wage is higher than the people protesting, but I damn sure am not rich, and it’s not qualitatively different than the family making 70k that populates middle America. I’ve got about 30 days from not receiving a paycheck anymore before times start to really suck. 

 

8 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Nope. This is a straw man. Nobody is saying that every conservative is a racist. I'll paraphrase something I saw on another thread. Not all Trump voters (or you can sub conservatives in here) are racists. But every one of you/them has decided that racism isn't a deal breaker. And that's one of the many reasons why you don't get to sit in on the conversations that, despite your lamentations of not existing, are happening; just not with you.

Dude you called me a liar earlier ignoring 20 years of history on this board and some that even know me IRL. 

And worry not your pretty little head about these conversations you are having that don’t involve me. I get it. Conservative regressive racist no good m/very bad/demonize him. Like I’m French Aristocracy. 

What I’m telling you is that this ends with bad_teammate in power sending you to re-education camp alongside Brisket and longhorn lawyer and Hayden and anyone else who dissents even a bit. That’s my fear for the future anyway. Trump is a boogie man that’s living on borrowed time and the GOP is inconsequential as a national party- they have nothing to be feared from. It’s going to be a clubbing. 

Edited June 15, 2020 by Wulaw Horn

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Who exactly do you think you are talking too?  Seriously man- you are a beatdown right now. I’ve never engaged in any past behavior I have the need to be embarrassed about and I’m certainly not rich. I’m a wage slave with slightly nicer stuff because my wage is higher than the people protesting, but I damn sure am not rich, and it’s not qualitatively different than the family making 70k that populates middle America. I’ve got about 30 days from not receiving a paycheck anymore before times start to really suck. 

 

Dude you called me a liar earlier ignoring 20 years of history on this board and some that even know me IRL. 

And worry not your pretty little head about these conversations you are having that don’t involve me. I get it. Conservative regressive racist no good m/very bad/demonize him. Like I’m French Aristocracy. 

What I’m telling you is that this ends with bad_teammate in power sending you to re-education camp alongside Brisket and longhorn lawyer and Hayden and anyone else who dissents even a bit. That’s my fear for the future anyway. Trump is a boogie man that’s living on borrowed time and the GOP is inconsequential as a national party. 

 

- You may not have caught my edit, but I apologized for lumping you in with Trump supporters. However, that doesn't really change anything. I think hayden summed it up pretty well in his post above yours. 

- "Conservative regressive racist no good m/very bad/demonize" - your response to my calling out of your straw man is to double down on the straw man. Nice, but nope. Again, nobody is saying that every conservative is a racist. Just that you've decided it's not a deal breaker for you.

- "What I’m telling you is that this ends with bad_teammate in power sending you to re-education camp alongside Brisket and longhorn lawyer and Hayden and anyone else who dissents even a bit." . LOL. This is Fox News brain rot. C'mon, man. You don't seem like a stupid person. 

[elfenix 34169]

1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

First of all, I think it sucks that I can't take NameAlreadyInUse's name out of the quote above.

Wasn't the mass exodus after the move here? They were defending him back on tos pretty consistently until then. 

i remember it being after the move as well. 

[Serak The Preparer 3424]

2 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

That’s not what he’s saying man. It’s a larger point that being conservative is considered, ipso facto, being a racist. Which is bullshit. If you want me to put on my “both sides” hat it’s the same thing people on the right do when they say if you vote for a Democrat it’s because you hate Jesus and freedom. 

W was a stud in Africa. He ran on compassionate conservatism and I think he meant it. His education reform was written by Kennedy and called no child left behind and not “fuck you I got mine”. That’s the only GOP dude I’ve voted for at the top of the ticket. Trumpism showed more ugliness than I’m comfortable with in the party which is why I’m not voting except in minute small areas (Emmitt for Harris County judge, for example was my only 2018 GOP vote and that was by proxy through my wife) not stained by Trump, but if you don’t think there’s a bunch of groups on the left that similarly want bad things for people they disagree with you are as misinformed as I was when I saw everyone capitulate to Trump. 

That's great if yourself and AoC are trying to be conservatives without being Trump conservatives. I am not being sarcastic - that really is great. The problem is that this literally does not exist at the national level. There are essentially no conservatives that hold any national office that is not obedient to Trump (sort of exceptions with maybe Amash and Romney, but they have not provided significant resistance to any Trump initiative that I am aware of).

And while you and AoC may not think the Trump admin is inherently racist (or maybe you do, not trying to pin you to anything), most of the people on this board do. So there are the two inherent associations: Trump = Racist and Conservative = Trump. I suspect that bridging either of those gaps is going to be impossible. 

[Wulaw Horn 18968]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

 

- You may not have caught my edit, but I apologized for lumping you in with Trump supporters. However, that doesn't really change anything. I think hayden summed it up pretty well in his post above yours. 

- "Conservative regressive racist no good m/very bad/demonize" - your response to my calling out of your straw man is to double down on the straw man. Nice, but nope. Again, nobody is saying that every conservative is a racist. Just that you've decided it's not a deal breaker for you.

- "What I’m telling you is that this ends with bad_teammate in power sending you to re-education camp alongside Brisket and longhorn lawyer and Hayden and anyone else who dissents even a bit." . LOL. This is Fox News brain rot. C'mon, man. You don't seem like a stupid person. 

I don’t watch Fox News (or any news for that matter). I read almost nothing except for RCP occasionally and those are balanced by 2 articles always on the same subject and I read them both. Anything I know about from the real world, is something I read about on here (usually RCP comes afterwards). 

If you think you can have a revolution and reorder society without breaking a massive fuck ton of eggs all I’m going to tell you is the next time it happens historically will be the first. 

And I like America. Love it even. Pisses me off and I refuse to go to church on 4th of July weekend when they conflate the 2, but live it nonetheless and think it’s the greatest country ever and still, because I can hold more than one thought in my brain at a time, believe that it needs to change to meet the needs of its disadvantaged groups. I just happen to think of you fundamentally reorder America you are more likely to fuck it up and make it worse as opposed to better. 

[BradInATX 9208]

5 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I just happen to think of you fundamentally reorder America you are more likely to fuck it up and make it worse as opposed to better. 

I mean, that's sort of the philosophical disagreement here, isn't it?

For white people in or above the middle class, a revolution where we, on a massive scale, destroy institutions that harm and hold PoC/LGBTQ/Women down would definitely be a net negative for us. Perhaps we won't be able to waltz into college, CEO jobs, and the safety of knowing that we can almost always beat a legal system set up for the oppressed to fail and for us to succeed. So yeah, we're going to lose some advantages that we enjoy.

I'm okay with that. I'm okay with breaking some eggs. You aren't. And you and I, and various other people that represent the two sides, probably won't ever agree on that fundamental difference.

Edited June 15, 2020 by BradInATX

[Brisketexan 104537]

2 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I just happen to think of you fundamentally reorder America you are more likely to fuck it up and make it worse as opposed to better. 

Here's the problem:

The EXACT words of yours I just quoted were used to argue against giving black people the right to vote, allowing interracial marriages, allowing black people to attend formerly white-only schools and universities, etc. etc. damn near ad infinitum.

When you consider that the historical order of America was to treat black people like absolute shit -- from treating them like property, to treating them as subhuman under Jim Crow, etc. -- fuck yeah we need a fundamental reordering of America.  "How about we just treat them less shitty" is bullshit.  We are broken.  We were founded on brokenness.  We have fought like hell for almost all of our history to PRESERVE that brokenness.  That has to end.  And it has to be a clean fucking break.  "We'll free you from slavery, but we'll treat you as subhumans" was PERFECTLY conservative and incremental, and avoided a "fundamental reordering" of America.....and it was goddamned evil and ultimately destructive.

[Wulaw Horn 18968]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I mean, that's sort of the philosophical disagreement here, isn't it?

For white people in or above the middle class, a revolution where we, on a massive scale, destroy institutions that harm and hold PoC/LGBTQ/Women down would definitely be a net negative for us. Perhaps we won't be able to waltz into college, CEO jobs, and the safety of knowing that we can almost always beat a legal system set up for the oppressed to fail and for us to succeed. So yeah, we're going to lose some advantages that we enjoy.

I'm okay with that. I'm okay with breaking some eggs. You aren't. And you and I, and various other people that represent the two sides, probably won't ever agree on that fundamental difference.

I’m ok with breaking some eggs. I don’t want to napalm the henhouse and salt the ground afterwards. 

[BradInATX 9208]

Just now, Wulaw Horn said:

I’m ok with breaking some eggs. I don’t want to napalm the henhouse and salt the ground afterwards. 

Understood. 

Honest question - do you think we're anywhere near "napalm" territory? 

 

BTW, for what it's worth, I do share some concerns about the things happening on Twitter, particularly in regards to doxxing folks, getting them fired, etc. I think, to-date, everyone who has had it happen deserved it, but I can definitely see it catching someone up in the crossfire on accident in the future. 

But I don't think we're anywhere near napalm. 

[hayden_horn 11360]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Here's the problem:

The EXACT words of yours I just quoted were used to argue against giving black people the right to vote, allowing interracial marriages, allowing black people to attend formerly white-only schools and universities, etc. etc. damn near ad infinitum.

When you consider that the historical order of America was to treat black people like absolute shit -- from treating them like property, to treating them as subhuman under Jim Crow, etc. -- fuck yeah we need a fundamental reordering of America.  "How about we just treat them less shitty" is bullshit.  We are broken.  We were founded on brokenness.  We have fought like hell for almost all of our history to PRESERVE that brokenness.  That has to end.  And it has to be a clean fucking break.  "We'll free you from slavery, but we'll treat you as subhumans" was PERFECTLY conservative and incremental, and avoided a "fundamental reordering" of America.....and it was goddamned evil and ultimately destructive.

it's the heart of the conservative movement in the post--post-modern era. they want to conserve the existing social order and fight tooth and nail to do so, but it really no longer has any fiscal restraint. i used to be the asshole claiming to be a "fiscal conservative and social liberal." i mean, i guess i still am, but if it means we spend a little less money on the military and a little more on healthcare and education, then call me whatever you want, just don't call me late for dinner.

edit: i do think this is another reason for the conservative exodus from this board: they can't hang their hats on "fiscal conservatism" any longer, and shrug on social issues and say "but my balanced budget amendment." that ship has sailed.

Edited June 15, 2020 by hayden_horn

[NameAlreadyInUse 5105]

18 minutes ago, elfenix said:

i remember it being after the move as well. 

Yeah but it was quick.  I think some smartass stole Swam's username and was posting nonsense + we all figured out pretty quick that we're in a 0 rep situation so we could work to ban the rabble rousers pretty quickly, so the rabble rousers smartly decided they were better off not posting here, lest they get crowd sourced in 30 minutes and lose the handle they'd been using for years or decades.  I think had there been any president like any of the previous Republicans and they would've stuck it out, and Tahoe would get the occasional donut joke and Swam would periodically post something incredibly stupid but by and large we'd all still be moving along, but I think Hayden's right, logically, there isn't a person in this country paying attention that knows that Trump is indefensible, so when faced with having to defend that AND a quick crowdsource for attempting to defend it, and suddenly they have more important things to do than talk about politics in the Cloak Room.  Of course, they still want to talk politics, so they browbeat the site owners into giving them safe spaces in Daily Texan instead, where they won't have to suffer the consequences of saying stupid things.

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Yeah but it was quick.  I think some smartass stole Swam's username and was posting nonsense + we all figured out pretty quick that we're in a 0 rep situation so we could work to ban the rabble rousers pretty quickly, so the rabble rousers smartly decided they were better off not posting here, lest they get crowd sourced in 30 minutes and lose the handle they'd been using for years or decades.  I think had there been any president like any of the previous Republicans and they would've stuck it out, and Tahoe would get the occasional donut joke and Swam would periodically post something incredibly stupid but by and large we'd all still be moving along, but I think Hayden's right, logically, there isn't a person in this country paying attention that knows that Trump is indefensible, so when faced with having to defend that AND a quick crowdsource for attempting to defend it, and suddenly they have more important things to do than talk about politics in the Cloak Room.  Of course, they still want to talk politics, so they browbeat the site owners into giving them safe spaces in Daily Texan instead, where they won't have to suffer the consequences of saying stupid things.

You forgot the part where they then post political shit all over the DT.

We all know what "Cloak Roomer" is code for.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5105]

No I didn't forget it, that's the last sentence of my post.

[hayden_horn 11360]

4 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

You forgot the part where they then post political shit all over the DT.

We all know what "Cloak Roomer" is code for.

it's not just that, it's also that the overall code has been cracked. i have for years (even before trump) about my opinion that we have way more racist posters than we think. they would employ dog whistles like "religion of peace" or "chicago gun crime stats link here" or other similar measures. but since trump has been elected and started conflating his traditional dog whistles with outright saying the quiet part out loud, there's little shelter for those who want to communicate through code. they are like this guy:

and just as subtle.

Edited June 15, 2020 by hayden_horn

[washparkhorn 9934]

3 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I just happen to think of you fundamentally reorder America you are more likely to fuck it up and make it worse as opposed to better. 

Thank you for brave confession of a key concern for many conservatives: A preference for the status quo v. the unknown.

Is a preference for the discriminatory?  Certainly in effect and impact for those not thriving under the status quo.

Was the status quo created in a society where illegal discrimination was a motivating factor for many? Certainly.

Does that make every defense of the status quo abhorrent? Certainly not. 

The status quo is in desperate need of a reexamination and reform. I believe we all agree on that. I am just not sure how we get there using divisiveness as the primary go-to tactic. 

________

The Supreme Court reordered our nation today - for the better. Outside of our racial divide and Covid, the ruling by the SC fundamentally improved the nation. The "status quo" on that issue was abhorrent. We progressed as a nation today. It is possible and a noble pursuit, in my opinion. 

[mchookem 16184]

i just wanted to say this has turned into a pretty in depth and for the most part civil discussion, and as a true independent i have enjoyed reading the last couple of pages...

and i don't think this thread turned out like EMAW expected 🤣

Edited June 15, 2020 by mchookem

[Brisketexan 104537]

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

I believe we all agree on that. I am just not sure how we get there using divisiveness as the primary go-to tactic. 

I think you have to look at it from the perspective of "the other side."  They've tried to have a good-faith conversation for decades upon decades.  They've been patient, they've provided sound arguments....just to be met with bullheaded resistance, often backed by utterly disingenuous "reasons."  The call NOT to be divisive, and NOT to create friction between factions, is not credible when its underlying message is "don't rock the boat, and stop making me uncomfortable."  

Am I being divisive when it comes to racist shitheads?  You bet your ass I am.  I'm done with compromises like "we'll free you from slavery, but impose a century+ of Jim Crow on your ass."  I believe in settling any and all of my cases when possible.  But sometimes, I just need to take the sonofabitch to trial and kick their asses.  It's up to the other side, and whether they'll actually be reasonable and accept reality.

[kevwun 15608]

This has kept on bubbling below the surface since the Civil War.  It boils over every few decades.  We can finally deal with it once and for all or kick the can down the road and wait until it happens yet again.

[hayden_horn 11360]

7 minutes ago, mchookem said:

i just wanted to say this has turned into a pretty in depth and for the most part civil discussion, and as a true independent i have enjoyed reading the last couple of pages...

and i don't think this thread turned out like EMAW expected 🤣

well, see, this is the biggest thing: @Wulaw Horn initiated a good faith discussion, and was met with good faith discussion. this is why i don't think this subforum is as much of a cesspool as everyone else thinks. it only turns into one when people come in without good faith.

and that does go for #bothsides

[washparkhorn 9934]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I think you have to look at it from the perspective of "the other side."  They've tried to have a good-faith conversation for decades upon decades.  They've been patient, they've provided sound arguments....just to be met with bullheaded resistance, often backed by utterly disingenuous "reasons."  The call NOT to be divisive, and NOT to create friction between factions, is not credible when its underlying message is "don't rock the boat, and stop making me uncomfortable."  

Am I being divisive when it comes to racist shitheads?  You bet your ass I am.  I'm done with compromises like "we'll free you from slavery, but impose a century+ of Jim Crow on your ass."  I believe in settling any and all of my cases when possible.  But sometimes, I just need to take the sonofabitch to trial and kick their asses.  It's up to the other side, and whether they'll actually be reasonable and accept reality.

As usual, you diagnose the issue well. When the man has his knee planted on my neck, any argument for the status quo is untenable.

As to whether the other side will be reasonable and accept reality - I do believe generally in the wisdom of creating space to save face as an efficient means for implementing those changes - idealistic as that may be. 

[workswithseed 2033]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

well, see, this is the biggest thing: @Wulaw Horn initiated a good faith discussion, and was met with good faith discussion. this is why i don't think this subforum is as much of a cesspool as everyone else thinks. it only turns into one when people come in without good faith.

and that does go for #bothsides

I think things that are more nebulas can get people to not come in fangs out. Also being civil helps.

If we start talking about certain politicians, no matter who they are, people will come in with walls up to defend thier side.

[Brisketexan 104537]

Just now, washparkhorn said:

As usual, you diagnose the issue well. When the man has his knee planted on my neck, any argument for the status quo is untenable.

As to whether the other side will be reasonable and accept reality - I do believe generally in the wisdom of creating space to save face as an efficient means for implementing those changes - idealistic as that may be. 

I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence.  It is perhaps the most effective way to bring about change.  But the opportunity is not always there.  And centuries of our shared history tells us that's not likely to happen.  It just isn't.  We've been in purposeful denial for so long, with near-religious fervor.  Some minds change, but too many never will.

[kevwun 15608]

It breeds in the shadows and one generation poisons the minds of the next.  It will not go away by itself, it's methods change so that it remains out of sight.

Edited June 15, 2020 by kevwun

[safe sex 11676]

The first Pride was a riot, with quite a few trans women of color at the front of it.

[Brisketexan 104537]

3 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

You give straw men in your lecture on disingenuousness.   

Can you list any major policy that is not related to race or has no implications on race relations?

ZERO?  No.  Because human beings are of many "races," and any policy necessarily impacts humans of different races.

But, there are thousands that have de minimis relation to race or have de minimis implications on race relations.  Say, the Rules of Evidence prohibiting hearsay, or safety regulations on commercial trucks, or speed limits, or any number of literally tens of thousands of ministerial laws and rules.

[Ted Lange 16040]

Conservatives/Republicans:  Cancel Culture is ruining America!

 

Also Conservatives/Republicans

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.investingadvicewatchdog.com/Liberal-Companies-Boycott.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 15, 2020 by Ted Lange

[safe sex 11676]

Can't stop laughing at Scott Baio's posting his Nordstrom credit card statement. 

[BradInATX 9208]

People shooting their $400 redneck status symbol Yeti coolers with rifles is always going to be one of my favorite Trump era memories.
Sorry to wander off of what has turned into a good topic.
But fucking hell that was funny.

[UpperWestside 6126]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I don't disagree with your take, and appreciate your acknowledgement of the role that the politically dominant class has had to play in this.  Honestly, my response and thoughts on this are the same as my thoughts on the chaos that we're seeing and we're going to see with respect to policing, and the rioting we saw.

The best way to avoid riots and violence (the complete breakdown of the Rule of Law) is to first.....avoid undermining and voiding the Rule of Law.  And that's exactly what allowing the police to operate with complete impunity, to break the law in both letter and spirit in your face, then laugh at you and say "fuck you, what are you gonna do about it?" has led to.  Society (through its armed agents) shouldn't breach the social contract....because then we lose the benefits of the social contract.

Our political environment is much the same way.  It would be FANTASTIC if the political conversation these days actually could focus on differing takes on monetary policy, foreign involvement, etc.  But you and I both know that the dominant political class -- the GOP -- is not having those conversations, because that movement is no longer about policy at all.  It's about appeals to baser instincts (ALL the dog whistles have now been blown), and abandonment of any consistent policy in favor of what is functionally a cult.  Thinkers like George Will are persona non grata.  So, again, when you abandon core principles for....well, whatever the hell GOP is and stands for now....you end up with chaos.  There's actually a good piece in the NYT for this weekend that Trumpism has done more to shove a large swath of the country to the left than any political development in decades.

Extremes lead to extremes.  So, like, avoid them.  Don't be a deranged, despotic king, and you won't end up facing a violent revolution.  This is one of the big reasons some of us keep cautioning against the metaphorical "despotic king" route.

I was finishing up a paper last night for a psychology class and part of it was about George Kelly. I am not here to argue the merits of his Social Construct Theory, but part of it resonated to me with what we are seeing from the cult supporters. The construct they have built for themselves with which they have lived their life around is now not only being stamped out, but they are being left behind and told they are flat out wrong in how they view things. They feel threatened to see their own personal construct and view of life come under assault. I do not feel bad for them, but reading his theory makes me better understand why Dotard’s supporters are going down with the ship instead of adjusting their own construct to a world that is changing by the minute in a positive way for millions of people who deserve it. It is easier to cling to the comfort of what you know instead of progressing forward and re-thinking long held wrong-headed views that are now becoming extinct.

Edited June 15, 2020 by UpperWestside

[Brisketexan 104537]

3 minutes ago, UpperWestside said:

I was finishing up a paper last night for a psychology class and part of it was about George Kelly. I am not here to argue the merits of his Social Construct Theory, but part of it resonated to me with what we are seeing from the cult supporters. The construct they have built for themselves with which they have lived their life around is now not only being stamped out, but they are being left behind and told they are flat out wrong in how they view things. They feel threatened to see their own personal construct and view of life come under assault. I do not feel bad for them, but reading his theory makes me better understand why Dotard’s supporters are going down with the ship instead of adjusting their own construct to a world that is changing by the minute in a positive way for millions of people who deserve it. It is easier to cling to the comfort of what you know instead of progressing forward and re-thinking long held wrong-headed views that are now becoming extinct.

Absolutely.  And maybe that's an argument for pity, and maybe it's merited.  But it doesn't dictate a course correction.  Some people are going to be left behind.  So be it.  There are plenty of people still around who think interracial marriage should be illegal.  They have been left behind.

[Brisketexan 104537]

1 minute ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Just took the first one you listed:

https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117&context=crsj

https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=lawineq

https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1098&context=ijlse

https://www.utimes.pitt.edu/archives/?p=41962

 

 

Well-played.  And yes, literally ANY mechanism can be used to discriminate.

For example, speed limits can of course be racially enforced -- a given cop could decide to only pull over black drivers for speeding.  But that is about the discriminatory actions and intent of individuals using those mechanisms, not about the mechanisms themselves.

So, do we need to reform speed limits because of race?  Nope.  But might we need to reform how the police enforce them?  Yep.  If you argue that speed limits are racist, you're not making a very good point.  If you are arguing that they are sometimes enforced with inherent prejudice and racism, then I'm listening.  Same as with the pieces you cited regarding the rules of evidence.  Or the guy at USDOT in charge of truck inspections could target minority-owned trucking agencies for enforcement, and let white-owned entities skate.  If that happens, I'm not concerned about the regs -- I'm concerned about the regulators.

And if you have data that tells you that the regs are enforced in a discriminatory fashion, then I don't want to hear the disingenuous defense of "but the regs aren't racist" -- that's three-card monte.  Let's focus on the actual problem, discriminatory enforcement.  That's a huge part of the disconnect - disingenuous arguments of "well, X isn't racist, you're just crying racist!"  No, the response is dishonest and creates a red herring.

[G650 14074]

42 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

People shooting their $400 redneck status symbol Yeti coolers with rifles is always going to be one of my favorite Trump era memories.
 

I missed that. But seriously, who buys Yeti at those prices? I got a soft side that was given to me by a supplier at work, I looked at the tag, 200 fucking dollars! Wtf.

 

Anyway I just stopped by to say I'm heartened to see that moron EVA whatever was finally banned.