USA Politics (redux)

[greg]

So an online quiz told you that were a philosopher and your reaction is to try to lean into this by acting like a Karen (the exact opposite)?  BTW if you were truly were an iconoclast you would be widely read instead of disparaging of any written form of journalism.

Please Greg you are embarrassing yourself.

Wtf they are the ones that are being Karens. You weren't reading the thread a long time ago so you don't have any background info on that.

This is a discussion thread, not a circlejerk thread. Raising questions does not equal being a Karen. However, insulting people personally because you don't like them challenging your worldview is being a Karen.

And spoiler, but I wasn't the one who started getting personal. Just not something I would quickly jump to.

Also, have you ever had a discussion with someone and write out your detailed opinion on something for several pages, all the nuances, and the person still summarizes that in a totally incorrect way that suits their narrative? If so, do you really just say nothing about it?

As ever you're eager to make this about your wonderful psyche.
FYI most people here are adults.

Maybe you can take the time to understand another person's point of view for one second? That would help. I don't know how else to explain stuff to someone who won't listen and just repeats the same thing over and over again. And only responds with incorrect negative judgement all the time.

You're probably making this "literally Hitler" thing up.

Uh, yeah, sure. 



Also the whole thing of "apologism" or "making excuses"... seems very circular.
Was person A involved in the murder of person B?
Them: Yes.
Me: I'll question your assumption. Well, let's see. There's various degrees of involvement possible. We can discuss certain things, there is a lot of grey area and nuance involved.
Them: Stop being an apologist and making excuses for the murder helper.

[greg]

Speaking of Karens, I was just thinking of this one Karen customer I had as a cashier one time.
She said that an item should have been a certain price, that was a hundred dollars less than it was. I walk over to the location with her and show her that actually she is looking at the wrong place for where the item is and I can't give her the item at that price.
Despite showing physical evidence and explaining what is going on, she still gets mad and asks for a manager. And the manager says the same thing as me, and then she says she is going to call corporate to get us in trouble.

I get a similar feeling sometimes talking to certain people here.



edit:
Probably a true good example of a Karen would be someone who complains to the mods about someone because they disagree with them.
It would be a tighter parallel to the most commonly understood definition of a Karen, because Karen's are, at their core, understood to be a person who says "can I speak to the manager?"

btw I haven't ever complained to the mods about anyone posting on the political threads, and have always been in favor of people speaking freely.

But if someone has a different definition of what a Karen is, fine, there's just going to be some misunderstanding then.

[DavidW]

You weren't reading the thread a long time ago so you don't have any background info on that.

Fair enough.

[greg]

Fair enough.

You almost gave me a heart attack, people on this thread never acknowledge any point I ever make so not used to that.




Just a thought about this:

"He's not 100% racist" sounds like bargaining to me.

So why is this viewed as "bargaining?"

Perhaps you haven't considered that I have listened to people's points and think about the likelihood of them.

I'm also not saying he's "0% racist," just saying there's a grey area. Most likely he falls in there. I could also be wrong, he could be 0% or 100% as well.

Perhaps you think I "know" he's 100% racist and just don't want to admit it? This is another example of the circular type thinking. The truth is true, people just don't want to admit it and if they try to compromise or see both sides they are "bargaining." Rather than to bother deconstructing how true it is.

The problem is all points to the mindset of subscribing to identity politics. Soooo many things being viewed as racist threat, even if they aren't. The area size of the possibilities of things being racist is cast soooo wide compared to the normal person that we get cancel culture for stuff like Aunt Jemima.

If everything is being viewed as a threat, people start to get aggressive and create unnecessary conflict, rather than slowing things down and trying to think things through.

So there will be a conflict against normal people who see things as not really a big deal, unless it actually does become a big deal.

[Gurn Blanston]

You almost gave me a heart attack, people on this thread never acknowledge any point I ever make so not used to that.




Just a thought about this:
So why is this viewed as "bargaining?"

Perhaps you haven't considered that I have listened to people's points and think about the likelihood of them.

I'm also not saying he's "0% racist," just saying there's a grey area. Most likely he falls in there. I could also be wrong, he could be 0% or 100% as well.

Perhaps you think I "know" he's 100% racist and just don't want to admit it? This is another example of the circular type thinking. The truth is true, people just don't want to admit it and if they try to compromise or see both sides they are "bargaining." Rather than to bother deconstructing how true it is.

The problem is all points to the mindset of subscribing to identity politics. Soooo many things being viewed as racist threat, even if they aren't. The area size of the possibilities of things being racist is cast soooo wide compared to the normal person that we get cancel culture for stuff like Aunt Jemima.

If everything is being viewed as a threat, people start to get aggressive and create unnecessary conflict, rather than slowing things down and trying to think things through.

So there will be a conflict against normal people who see things as not really a big deal, unless it actually does become a big deal.

I'm not taking sides here, but I would invite you to consider that racism may not be a 'shades of grey' type of issue; one could fairly postulate that it is a yes or no type of situation. You either are or you aren't. Viewed from that perspective, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that T***p was a racist. And a few other ists too.

Actually, I'm big on seeing things in shades of grey, but this is a case where I don't see how it applies.

[greg]

I'm not taking sides here, but I would invite you to consider that racism may not be a 'shades of grey' type of issue; one could fairly postulate that it is a yes or no type of situation. You either are or you aren't. Viewed from that perspective, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that T***p was a racist. And a few other ists too.

Actually, I'm big on seeing things in shades of grey, but this is a case where I don't see how it applies.

Gotcha.
I think the difference in perspective can also be caused by language itself. How it's structured can influence how we think.
So might be one reason why progressive love changing language/meanings of words/etc. Depends on what their intent is, I guess, it could be something dark like that but also done in good faith. I'm not certain. Some things seem to be so, some things not.

"Is" and "isn't" is a binary thing. We qualify states of being this way. But I don't think we should let language dictate how we think. (Learning foreign languages or doing creative may help people break out of that).


So... something like psychopathy is measure as a scale, the official one used by psychiatric units/prisons/etc. is the PCL-R.
So there is a sliding scale, the most extreme psychopaths will say yes to all 40 questions (rare), usually more like around 30.  Most people score low.

So likewise, if we invented a racism quiz, we could do the same because we seem to have developed many different things that could point towards racism, so we could devise a similar 40 question checklist.

People are going to have different scores. Most people will score low.


If someone has ever shouted a racist slur and meant it, then that goes against them. If they have committed violence against a minority because they are a minority, that really goes against them. Stuff like that.

Less harmful stuff would be dwelling on negative stereotypes ("X race is not so good at X", etc.) but what if the person that thinks that doesn't think that X race should be eliminated? If they hold that negative stereotype, then are they 100% racist as Hitler?

Some things are worse than others... considering the multitude of things, you can add up the negatives.

[Fëanor]

So... something like psychopathy is measure as a scale, the official one used by psychiatric units/prisons/etc. is the PCL-R.
So there is a sliding scale, the most extreme psychopaths will say yes to all 40 questions (rare), usually more like around 30.  Most people score low.

So likewise, if we invented a racism quiz, we could do the same because we seem to have developed many different things that could point towards racism, so we could devise a similar 40 question checklist.

People are going to have different scores. Most people will score low.


If someone has ever shouted a racist slur and meant it, then that goes against them. If they have committed violence against a minority because they are a minority, that really goes against them. Stuff like that.

Less harmful stuff would be dwelling on negative stereotypes ("X race is not so good at X", etc.) but what if the person that thinks that doesn't think that X race should be eliminated? If they hold that negative stereotype, then are they 100% racist as Hitler?

Some things are worse than others... considering the multitude of things, you can add up the negatives.

Certainly there are degrees of racism. Let's say ...

• On one extreme, a belief that some race or ethnicity is a virus on the humanity that must be exterminated plus a willingness to act on that or sanction such action.
• To a vague nostalgia for some actual or imagined monoculture of one's past, (e.g. WASP).

[SimonNZ]

If someone has ever shouted a racist slur and meant it, then that goes against them. If they have committed violence against a minority because they are a minority, that really goes against them. Stuff like that.

Less harmful stuff would be dwelling on negative stereotypes ("X race is not so good at X", etc.) but what if the person that thinks that doesn't think that X race should be eliminated? If they hold that negative stereotype, then are they 100% racist as Hitler?

Some things are worse than others... considering the multitude of things, you can add up the negatives.

Its not as simple as that because Trump was The President, not merely your Archie Bunker neighbour, and had the loudest megaphone and most influence of anyone in the land and enabled and encouraged some of the most full om racists in his circle like Stephen Miller and tacitly - no, vocally - gave permission for other racists to be as uncensored as they wanted to be and create the climate of racial intolerance that would fire up others to commit racist acts.

That Trump himself may "only" score 80% racist (and why would you accept anything higher than 0 from a President?) is not meaningfully different from 100% given that it was only the constant pushback from the other side from the Muslim Travel Ban onwards that stopped their worst white suprenist dreams and racial scapegoating become realised, even if Trump was not as passionate about it as Miller, to whom he gave his approval.

[SimonNZ]

Certainly there are degrees of racism. Let's say ...

• On one extreme, a belief that some race or ethnicity is a virus on the humanity that must be exterminated plus a willingness to act on that or sanction such action.
• To a vague nostalgia for some actual or imagined monoculture of one's past, (e.g. WASP).

Show me someone who truly believed that version of history in the second part and I'll show you someone who was on the road to the first part.

[greg]

Certainly there are degrees of racism. Let's say ...

• On one extreme, a belief that some race or ethnicity is a virus on the humanity that must be exterminated plus a willingness to act on that or sanction such action.
• To a vague nostalgia for some actual or imagined monoculture of one's past, (e.g. WASP).

Right. There are multiple ways someone can be thought of racist, so those could be two items in a checklist (though IMO the first would have much heavier weight to it).
Alternately, we could just stick to the dictionary definition, but no one does that any more, so this is where we are.


An alternate way to illustrate what I'm thinking of, apart from a test.
Person A: "X Race is all evil and should be killed."
Person B: "X Race has some bad people, and it's a problem. It's probably genetic reasons. I don't think they should be rounded up and killed, but maybe sent to re-education camps or something."
Person C: "X Race has some bad people, and it's a problem. I don't know the reason why. But I don't think they should be killed or mistreated."
Person D: "X Race has bad people, but so does every race. So it's nothing to even think about."
Person E: "X Race is all good and should be worshipped."


Where do you draw the line for what is racist against X Race? People may disagree on this. I'd say that's probably where the grey area is.

[greg]

Show me someone who truly believed that version of history in the second part and I'll show you someone who was on the road to the first part.

Who you are talking about is obvious.
I'm not convinced this would be an inevitable destiny for the average person, though.
We had one person here that said they started from a racist environment and got out of that way of thinking.
So really depends on the individual. They can get worse or better over time.

[Fëanor]

Show me someone who truly believed that version of history in the second part and I'll show you someone who was on the road to the first part.

Fortunately, not necessarily.

[Karl Henning]

In key showdown, U.S. judge tests prosecutors' claims that Proud Boys leaders planned Jan. 6 Capitol breach

[Karl Henning]

Michael Gerson: "When former Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro claims that Fauci is "the father of the actual virus" or former chief of staff Mark Meadows complains about Fauci's indifference to the (nearly nonexistent) flow of covid across the southern border, the goal is not really to press arguments. It is to create an alternative MAGA reality in which followers are free from the stress of truth — a safe space in which more than half a million people did not die and their leader was not a vicious, incompetent, delusional threat to the health of the nation."

[greg]

Anyone here listen to Vaush? He is a political commentator that is somewhat far left (I believe he's either communist or extremely socialist IIRC).

(before anyone says anything, no, I don't get news from him, nor do I think he represents everyone on the left)

He made this one point which is somewhat interesting, it's not really anything new, but he was saying that all truth is derived from power. The reasoning behind this is that "the victors write the history."

Which is totally true (that victors do write the history). But I think the mistake here is that he is confusing availability of information with truth. The truth will exist, have occurred, etc. in physical reality, just because it isn't written down in a book doesn't mean it isn't true.

(probably relates back to the old falling tree in a forest thing, if no one is around, does it make a sound? Funny story- I actually had that as a question on my quiz once in high school and I wrote that it was dumb to think it wouldn't, and my teacher had a (understanding) talk with- it was all cool, just kinda funny).

Any disagreement/agreement on that? 

[SimonNZ]

Which is totally true (that victors do write the history).

No. It isn't. that's both lazy and illiterate.

And if you'd read some actual history books by actual academic historians you'd know that. Even more so if you'd read books on the* doing* of history, the approaches and methodologies, by actual academic historians.

[Karl Henning]

No. It isn't. that's both lazy and illiterate.

And if you'd read some actual history books by actual academic historians you'd know that. Even more so if you'd read books on the* doing* of history, the approaches and methodologies, by actual academic historians.

lazy and illiterate.  None could never hope to find any better descriptors for greg.

[greg]

lazy and illiterate.  None could never hope to find any better descriptors for greg.

Well if you are going to have nothing to say except an unprovoked snarky reply, then back at you.

No. It isn't. that's both lazy and illiterate.

And if you'd read some actual history books by actual academic historians you'd know that. Even more so if you'd read books on the* doing* of history, the approaches and methodologies, by actual academic historians.

So where are all of the textbooks written by Native Americans? And all the dead people killed in wars in various countries? "Dead men tell no tales." Are you interpreting what I'm saying correctly?

[SimonNZ]

So where are all of the textbooks written by Native Americans? And all the dead people killed in wars in various countries? "Dead men tell no tales." Are you interpreting what I'm saying correctly?

No. Because that's not what "history is written by the winners" means. And you're revealing you have no idea what the histories of Native Americans or war victims looks like. You seem to be talking about propaganda or white washing, not History. They are antithetical.

Put down the Youtube and pick up a thick book.

[greg]

No. Because that's not what "history is written by the winners" means. And you're revealing you have no idea what the histories of Native Americans or war victims looks like. You seem to be talking about propaganda or white washing, not History. They are antithetical.

You're literally saying what I'm saying but just different words, so you already got my point. I don't see why you needed to disagree in the first place. Our American History books are typically written by descendants of white Americans, at no time were my American History classes called "American Whitewashing."