Fox News*Is*Different,Not Like The Other Networks--POLITICAL

For those topics that don't have a place in any of the other forums.

Moderator: Aitrus

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: Fox News*Is*Different,Not Like The Other Networks--POLIT

Post by Aitrus »

userque wrote: Ok, we're shifting to a Trump v. Obama discussion.

You're talking abstractly. You've presented nothing to support your allegations. So, I'll simply say, you're wrong. :)
I'll agree to disagree.
Why do you say that true patriots don't strive for higher office or political power. You are essentially saying that no politician is a true patriot.
I didn't say that, it was the Founders who held the view that politics is generally dangerous to the proper views of a patriot, and so politics is best avoided to as much extent as possible. I agree with them.

On politics:

"When once a man has cast a longing on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct." Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Tench Coxe, 1799

"Party-Spirit is an inseparable appendage of human nature. It grows naturally out of the rival passions of Men, and is therefore to be found in all Governments. But there is no political truth better established by experience nor more to be deprecated in itself, than that this most dangerous spirit is apt to rage with greatest violence, in governments of the popular kind, and is at once their most common and their most fatal disease." Hamilton, The Defence No I, 1792

"If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Jefferson, in a letter to Francis Hopkinson, 1789

"No sooner has one Party discovered or invented an Amelioration of the Condition of Man or the order of Society, than the opposite Party belies it, misconstrues it, misrepresents it, ridicules it, insults it, and persecutes it." John Adams, in a letter to Horatio Gates, 1813

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." - Adams, in a letter to Johnathan Jackson, 1780

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depository of the public interests." Jefferson, in a letter to Henry Lee, 1824

As for how this relates to patriotism, they said:

"To render us again one people, acting as one nation, should be the object of every man really a patriot. I am satisfied it can be done, and I own that the day which should convince me of the contrary would be the bitterest of my life." Jefferson, letter to Thomas McKean, 1801

"It is in the man of piety and inward principle, that we may expect to find the uncorrected patriot, the useful citizen, and the invincible soldier. God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one, may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both." John Witherspoon, 1776

"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

In sum, I feel that there is sufficient evidence that the Founders believed that career politicians were not men to be trusted, who tended toward personal gain and evil intent, and that true patriots entered into politics only out of necessity rather than ambition. This is in evidence in the early days of the country, when Congress was in session for only six months at a time in order to allow the elected members to return home to their businesses and farms. Doing politics was seen as a duty to be met, not a job to pursue.
Why is knowledge of monetary policy, budgeting, and the other things I listed "unreasonable and subjective" in terms of what skills are valuable to serve as President? What skills do you instead assert are necessary to serve in the office?
I never said, nor implied that.
Um...then I must have misread you wrong when you said:
Quote Aitrus:
Similarly, I could agree that Trump lacked certain kinds of experience - on both the State and Federal level. However, he had a lot of experience in other areas that are important to the office as I mentioned previously. I think that - taken as a whole - Trump's experience better prepared him for the office than Obama's did. [endquote]

I agree to disagree. And won't debate such an unreasonable and subjective assertion.
Can you clarify?
So, do you believe a US citizen that is an Italian-American--if that person refers to themselves as such--is not an American at all?
No, just that they are listing themselves as having dual allegiances, when in fact they may not have such conflicting allegiance. For the purpose of clarity, I would consider an Italian-American to be somebody of dual citizenship. If they are instead an American citizen with Italian heritage and genes, then that's what they are: an American who happens to have an Italian heritage, but who is still just an American. My heritage is Welsh / Irish / Scandanavian, yet I don't call myself a Welsh-Irish-Viking-American. That's just silly.

There's nothing wrong with somebody holding on to their ancestral roots - something I wholeheartedly support I believe it's important to respect and honor our ancestors. But that's different than using your heritage as a means of either outwardly or passive-aggressively suggest that special treatment or consideration be given due to that heritage. Or - in a bizarre twist - to claim that one's heritage is the sole reason somebody disagrees with you (such as media pundits or college professors who claim that any white person who disagrees or opposes a person of color is racist). Similarly, I see the "choose your race" sections of documents and forms as unnecessary.
What do you think of all the folks that still proudly fly the confederate flag. A flag of a conquered enemy of the United States Government?
First, nice twist on Roosevelt's words to misconstrue his meaning. He was saying that people in America should have allegiance to America first and foremost, and that flying the flag of another nation is akin to stating allegiance to that country. Flying the Confederate flag is a mark of Southern (aka - regional) pride and homage to a history that those in the South understand differently than those who don't live there. It's not explicitly a racist symbol, it's a "If you're not from there, then you wouldn't understand" kind of thing. Flying the flag in no way states that the person flying it does not have allegiance to America.

Next, the modern Confederate flag (and the one I'm assuming you're referring to) was only a battlefield flag, not the official flag of the Confederacy. There were actually three official flags of the Confederate States of America, depending on the year in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_ ... of_America

Thus, the modern Confederate flag represents (to those from the South) not racism, but a pride in honoring a spirit of independence, determination, and fierce battle against what they perceived to be an injustice done to them by the federal government of the time.

Lastly, how do I feel about people flying the flag? The same as those who fly a Mexican flag, Gasden flag, a POW flag, NFL team flag, or a State flag in display alongside the American flag. They're allowed to fly it as long as it isn't flown higher than the US flag in the same display. It's not appropriate or acceptable to fly a national flag (Mexican, true Confederacy flag, the UK's Union Jack, etc) alone because doing so claims the ground as belonging to that foreign entity.

Do you think African slaves had anything to do with growing the nation? To what degree?
Yes, of course they did. During the slave years they contributed significantly to the agricultural production of the nation, as well as afterward as well. Some Freemen also went westward during the expansion era, and some returned to Africa (specifically, Liberia and Sierra Leone) as part of the Back-to-Africa movement of the 1800s - mostly through the efforts of the American Colonization Society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-to-Africa_movement

However, the overwhelming majority of nation-building activities during the Expansion era of the country were done so by white settlers, entrepreneurs, businessmen, trappers / traders, and explorers. Non-whites were a minority at that time, although at that time whites viewed clear distinctions among even the various white races. Newly arrived Irish, German, Polish, Scotch, English, French, Italian, Dutch, Swedish, and Russian immigrants - all of these were considered separate races just as much as non-whites were considered separate races. Today all the white races are more or less blended together under the term "white" as if they had a shared history, when they clearly haven't.

Have you really thought this through? Do you really know what culture is? What is your evidence that having more than one culture present in a nation is bad for the nation? Are you saying that everyone should think the same way, and do the same things, in order that a nation survive for very long. Sounds like China's paradigm.
Culture: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group...the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization (from Merriam-Webster).

Of course I know what culture is. No I don't think everybody should think exactly the same way, but in order for a culture to survive it's inhabitants need to be more or less in alignment with one another regarding morals, method of governance, etc. When I talk about culture differences, I'm saying that it's not ok for two cultures with opposing goals and governance to coexist. We see this today in the Middle East, with Israel trying to survive when surrounded by nations that want to see them destroyed. Israel's existence is not compatible with that of Iran, whose leaders continually state the need to destroy Israel. (Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... el/387085/) Those two cultures cannot coexist on the same land.

Are you saying that we should allow in America the existence and exercise of cultural norms of average Middle East Muslim society - such as throwing homosexuals off buildings and preventing the education of women? It seems like this is what you are implying - that we should welcome all cultures to our shores.

What I'm saying is that the American version of Western Civilization is unique among all of the civilizations of human history, and it's inhabitants have every right to preserve it rather than see it slowly usurped by small degrees over time into something wholly unrecognizable as "America".
Any country is whatever the people that are alive in that country want it to be. If America now wants to be a country run by a King and his yes-men, then that's what'll be.

Such a change is not necessarily a 'destruction,' just as your personality changing as you became a grown man is also not. No one destroyed your younger personality, you simply changed your likes, motivations, priorities, etc. etc.
I think you're possibly confusing "growing" or "maturing" with "destruction". If you take away that list of things that I mentioned in my last post, then America ceases to exist in all but name because something else will have replaced it. If it adopts socialism or communism as it's means of governence it will have been "destroyed". However, this is different from "growing" or "changing", such as how we abolished slavery through great trial and turmoil. We matured as a country, and rightly recognized the rights of all men (and later women), not just a certain group. This didn't fundamentally change the nation in the same way as abolishing free enterprise, civil liberties, and self determination would under the tenets of socialism or communism.

I like your analogy of a child growing into an adult. Changing the muscles, preferences, priorities, etc of a child is different than removing the bones - the underlying structure - of the person. The things I listed I view as the "bones" of the country which, if taken away, would surely destroy the nation. Much like our agreement on the office of President, I don't think that the Founders would recognize much of what America is today as being that which they fought and died to bring into being. Yes, we grew and changed - but I'm not altogether sure it was for the better in many cases (we can discuss those if you like).
For example, a feral child that has only been taught Christianity may still wonder, "where did God come from?" The lack of a response that that mind finds reasonable may cause that mind to reject the only religion s/he's known.
Good point.
Ah ... we've somewhat stumbled upon the works vs faith thing. :)

As only God knows the heart, we can only know another by their fruits. You have to ask and answer for yourself, if someone truly believed that murder would condemn them to hell, would they commit a senseless murder?

Regardless, we can never know what's in another's mind or heart. We are relegated to using our best evidence ... actions.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."
Agreed. Also: for the record, I'm not a Christian. Not that you said I was, but you appeared to perhaps be operating from the perspective that I am, and I wanted to hopefully avoid that confusion.
Probably. But the child will grow up. As an adult, s/he knows not to rely upon childhood beliefs. Unicorns and pots of gold, talking mermaids and sponges, superman, wonder twins, the boogie man, everything, etc. etc.

We are taught a lot as a child, but as an adult, we confirm or deny those beliefs.

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
True, however, it still doesn't stop some people from believing in things that are easily disprovable (Flat Earth theory) or things that are clearly debatable - and in some ways disprovable - but seem to become more widely socially accepted in recent years (socialism is good, climate change is bad and caused by man's actions, etc). Just because one is an adult - even an "educated" one - doesn't mean that one is sufficiently knowledgeable or possess enough understanding to be right in most cases - Congress, for example.
Yes, those in charge, get to write the history books etc.

Btw, we've both used the term, but I wanted to clarify:

An omission or false statement is not necessary a lie. Lying requires intent. The teacher in our example may be ignorant to the omission, and therefore isn't lying, even though she is omitting information. You'll have to go further up the chain to find the liar(s). Is it the author of the book? His sources? The publisher? The school board that chose the book? All of them?

I don't know if you've noticed, but many of our criminal statutes include the word "knowingly."
I do understand the difference between ignorance of a topic and intentionally / knowingly omitting relevant information in order to drive a narrative.

Are you saying that if a teacher were to somehow not know that socialism, communism, and other forms of authoritarian government killed hundreds of millions of people last century, and that it's therefore ok for that teacher to not talk about those consequences in civics and history classes? If so, then that teacher shouldn't be teaching.

(source: https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POWER.ART.HTM)
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

User avatar
userque
Posts: 658
Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 5:43 pm

Re: Fox News*Is*Different,Not Like The Other Networks--POLIT

Post by userque »

userque wrote:Why do you say that true patriots don't strive for higher office or political power. You are essentially saying that no politician is a true patriot.
Aitrus wrote:I didn't say that, it was the Founders who held the view that politics is generally dangerous to the proper views of a patriot, and so politics is best avoided to as much extent as possible. I agree with them.

On politics:

"When once a man has cast a longing on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct." Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Tench Coxe, 1799

"Party-Spirit is an inseparable appendage of human nature. It grows naturally out of the rival passions of Men, and is therefore to be found in all Governments. But there is no political truth better established by experience nor more to be deprecated in itself, than that this most dangerous spirit is apt to rage with greatest violence, in governments of the popular kind, and is at once their most common and their most fatal disease." Hamilton, The Defence No I, 1792

"If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Jefferson, in a letter to Francis Hopkinson, 1789

"No sooner has one Party discovered or invented an Amelioration of the Condition of Man or the order of Society, than the opposite Party belies it, misconstrues it, misrepresents it, ridicules it, insults it, and persecutes it." John Adams, in a letter to Horatio Gates, 1813

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." - Adams, in a letter to Johnathan Jackson, 1780

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depository of the public interests." Jefferson, in a letter to Henry Lee, 1824

As for how this relates to patriotism, they said:

"To render us again one people, acting as one nation, should be the object of every man really a patriot. I am satisfied it can be done, and I own that the day which should convince me of the contrary would be the bitterest of my life." Jefferson, letter to Thomas McKean, 1801

"It is in the man of piety and inward principle, that we may expect to find the uncorrected patriot, the useful citizen, and the invincible soldier. God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one, may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both." John Witherspoon, 1776

"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

In sum, I feel that there is sufficient evidence that the Founders believed that career politicians were not men to be trusted, who tended toward personal gain and evil intent, and that true patriots entered into politics only out of necessity rather than ambition. This is in evidence in the early days of the country, when Congress was in session for only six months at a time in order to allow the elected members to return home to their businesses and farms. Doing politics was seen as a duty to be met, not a job to pursue.
I believe you are misunderstanding the fathers. Maybe consider the context of their posts.

What you seem to suggest is that the fathers knowingly created a system of government that will inherently become corrupt.

Off the top of my head, they seem to have a problem with political parties, rather than simply politicians.

If they wanted to stop career politicians in the federal government, they could have enacted all encompassing term limits.

Surely it couldn't be a bad thing to one, want to be the first president of the new country; and two, to be elected to do so.

Again, I believe there is an error in your premise. If you don't want to reconsider your premise, then I agree to disagree.
Aitrus wrote:Similarly, I could agree that Trump lacked certain kinds of experience - on both the State and Federal level. However, he had a lot of experience in other areas that are important to the office as I mentioned previously. I think that - taken as a whole - Trump's experience better prepared him for the office than Obama's did.
userque wrote:I agree to disagree. And won't debate such an unreasonable and subjective assertion.
Aitrus wrote:Can you clarify?
Wow, you are mixing up our posts. This was from my previous, previous post, to which you've already responded. And I responded after that. I'll eventually have to go back and see if there are other issues you haven't yet addressed, and skipped over. Nevertheless:

To say that someone with zero political experience, and a moral character history such as Trump's--as documented in legal proceedings and other forms of evidence, and a civil complaint history such as Trump's--involving racism, rape, porn stars, etc., etc., and a failed business history such as Trump's, and a lack of transparency with regard to tax records and educational accomplishments, is more qualified than someone with Obama's political, educational and legal record is beyond reasonable.

To say that is one thing, to actually believe it is a whole 'nother level.
userque wrote:So, do you believe a US citizen that is an Italian-American--if that person refers to themselves as such--is not an American at all?
Aitrus wrote:No, just that they are listing themselves as having dual allegiances, when in fact they may not have such conflicting allegiance. For the purpose of clarity, I would consider an Italian-American to be somebody of dual citizenship. If they are instead an American citizen with Italian heritage and genes, then that's what they are: an American who happens to have an Italian heritage, but who is still just an American. My heritage is Welsh / Irish / Scandanavian, yet I don't call myself a Welsh-Irish-Viking-American. That's just silly.
Just because you don't want to refer to yourself as one thing doesn't mean it's silly that an Italian American citizen, without dual-citizenship, wants to be referred to as an Italian-American.

And no, someone identifying themselves that way does not state dual allegiances. Just as you argue below on another issue re: the flag automatically meaning allegiance.

You don't get to decide the reason someone chooses to call themselves one thing or another.

A simple example could be that someone wants indicate their heritage. And simply indicating such doesn't necessarily imply allegiance. They could feel disdain--not allegiance--for the current government in their country or origin, yet proud of the heritage.

Next, you'll be telling us which first names are silly, according to you.

What difference does it really make--what people want to call themselves?
Aitrus wrote:There's nothing wrong with somebody holding on to their ancestral roots - something I wholeheartedly support I believe it's important to respect and honor our ancestors. But that's different than using your heritage as a means of either outwardly or passive-aggressively suggest that special treatment or consideration be given due to that heritage. Or - in a bizarre twist - to claim that one's heritage is the sole reason somebody disagrees with you (such as media pundits or college professors who claim that any white person who disagrees or opposes a person of color is racist). Similarly, I see the "choose your race" sections of documents and forms as unnecessary.
So, you've simply concluded that everyone that wants to recognize their heritage in their designation as seeking special treatment, etc. etc.

Those 'choose your race' sections, as you call them, are helpful with statistics. Statistics aren't necessary. Neither is science. Society would still exist if statistics etc. never were allowed to give us weather forecasts, etc.

You seem to be bothered by a lot of meaningless things. Most conservatives accuse liberals of doing that. :D

Statistics are most recently telling us how a pandemic is affecting the races differently. Surely that information can't be useful. (sarcasm)
userque wrote:What do you think of all the folks that still proudly fly the confederate flag. A flag of a conquered enemy of the United States Government?
Aitrus wrote:First, nice twist on Roosevelt's words to misconstrue his meaning.
I'm asking you the question. It's from me, not Roosevelt.
Aitrus wrote: [Emphasis added] He was saying that people in America should have allegiance to America first and foremost, and that flying the flag of another nation is akin to stating allegiance to that country. Flying the Confederate flag is a mark of Southern (aka - regional) pride and homage to a history that those in the South understand differently than those who don't live there. It's not explicitly a racist symbol, it's a "If you're not from there, then you wouldn't understand" kind of thing. Flying the flag in no way states that the person flying it does not have allegiance to America.
Thank you. Noted.

Let me ask you a question challenging your assertion: Does that same logic apply to someone kneeling during the National Anthem?

For the record, I never mentioned racism regarding that flag, I don't think. And, yes, I can understand properly articulated concepts without living in a certain region.

But since you brought it up, what you're saying is basically that: The confederacy engaged in a civil war because they, inter alia, wanted to maintain the enslavement, rape, and torture of another race of humans. And that symbols representing that government, that culture, that heritage, have nothing to do with racism?

Got it.
Aitrus wrote:Next, the modern Confederate flag (and the one I'm assuming you're referring to) was only a battlefield flag, not the official flag of the Confederacy. There were actually three official flags of the Confederate States of America, depending on the year in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_ ... of_America

Thus, the modern Confederate flag represents (to those from the South) not racism, but a pride in honoring a spirit of independence, determination, and fierce battle against what they perceived to be an injustice done to them by the federal government of the time.
LOL. Sure.
Aitrus wrote:Lastly, how do I feel about people flying the flag? The same as those who fly a Mexican flag, Gasden flag, a POW flag, NFL team flag, or a State flag in display alongside the American flag. They're allowed to fly it as long as it isn't flown higher than the US flag in the same display. It's not appropriate or acceptable to fly a national flag (Mexican, true Confederacy flag, the UK's Union Jack, etc) alone because doing so claims the ground as belonging to that foreign entity.
I don't really care what people fly. I've seen them all, and didn't care. Since you quoted someone talking about flags, I was simply curious as to your thoughts.

If this is truly a free country, then everyone should be able to rep their set.
userque wrote:Do you think African slaves had anything to do with growing the nation? To what degree?
Aitrus wrote:Yes, of course they did. During the slave years they contributed significantly to the agricultural production of the nation, as well as afterward as well. Some Freemen also went westward during the expansion era, and some returned to Africa (specifically, Liberia and Sierra Leone) as part of the Back-to-Africa movement of the 1800s - mostly through the efforts of the American Colonization Society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-to-Africa_movement

However, the overwhelming majority of nation-building activities during the Expansion era of the country were done so by white settlers, entrepreneurs, businessmen, trappers / traders, and explorers. Non-whites were a minority at that time, although at that time whites viewed clear distinctions among even the various white races.
How do you measure your "nation-building activities?" Where did you obtain your data? How did you determine that the slaves had a lesser contribution, up to the time of the civil war, than 'Whites" did?
Aitrus wrote: Newly arrived Irish, German, Polish, Scotch, English, French, Italian, Dutch, Swedish, and Russian immigrants - all of these were considered separate races just as much as non-whites were considered separate races. Today all the white races are more or less blended together under the term "white" as if they had a shared history, when they clearly haven't.
Impressive that you recognize this.

Psychological studies suggest that if there were no "colored" people, "white" people would use some other distinction to divide themselves. Eye color, political affiliation, height, etc. I suspect the same would be true for all races/colors.
userque wrote:
Have you really thought this through? Do you really know what culture is? What is your evidence that having more than one culture present in a nation is bad for the nation? Are you saying that everyone should think the same way, and do the same things, in order that a nation survive for very long. Sounds like China's paradigm.
Aitrus wrote:Culture: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group...the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization (from Merriam-Webster).

Of course I know what culture is. No I don't think everybody should think exactly the same way, but in order for a culture to survive it's inhabitants need to be more or less in alignment with one another regarding morals, method of governance, etc. When I talk about culture differences, I'm saying that it's not ok for two cultures with opposing goals and governance to coexist.
That doesn't apply here. Our government is not based on culture. We have one governing body of laws, statutes, and codes; for all cultures.
Aitrus wrote: We see this today in the Middle East, with Israel trying to survive when surrounded by nations that want to see them destroyed. Israel's existence is not compatible with that of Iran, whose leaders continually state the need to destroy Israel. (Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... el/387085/) Those two cultures cannot coexist on the same land.
See above reply.
Aitrus wrote:Are you saying that we should allow in America the existence and exercise of cultural norms of average Middle East Muslim society - such as throwing homosexuals off buildings and preventing the education of women? It seems like this is what you are implying - that we should welcome all cultures to our shores.
Culture, is not law. Your culture is allowed, insofar as it is lawful.
Aitrus wrote:What I'm saying is that the American version of Western Civilization is unique among all of the civilizations of human history, and it's inhabitants have every right to preserve it rather than see it slowly usurped by small degrees over time into something wholly unrecognizable as "America".
American culture today ... even if you use your definition of what you consider acceptable American culture, is not the same as what it was in the past. Things change with time.

Let me reiterate what I said above. Culture is not law. When a people immigrate into an established country, they may get to keep their culture, not their laws. Whatever parts of their culture violates the host country's laws, then it obviously is not accepted nor allowed, generally.
userque wrote:Any country is whatever the people that are alive in that country want it to be. If America now wants to be a country run by a King and his yes-men, then that's what'll be.

Such a change is not necessarily a 'destruction,' just as your personality changing as you became a grown man is also not. No one destroyed your younger personality, you simply changed your likes, motivations, priorities, etc. etc.
Aitrus wrote:I think you're possibly confusing "growing" or "maturing" with "destruction". If you take away that list of things that I mentioned in my last post, then America ceases to exist in all but name because something else will have replaced it. If it adopts socialism or communism as it's means of governence it will have been "destroyed". However, this is different from "growing" or "changing", such as how we abolished slavery through great trial and turmoil. We matured as a country, and rightly recognized the rights of all men (and later women), not just a certain group. This didn't fundamentally change the nation in the same way as abolishing free enterprise, civil liberties, and self determination would under the tenets of socialism or communism.

I like your analogy of a child growing into an adult. Changing the muscles, preferences, priorities, etc of a child is different than removing the bones - the underlying structure - of the person. The things I listed I view as the "bones" of the country which, if taken away, would surely destroy the nation. Much like our agreement on the office of President, I don't think that the Founders would recognize much of what America is today as being that which they fought and died to bring into being. Yes, we grew and changed - but I'm not altogether sure it was for the better in many cases (we can discuss those if you like).
You seem to be overthinking it.

Again, whatever a country was when it was founded by its fathers; the people that are currently alive in that country get to decide what they want to be. I doubt they'd label their change, or advancement as a "destruction."

If, otoh, said country was invaded, and forced to be assimilated into another government, then their original government was, in fact, destroyed.
userque wrote:Ah ... we've somewhat stumbled upon the works vs faith thing. :)

As only God knows the heart, we can only know another by their fruits. You have to ask and answer for yourself, if someone truly believed that murder would condemn them to hell, would they commit a senseless murder?

Regardless, we can never know what's in another's mind or heart. We are relegated to using our best evidence ... actions.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."
Aitrus wrote:Agreed. Also: for the record, I'm not a Christian. Not that you said I was, but you appeared to perhaps be operating from the perspective that I am, and I wanted to hopefully avoid that confusion.
You're right. Thanks. I thought I remembered you saying that you and your wife were non-denominational Christians. My bad.

EDIT: I understand: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.p ... nal#p83561
userque wrote:Probably. But the child will grow up. As an adult, s/he knows not to rely upon childhood beliefs. Unicorns and pots of gold, talking mermaids and sponges, superman, wonder twins, the boogie man, everything, etc. etc.

We are taught a lot as a child, but as an adult, we confirm or deny those beliefs.

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
Aitrus wrote:True, however, it still doesn't stop some people from believing in things that are easily disprovable (Flat Earth theory) or things that are clearly debatable - and in some ways disprovable - but seem to become more widely socially accepted in recent years (socialism is good, climate change is bad and caused by man's actions, etc). Just because one is an adult - even an "educated" one - doesn't mean that one is sufficiently knowledgeable or possess enough understanding to be right in most cases - Congress, for example.
We weren't debating this. We were debating whether a mind could believe outside of its only known training. You are now discussing minds that have found alternate beliefs that contradict evidence. My original reply is still on the table.
userque wrote:Yes, those in charge, get to write the history books etc.

Btw, we've both used the term, but I wanted to clarify:

An omission or false statement is not necessary a lie. Lying requires intent. The teacher in our example may be ignorant to the omission, and therefore isn't lying, even though she is omitting information. You'll have to go further up the chain to find the liar(s). Is it the author of the book? His sources? The publisher? The school board that chose the book? All of them?

I don't know if you've noticed, but many of our criminal statutes include the word "knowingly."
Aitrus wrote:I do understand the difference between ignorance of a topic and intentionally / knowingly omitting relevant information in order to drive a narrative.

Are you saying that if a teacher were to somehow not know that socialism, communism, and other forms of authoritarian government killed hundreds of millions of people last century, and that it's therefore ok for that teacher to not talk about those consequences in civics and history classes? If so, then that teacher shouldn't be teaching.

(source: https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POWER.ART.HTM)
What I clearly referred to was a teacher not being aware of an omission in a text book that she was teaching from. "Not being aware" means exactly that, regardless of what s/he was not aware of; and regardless as to whether she should have been, in another's opinion, aware of it. That was the example that I presented.

If you want to ask me about a different or more specific example or specific hypothetical, I'm interested.
"In the land of idiots, the moron is King."

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: Fox News*Is*Different,Not Like The Other Networks--POLIT

Post by Aitrus »

userque wrote: I believe you are misunderstanding the fathers. Maybe consider the context of their posts.

What you seem to suggest is that the fathers knowingly created a system of government that will inherently become corrupt.
They thought that they did by creating a system that would as free from corruption as was possible by limiting the power of the government because they intentionally created a republic instead of a monarchy or democracy. In doing so, they believed that they could disincentive the effort it would take for somebody with selfish ambition to run for office or curry favor with powerful individuals due to birthright. Of course they acknowledged that corruption could still happen, but hoped that the wisdom of the people would prevail - thus the election cycle for President, Senators, and Representatives. (Fun fact: senators were originally appointed by State legislatures, not voted on by the people themselves - this was meant to get people more involved in local politics as well as let State governments have a say in the workings of the Federal government. This changed in 1917 with the 17th Amendment.)

For example, Franklin was asked about what kind of government had been created - Republic or Monarchy. He replied "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Alexis de Tocqueville stated "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can brie the public with the public's money".

Alexander Fraser Tyler was of like mind: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage." - 1787

This is why America was founded as a republic, not a democracy - but you wouldn't know it from listening to our politicians, our media, and most of our teachers. Yes, we use a democratic process to elect some of our leaders and to decide some of our laws within the States, but we are not designed - at heart - as a democracy. The Founders wrote at length of why democracy was bad.

Madison wrote: "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths...Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions." - Federalist No. 10

Other quotes to back to my point on career politicians:

"I have heard of some great man, whose rule it was, with regard to offices, never to ask for them, and never to refuse them; to which I have always added, in my own practice, never to resign them." - Franklin, 1770

"If a due participation of office is a matter of right, how are vacancies to be obtained? Those by death are few; by resignation none." - Jefferson, 1801

"Politics are such a torment that I would advise every one that I love not to mix with them." - Jefferson

Finally, the idea that the Founders envisioned a sort of citizen-politician who came to DC for public service for a time then returned to his fields and manning the storefront was a concept actually embraced by some of the Founders. Washington himself at first refused the Presidency, but in the end reluctantly accepted it before retiring from politics altogether. He was also a member of a group that held up this ideal. The Society of the Cincinnati was a post-Revolutionary War society which accepted only military officers as members. George Washington served as the first President General of this society, and Hamilton served as the second. The Society is named after Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, who left his farm to accept a term as Roman Consul and served as Magister Populi (with temporary powers similar to that of a modern-era dictator). He assumed lawful dictatorial control of Rome to meet a war emergency. When the battle was won, he returned power to the Senate and went back to plowing his fields. The Society's motto reflects that ethic of selfless service: Omnia reliquit servare rempublicam ("He relinquished everything to save the Republic"). Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Cincinnati

So while I can adjust my original premise to say that the Founders didn't deliberately exclude the idea of career politicians, I still assert that they held up this understanding of the concept of public service as something to be admired and striven for in lieu of the pursuit of power and personal gain through politics. If you feel the need to disagree with this sentiment, then I don't think there's anything further that can be said on the topic at this point.
To say that is one thing, to actually believe it is a whole 'nother level.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe that they were about equally qualified in different areas necessary to fill the office.
Just because you don't want to refer to yourself as one thing doesn't mean it's silly that an Italian American citizen, without dual-citizenship, wants to be referred to as an Italian-American.

And no, someone identifying themselves that way does not state dual allegiances. Just as you argue below on another issue re: the flag automatically meaning allegiance.

A simple example could be that someone wants indicate their heritage. And simply indicating such doesn't necessarily imply allegiance. They could feel disdain--not allegiance--for the current government in their country or origin, yet proud of the heritage.

Next, you'll be telling us which first names are silly, according to you.

What difference does it really make--what people want to call themselves?
First, by using -American descriptors, they demonstrate that they have ignored MLK's admonition to not judge a person by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. They judge themselves by the color of their skin and heritage, and want others to do the same. If they felt that their heritage and race shouldn't matter in their interactions with others, then why mention it at all? By placing their heritage front and center of their self-identity, they intentionally separate themselves from others on the basis of race and ask to be communicated / interacted with on that basis. In many ways, I believe that this self-identified separation is continuing the race issues we have today. By making race an issue they make it harder to make race not an issue, yet this was the lesson that MLK was emphasizing, was it not? Declaring ourselves to be American and nothing more than American is the first step to seeing each other more clearly without race being a factor.

Additionally, acknowledging one's heritage is different than trying to use that heritage to effect changes in public policy, which is what some self-described -Americans do (especially in politics). We have the CBC, but we don't have an Congressional Irish Caucus, or a more generic Congressional White Caucus with goals to foster government policies designed to benefit one race over another. I'm just as much opposed to the CBC as I am against the group "Blacks for Trump".
You don't get to decide the reason someone chooses to call themselves one thing or another.
To a certain extent, I agree. If a person wants to call themselves a -American, there's nothing I can do to stop them. However, they should realize the effect it has on others and on the continuing societal breakdown over race relations.

There is an extent to which I disagree with your statement: transgender pronouns. Nobody has the right to dictate to me what I must call them based on their subjective view of themselves. They can call themselves whatever they want, but I am cannot be required to abide by their pronoun choice. Especially not with the force of government, as has been recently enacted in Canada. This shouldn't happen in America, as it would be defined as compelled speech and a violation of the First Amendment. Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out ... ns-n773421
So, you've simply concluded that everyone that wants to recognize their heritage in their designation as seeking special treatment, etc. etc.

Those 'choose your race' sections, as you call them, are helpful with statistics. Statistics aren't necessary. Neither is science. Society would still exist if statistics etc. never were allowed to give us weather forecasts, etc.

You seem to be bothered by a lot of meaningless things. Most conservatives accuse liberals of doing that. :D
You're right, race isn't an issue at all in today's society. [/sarcasm]

What I'm trying to say is that race shouldn't matter, and if it didn't then there wouldn't be the need for -American titles or race selections on official forms. If we really believed that as a society, then we should start acting like it. Until then, continually bringing up race means that it will continue to be an issue. I'm fine with letting it go, and dearly wish we all could, but then I might be called a racist for not considering the plight of the African American or the Palestinian American or whomever has an axe to grind that day. I get tired of being race-shamed by a large segment of society for not being appropriately contrite about being white - as do most white conservatives.

My challenge to anybody who thinks that race matters: put your money where your mouth is. If, as MLK taught, that we're supposed to all be treated equal in terms of race, then start acting like it by ignoring race as a factor in life. Start dealing with people as individuals instead of a member of a race with default tendencies - including yourself.
Statistics are most recently telling us how a pandemic is affecting the races differently. Surely that information can't be useful. (sarcasm)
What if we didn't focus on how each race is affected and instead focused on the sickness as a whole? Might we make better progress on beating the disease that way? The only way identifying race would be helpful is if there were some kind of physiological difference in one race that makes the sickness worse in those with that genetic makeup. To my knowledge, this isn't the case. What is the case with this disease is that those who have specific conditions - regardless of race - are more likely to have a harder time with it.
userque wrote:
Let me ask you a question challenging your assertion: Does that same logic apply to someone kneeling during the National Anthem?
They are free to kneel if they choose to do so and they're on their own time. However, if the the employer disallows it (per NFL rules a player must be on the field and standing during the anthem), then the player needs to follow his contract as a condition of employment, and the employer should enforce that conduct or levy penalties on the offender. Also, kneeling is disrespectful and may come with consequences. For example, as a viewer I'm free to turn off the game or boycott the NFL for not enforcing their player contracts or for thinking kneelers are not genuine or logical in their dissent (white cops are just as likely to shoot white civilians as non-white civilians - https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877).[/quote]
For the record, I never mentioned racism regarding that flag, I don't think. And, yes, I can understand properly articulated concepts without living in a certain region.
I know you didn't, but I didn't want the conversation to diverge down that path as often happens with discussions regarding flying the Confederate Flag.
But since you brought it up, what you're saying is basically that: The confederacy engaged in a civil war because they, inter alia, wanted to maintain the enslavement, rape, and torture of another race of humans. And that symbols representing that government, that culture, that heritage, have nothing to do with racism?
No. The Confederacy wanted to determine what happened within their own borders without the interference of federal government, it just happens that the issue that the federal government was trying to control was slavery. The movie "Gettysburg" tells the story in an unbiased view from both sides of the issue because it was written and portrayed with heavy input from historians. The movie shows that the North felt the war was about slavery, but that the South felt it to be an invasion of State's rights. The flag is a symbol of the bravery of the men willing to fight for their rights, of the skill and courage of their leaders, and of the sense that even in losing they still made their point to Lincoln that States still have the right to a certain amount of self governance as afforded in the Constitution. Contrary to popular belief, not every person in the South was a slave owner, and felt that their rights being stripped away for something they hadn't done was unjust.

Here's a short segment from the movie that explains a bit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dDpwZegm60

This video is a really, really good breakdown of the entire movie - including production and reasons supporting it's historical accuracy. I encourage you to watch the whole thing, but the pertinent portion for this discussion is at the 18:50 - 23:40 point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ1f9vliwiA
I don't really care what people fly. I've seen them all, and didn't care. Since you quoted someone talking about flags, I was simply curious as to your thoughts.

If this is truly a free country, then everyone should be able to rep their set.
A similar sentiment in many venues - "Hike your own hike" for long distance hikers, "Ride your own ride" for motorcyclists, etc. I
userque wrote:Do you think African slaves had anything to do with growing the nation? To what degree?
How do you measure your "nation-building activities?" Where did you obtain your data? How did you determine that the slaves had a lesser contribution, up to the time of the civil war, than 'Whites" did?
How many minorities owned lumber mills? How many drove covered wagons westward? How many were engineers that designed railways? How many were inventors? How many worked in factories, fisheries and coal mines? I'm sure there's statistics out there somewhere that could provide such minutia, but it comes down to this: if members of the various white races didn't lead the way by getting things started with the first settlers and hadn't kept the ball rolling along down the years, would slaves have had any part in the building of the nation? I'm not saying that whites are better or worse for their doing so, nor am I saying that modern blacks should be grateful that their ancestors went through what they did (and we're not even touching on the subject of slave owners who were black). But the fact remains that whites were the driving force for building the country - both in the leadership and in the workforce.

As to the source of my data: The total number of blacks in the country from 1790 - 1870 never exceeded 19% of the total population, and the number of free blacks ranged between 7.9 - 13.7% of the total black population. That means that at least 81% of the population was non-black and presumably somewhat close to completely white (excepting a small number of non-white and non-black individuals, such as Spanish, Portuguese, etc.). By sheer numbers, this means that whites did more work in the building of the nation - however that is defined - than blacks did. Source: http://thomaslegioncherokee.tripod.com/ ... story.html
Impressive that you recognize this.

Psychological studies suggest that if there were no "colored" people, "white" people would use some other distinction to divide themselves. Eye color, political affiliation, height, etc. I suspect the same would be true for all races/colors.
Thank you, although I'm dismayed that more don't either.

I agree, and I think they did do just that in places where there were no "colored" people (or a small number of them). The Salem Witch Trials, hatred of Jews, Irish vs Italian vs Russian gangs and mobs in America, raiding Russian Cossack cannibals back in the 1500s during Ivan the Terrible's reign, the Irish vs Scotch vs Welsh vs English ballyhoo before they finally worked it out and became the UK (except for the Irish, who kept drunk-fighting for a while afterward), viking raiders, the Bosnian-Herzegovina ethnic cleansing in the 1990s, the Armenian and Greek cleansings in the early 1920s, etc. And of course, there was that little episode with Germany not liking anybody who wasn't blonde haired and blue-eyed back in the '40s.

Europe was at near-constant war for centuries between a large number of white nationalities at various points, and I think that this has given rise to a phenomenon where whites don't view whiteness the same way that non-whites view their own non-whiteness (blacks viewing blackness, etc). From history, whites understand that race doesn't determine how good or bad of a person you are (or, by extension, how good or bad a nation can be) - it's actions that matter, not race. In this, I mean that whites - for the most part - don't view race as consequential as others do because whites don't view whiteness as anything special, unique, or identifying.

Also interesting: in American society, it's generally acceptable for a black person to say that they're proud to be black, but could a white person say that they're proud to be white without being labeled a racist? I don't think many people would have a problem with a black person saying that they are most comfortable around other black people and in black communities, but could a white person say the same thing about white people and white communities? Conjecture: maybe that's why so many whites don't understand how non-whites could value race so highly, and also why conservatives tend to resist policies that are favored toward certain races over others?

As for other races / colors dividing themselves on traits other than race, I'm thinking you're right. As I recall, Shaka Zulu united a large number of separate southeast African tribes who had separated themselves based largely by geography, tradition, and language in some cases. Then we have the ongoing ethnic cleansing in Kashmir, Myanmar and China, the various warring/conquering episodes throughout history of India, China, Japan, the Phillipines, warfare among the Aztec city states, the Spanish Inquisition, etc. All based on things other than race (religion, mostly).
That doesn't apply here. Our government is not based on culture. We have one governing body of laws, statutes, and codes; for all cultures.
Exactly! This is a huge part of our culture as Americans! One governing body of laws, statutes, and codes for all - to treat everybody equally before the law. Go back and read my list of what American culture is and consider how each of those points is supported and protected by laws. Many cultures don't agree with this - see my earlier example of Muslim culture with regards to treatment of homosexuals and education for women. Or how many governments abridge free speech or other rights for some (often favoring some but not others). Cultures which support the idea of people being reliant on government, of the proper role of government as that of authoritarian and civil liberties are not a thing. Peoples whose culture supports and endorses those kinds of laws are not compatible with our culture and laws.

I guess it could be fair to say that a large basis for our culture is the structure of law applying equally to all and the freedoms that those laws are meant to protect.
American culture today ... even if you use your definition of what you consider acceptable American culture, is not the same as what it was in the past. Things change with time.

Let me reiterate what I said above. Culture is not law. When a people immigrate into an established country, they may get to keep their culture, not their laws. Whatever parts of their culture violates the host country's laws, then it obviously is not accepted nor allowed, generally.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree. If we can't agree that the rule of law is central to the American culture, then there's little for us to agree on this topic.
userque wrote:Any country is whatever the people that are alive in that country want it to be. If America now wants to be a country run by a King and his yes-men, then that's what'll be.

Such a change is not necessarily a 'destruction,' just as your personality changing as you became a grown man is also not. No one destroyed your younger personality, you simply changed your likes, motivations, priorities, etc. etc.
You seem to be overthinking it.
Not outside the realm of possibility. Or am I thinking about it to a depth that not many people do, and that's part of the problem in society today?
Again, whatever a country was when it was founded by its fathers; the people that are currently alive in that country get to decide what they want to be. I doubt they'd label their change, or advancement as a "destruction."

If, otoh, said country was invaded, and forced to be assimilated into another government, then their original government was, in fact, destroyed.
Interesting take...invading. Some would say that unfettered / uncontrolled immigration across the Southern border would equate to invasion. Consider the fact that ~70-80% of non-whites vote Left / Democrat. Does this influx of new non-white immigrants mean that those who have deep roots in America should get no say in preserving what the traditional America they cherish in favor of new arrivals who will boost the Democrat lean? This isn't an off-the-cuff remark, this kind of immigration has real consequences. Ex: Do you think it's possible for voters to ever turn California red again like it was (mostly) until the 1980s?

Sources:
https://brilliantmaps.com/if-only-x-voted/
https://blueshift.io/election-2016-county-map.html (this one incorporates population size and margin of victory, use your mouse to move it around)
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... California
What I clearly referred to was a teacher not being aware of an omission in a text book that she was teaching from. "Not being aware" means exactly that, regardless of what s/he was not aware of; and regardless as to whether she should have been, in another's opinion, aware of it. That was the example that I presented.
Ah, I see. I was approaching it from the standpoint that a teacher should be reasonably versed on the subject regardless of what the textbook was presenting, and have the integrity to present all sides to students (presumably her college education taught her critical thinking skills and how to present things in a non-biased manner). My assertion was that if a teacher can't be suitably non-biased on all topics, then that person shouldn't be a teacher.
We weren't debating this. We were debating whether a mind could believe outside of its only known training. You are now discussing minds that have found alternate beliefs that contradict evidence. My original reply is still on the table.

and
If you want to ask me about a different or more specific example or specific hypothetical, I'm interested.
I think I'll leave it there. This thread is juggling a lot of topics and angles as it is. I'm sure more will come up.
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

User avatar
stilljammi
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2019 3:59 pm

Re: Fox News*Is*Different,Not Like The Other Networks--POLIT

Post by stilljammi »

Aitrus wrote:How many minorities owned lumber mills? How many drove covered wagons westward? How many were engineers that designed railways? How many were inventors? How many worked in factories, fisheries and coal mines? I'm sure there's statistics out there somewhere that could provide such minutia, but it comes down to this: if members of the various white races didn't lead the way by getting things started with the first settlers and hadn't kept the ball rolling along down the years, would slaves have had any part in the building of the nation? I'm not saying that whites are better or worse for their doing so, nor am I saying that modern blacks should be grateful that their ancestors went through what they did (and we're not even touching on the subject of slave owners who were black). But the fact remains that whites were the driving force for building the country - both in the leadership and in the workforce.
I'm sorry Aitrus, but this is an absolutely ridiculous statement and revisionist history. Whites were in power because of, not despite, the fact that they enslaved others and plundered land. This has been learned and taught in any modern American history class, whether it's pre-colonial times or post-Revolutionary war. The incredible growth of this country since its founding has been built off of the backs of the oppressed. Whites didn't do "minorities" a favor by removing them from their homes by force. You didn't claim that, but ignoring this fact and then posting what you posted has implications. When you get unpaid labor for centuries and then ask that labor "what's your problem" you're suffering from complacency in this society.

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: Fox News*Is*Different,Not Like The Other Networks--POLIT

Post by Aitrus »

stilljammi wrote: I'm sorry Aitrus, but this is an absolutely ridiculous statement and revisionist history. Whites were in power because of, not despite, the fact that they enslaved others and plundered land. This has been learned and taught in any modern American history class, whether it's pre-colonial times or post-Revolutionary war. The incredible growth of this country since its founding has been built off of the backs of the oppressed. Whites didn't do "minorities" a favor by removing them from their homes by force. You didn't claim that, but ignoring this fact and then posting what you posted has implications. When you get unpaid labor for centuries and then ask that labor "what's your problem" you're suffering from complacency in this society.
First, let me thank you for reading through our conversation. I'm not sure who all is following this dialogue, and conversations like this can often go down some winding and twisty rabbit holes, which causes some people to lose interest.

I understand your ire, stilljammi. However, I think it is perhaps misplaced. Let me explain.

Some historians would assert that modern American history classes that are taught as you assert are the ones that are revisionist history to show whites as the bad guy (Indian wars, dropping the atomic bombs in WWII, slavery as you pointed out, etc). As I admitted to in my discussion with userque, black slaves did contribute to some of the building of the country. You make it sound as if the whole enterprise was because of slavery (and/or on the backs of the "oppressed" - a subjective term which is itself a whole other conversation), thus watering down or outright eliminating the worth of any and all contributions by whites. This is not the case.

It wasn't an either/or case I was making. In no way did I disparage the contribution of slaves and free blacks in the building this country. I'm keeping it in perspective with regard to the whole enterprise, neither dismissing them out of hand nor exaggerating their contribution.

You said that I didn't claim that whites didn't do minorities a favor by removing them from their homes by force. So what is your point? That because I didn't talk about that specific point I'm somehow insulting somebody? I didn't ignore that fact, it simply wasn't germane to the conversation. How the slaves got to America had nothing to do with whether or not they contributed to the country, and if so to what extent (as userque and I were discussing).

We can't be afraid of discussing certain events or facts of history because it's uncomfortable. Discussing historical facts and events in a calm and rational discussion should not have negative consequences, and if it does then that is not the fault of those doing the discussing. Yes - slavery happened, and we now acknowledge it as bad, and it was right that we moved on from it. But that doesn't negate the facts that I stated.

Let me ask you two questions:
1 - If there were no slaves in the Colonies, would America still have come to exist and expand afterward? I propose that the answer is "probably, because the reasons for the Revolution had nothing to do with slavery, but we can't know for sure".

2 - If there were no whites in the Colonies, would America still have come to exist and expand afterward? I propose that the answer is emphatically "no" because there would not have been any Colonies if there were no whites to populate them.

Side note 1: There were slave owners in every state who were black.

Side note 2: Many slaves were stolen away from their homes not just by whites but by other blacks as well before being sold to whites (who were often non-American / non-English slave traders - some were even non-white). From my reading, exact numbers are hard to nail down as to how many were hunted by whites and how many were hunted and captured by blacks.

Side note 3: Slavery was commonly accepted throughout history and was normal by the standards of the day. You can't judge whether or not people were evil unless you look at societal norms of the time period. Meaning, you can't judge the actions of the people of the past by our own standards if those standards are different than the ones they adhered to because that places them in the position of living according to a standard that they did not know and could not be aware of. Washington owned slaves, but it was against the law in his state to free them. So he gave them their freedom in his will when he died (it took a while for some due to legalities, but it eventually happened for all of them). Did that make him a bad person? (source: https://www.history.com/news/did-george ... ons-slaves)

Side note 4: Keep in mind that at the time that slavery was being grown, these shores were under English control and slavery was legal (England didn't abolish it until 1833). Only for a relatively short period of time did Americans actually own slaves - about 100 years. Do you likewise condemn all other slave-owning societies that ever occurred in history, including Native Americans, the ancient Romans, the Chinese, the Greeks, etc, etc ? (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_a ... ted_States)
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

User avatar
userque
Posts: 658
Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 5:43 pm

Re: Fox News*Is*Different,Not Like The Other Networks--POLIT

Post by userque »

Aitrus wrote:They thought that they did by creating a system that would as free from corruption as was possible by limiting the power of the government because they intentionally created a republic instead of a monarchy or democracy. In doing so, they believed that they could disincentive the effort it would take for somebody with selfish ambition to run for office or curry favor with powerful individuals due to birthright. Of course they acknowledged that corruption could still happen, but hoped that the wisdom of the people would prevail - thus the election cycle for President, Senators, and Representatives. (Fun fact: senators were originally appointed by State legislatures, not voted on by the people themselves - this was meant to get people more involved in local politics as well as let State governments have a say in the workings of the Federal government. This changed in 1917 with the 17th Amendment.)

For example,...[long and many quotes clipped to help keep under max character limit]...

So while I can adjust my original premise to say that the Founders didn't deliberately exclude the idea of career politicians, I still assert that they held up this understanding of the concept of public service as something to be admired and striven for in lieu of the pursuit of power and personal gain through politics. If you feel the need to disagree with this sentiment, then I don't think there's anything further that can be said on the topic at this point.
That was not the issue I debated, you said: "The Founders viewed political parties as a necessary evil, that true patriots don't strive for higher office or political power."

Though verbose, nothing you've posted above, even in the clipped parts, supports this original assertion.

Yes, we disagree re: Trump being equally or more qualified than Obama for POTUS.
Aitrus wrote:First, by using -American descriptors, they demonstrate that they have ignored MLK's admonition to not judge a person by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
When an American citizen decides to refer to themselves as Italian-American, who are they judging by the color of their skin?
Aitrus wrote:They judge themselves by the color of their skin and heritage, and want others to do the same.
How does saying that my origin is Italy, or that I identify with Italian culture judging themselves by their skin?

First of all, who said their skin color is different from any other pale skinned White person, or different from any other olive skinned Latin person?

Second, how can they judge themselves by their skin, and not by their character? They know their character. MLK referred to the judgment of others, not yourself.
Aitrus wrote:If they felt that their heritage and race shouldn't matter in their interactions with others, then why mention it at all?
No one said that in this discussion.

Secondly, when we meet people, one of the first things that's first discussed is, "so, where are you from?" It's not that "it matters," it's just that people are proud of their heritage. You know, like you said of the confederate flag.

If I search, I'm sure I'll find where you've discussed you origins, heritage, or culture in this very forum.

Lastly, we all have a Constitutional right to talk about our heritage. That's not the problem. The problem is people that think they shouldn't have that right; or that they ... "just shouldn't" do it.
Aitrus wrote:By placing their heritage front and center of their self-identity, they intentionally separate themselves from others on the basis of race and ask to be communicated / interacted with on that basis.
Who said that they place themselves front and center. If you saw them in public, how would you know that they referred to themselves that way?

And if they did place themselves front and center by holding a huge sign that read, "I am an Italian-American. So what. That would only bother a racist.

How can you conclude that they intentionally separate themselves from others? If them saying that they are from Italy, causes you to separate from them, for example, that's something that you did, not them. They have every free speech right to express themselves.

Now, you didn't argue this way against confederate flag flyers. You had nothing but good things to say about them putting themselves front and center by flying the flag publicly, whether on their house or on their t-shirt walking through that same airport as our Italian-American.
Aitrus wrote:In many ways, I believe that this self-identified separation is continuing the race issues we have today.
Again, telling another where you're from is not racist. Again, you would never know that our Italian friend identified that way if you saw him in public. And if you did get close enough to actually know the person, you'd judge him by how you knew him, not by how he signed his name, so to speak.

Again, where was this argument with regard to the confederate flag flyers?
Aitrus wrote:By making race an issue they make it harder to make race not an issue, yet this was the lesson that MLK was emphasizing, was it not?
Again, they don't make race an issue by letting specific people know where they're from. Now, if someone hates Italians, and discovers that the subject of our example is Italian, then racism is the issue. But it's not our example's fault. Nowhere have you put blame on the racist. You always seem to want force the minority into a submissive behavior. What is that a sign off?

We ought not have readers of this thread thinking that they should not reveal their origins because someone else might have a problem with it.

Based upon what you've said here, and a few paragraphs up, you clearly don't understand what MLK preached. MLK never advocated hiding your identity. He bravely and boldly stood out, and marched in the most racist areas of this country. And did so willingly, knowing the dangers.

I'm glad he can't read what you've been writing.

Again, where was all this "concern" with the confederate flag holders?
Aitrus wrote:Declaring ourselves to be American and nothing more than American is the first step to seeing each other more clearly without race being a factor.
Wrong. We are Americans. Period. Regardless of what we declare. Others don't get to decide which citizens should no longer be considered Americans. The only true Americans are the Native Americans, the people robbed of their land by the false Americans.

Racist individuals need to stop hating people based upon their origins and skin colors. Not the other way around as you suggest. I don't think you understand how you sound. If you re-read this thread, at least once everyday, it'll eventually click...I hope, at least.
Aitrus wrote:Additionally, acknowledging one's heritage is different than trying to use that heritage to effect changes in public policy,
Where, in our discussion have I said that? How do you do that? If Italian-Americans are being discriminated against due to their origins; and they say, "HEY! We're being discriminated against because of our origins. STOP IT!" Is that what you mean by using their heritage to change public policy? That's evil to you? Explain why that's wrong.
Aitrus wrote:which is what some self-described -Americans do (especially in politics). We have the CBC, but we don't have an Congressional Irish Caucus, or a more generic Congressional White Caucus with goals to foster government policies designed to benefit one race over another. I'm just as much opposed to the CBC as I am against the group "Blacks for Trump".
These organizations exist due to the discrimination brought upon these minority groups by the majority. But for the racism brought by people who, like you, don't get it; or by people who are full of hate for persons they don't even know personally; these organizations wouldn't be needed, and so, wouldn't exist.

You can't logically, morally, and realistically; really and truly believe that a people ... that have been oppressed for hundreds of years ... and are still being discriminated against to this day ... with, up to and including, murder; ought not have organizations designed to help right the wrongs.

If Whites were the minority, I would hope that they organized in order to protect themselves against a racist majority. And if I were part of that majority, I'd advocate for them. That's how I got started as a union steward: advocating for co-workers that were too afraid to speak up against mistreatment. I was invited by the union to become a steward.

There's not one strand of DNA in my body that can make sense of most of what you've been saying...except for the obvious conclusion.
Aitrus wrote:To a certain extent, I agree. If a person wants to call themselves a -American, there's nothing I can do to stop them. However, they should realize the effect it has on others and on the continuing societal breakdown over race relations.
A person living in a free country shouldn't want to stop them. Why would they want go down that slope?

Trust me, they know all about that racist effect. Just as MLK, the great man you've been willy-nilly mischaracterizing also knew. But what you fail to understand, is that they aren't broken, and don't need fixing. The racist majority is what needs to be fixed, instead of shifting the blame to the victims.

Again, where was this argument re: the confederate flag holders. You had nothing but rainbows and unicorns to say about them.
Aitrus wrote:There is an extent to which I disagree with your statement: transgender pronouns. Nobody has the right to dictate to me what I must call them based on their subjective view of themselves. They can call themselves whatever they want, but I am cannot be required to abide by their pronoun choice. Especially not with the force of government, as has been recently enacted in Canada. This shouldn't happen in America, as it would be defined as compelled speech and a violation of the First Amendment. Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out ... ns-n773421
That was never part of the debate.
Aitrus wrote:You're right, race isn't an issue at all in today's society. [/sarcasm]


I never said that. Race is an issue to racists, and their victim groups. And to people that say they aren't racist, but still, somehow, have an issue with other races and/or their groups, programs, and politics. It's not, however, an issue to the people that don't care, and are complicit.
Aitrus wrote:What I'm trying to say is that race shouldn't matter, and if it didn't then there wouldn't be the need for -American titles or race selections on official forms.
Race should matter in some cases. Medical reasons, for example. Different races may be more or less affected by treatments and ailments. The data could prove helpful.

Again, the prefix is someone saying, in effect, "I'm from Italy." There is nothing wrong with that. A fellow Italian may discover someone from the homeland via the prefix. This is positive. The problem is all the overt and closeted racist, not the minorities.

This is not your American. This is our America. Actually, the rightful owners are the Native Americans.

Again, where was this argument with regard to confederate flag flyers?
Aitrus wrote:If we really believed that as a society, then we should start acting like it. Until then, continually bringing up race means that it will continue to be an issue.
It is being acted upon, via that groups you spoke negatively towards, and others like the ACLU and the NAACP.

Race is an issue not because victim groups are trying to protect their rights. It's an issue because of racism and complicity in America.
Aitrus wrote:I'm fine with letting it go, and dearly wish we all could, but then I might be called a racist for not considering the plight of the African American or the Palestinian American or whomever has an axe to grind that day.
That's not why you'd be called a racist.

Racist: a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

I intentionally started this discussion using the Italian heritage as an example. I knew you'd find a way to change it to Blacks.

Sir, I think you too late if you're concerned about what you might be called by someone with a minimum of intelligence that has read this thread. So, the Blacks in Minn. simply have an ax to grind. All minorities simply have an ax to grind because ... why? ... Exactly?
Aitrus wrote:I get tired of being race-shamed by a large segment of society for not being appropriately contrite about being white - as do most white conservatives.


How exactly are you race shamed. Do you think minorities get tired of being victimized. Which would you rather be shamed, or a victim like in Minn.? Describe exactly how you have been shamed.

You're not "shamed," whatever that is, because you're White. You likely feel shame because whatever goodness is left in your soul (disregard if you don't believe you have a soul--but I believe you do) is troubled by this discussion and your failure to acknowledge that racism exists to the extent that it does. And troubled by your failure to acknowledge the rights of minorities as be equal to yours; as evidence by your hypocritical responses to the confederate flag flyers, vs. the similar situated minorities in our discussions.

The fact that you feel shame (and not that minorities have shamed you--again, blaming minorities) shows that the is still some measure, however small, of compassion still in your blood steam.

You've mentioned before that your father was a racist. Now, recall our discussions about how beliefs are passed down, generation to generation. When you mentioned about your father, you seem to indicate that you were glad that you overcame and didn't follow in his footsteps in that regard. Now, reread this thread.

There are a multitude of Whites that admit what's happening, what's been happening in the country, and stand and march and politically fight side by side their minority brothers and sisters. They feel no shame, and deserve an extreme level of respect. In case you're not familiar, they called them "****** lovers" in the confederate south.
Aitrus wrote:What if we didn't focus on how each race is affected and instead focused on the sickness as a whole?
They go hand in hand. One size may not fit all. One treatment may work better for one race, another for a different race.

Also, we don't have to focus on one thing at a time. Space X people are still trying to get into space. Lawmakers are still working. Truck drivers are still driving.

There's not just one "covid guy" who can only focus on one thing at a time.
Aitrus wrote:Might we make better progress on beating the disease that way?
If we told truck drivers to stop driving, and focus on covid, would that help us beat the disease? Believe it or not, covid is not the only disease, and the others are still being worked on despite the pandemic. Again, there isn't just one "covid guy."

"userque, stop posting and focus on covid!" LMAO :lol:
Aitrus wrote:The only way identifying race would be helpful is if there were some kind of physiological difference in one race that makes the sickness worse in those with that genetic makeup. To my knowledge, this isn't the case. What is the case with this disease is that those who have specific conditions - regardless of race - are more likely to have a harder time with it.
See my above response.
Aitrus wrote:They are free to kneel if they choose to do so and they're on their own time.
What if they are not on their own time, and the employer allows it, as the NFL did before they changed the rules after the protests?

(The previous national anthem policy by the NFL written about a decade before the new policy in May 2018 contained vocabulary that allotted more leeway in the players' behavior during the national anthem before games. It required players to be on the sideline but only stated that players should, not must, stand during the national anthem.) Wikipedia
Aitrus wrote:However, if the the employer disallows it (per NFL rules a player must be on the field and standing during the anthem), then the player needs to follow his contract as a condition of employment, and the employer should enforce that conduct or levy penalties on the offender. Also, kneeling is disrespectful and may come with consequences. For example, as a viewer I'm free to turn off the game or boycott the NFL for not enforcing their player contracts or for thinking kneelers are not genuine or logical in their dissent (white cops are just as likely to shoot white civilians as non-white civilians - https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877).
You say that the confederate flag, a flag associated with a defeated, racism-based, attempted overthrow of the US government, is not disrespectful when proudly flown.

How can taking a knee, during a song, to protest racism, be soooo evil?

Again, race based hypocrisy.
userque wrote:For the record, I never mentioned racism regarding that flag, I don't think. And, yes, I can understand properly articulated concepts without living in a certain region.
Emphasis added:
Aitrus wrote:I know you didn't, but I didn't want the conversation to diverge down that path as often happens with discussions regarding flying the Confederate Flag.
So ... you're saying ... that's why you brought is up ... because you didn't want it to come up ... LMAO
Aitrus wrote:No. The Confederacy wanted to determine what happened within their own borders without the interference of federal government,
Which included, inter alia, maintaining the enslavement, rape, and torture of another race of humans
Aitrus wrote: it just happens that the issue that the federal government was trying to control was slavery. The movie "Gettysburg" tells the story in an unbiased view from both sides of the issue because it was written and portrayed with heavy input from historians. The movie shows that the North felt the war was about slavery, but that the South felt it to be an invasion of State's rights. The flag is a symbol of the bravery of the men willing to fight for their rights,
Yes, bravely fighting for the right to keep, inter alia, maintaining the enslavement, rape, and torture of another race of humans.
Aitrus wrote: of the skill and courage of their leaders, and of the sense that even in losing they still made their point to Lincoln that States still have the right to a certain amount of self governance as afforded in the Constitution.
Where exactly in the Constitution?
Aitrus wrote: Contrary to popular belief, not every person in the South was a slave owner, and felt that their rights being stripped away for something they hadn't done was unjust.
Who said that that was a popular belief. I thought everyone knew that everyone couldn't afford slaves. Which rights were stripped away from non-slave owners?
Aitrus wrote:Here's a short segment from the movie that explains a bit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dDpwZegm60

This video is a really, really good breakdown of the entire movie - including production and reasons supporting it's historical accuracy. I encourage you to watch the whole thing, but the pertinent portion for this discussion is at the 18:50 - 23:40 point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ1f9vliwiA
Thanks, I haven't watched it yet, but will soon after posting this message.
Aitrus wrote:A similar sentiment in many venues - "Hike your own hike" for long distance hikers, "Ride your own ride" for motorcyclists, etc. I
It seems your post was cut short here.
userque wrote:Do you think African slaves had anything to do with growing the nation? To what degree?
userque wrote: How do you measure your "nation-building activities?" Where did you obtain your data? How did you determine that the slaves had a lesser contribution, up to the time of the civil war, than 'Whites" did?
Aitrus wrote:How many minorities owned lumber mills? How many drove covered wagons westward? How many were engineers that designed railways? How many were inventors? How many worked in factories, fisheries and coal mines?
A lot, with the profits from slavery. But that wasn't my question.
Aitrus wrote:I'm sure there's statistics out there somewhere
Well, it was your assertion, and we aren't entitled to our own facts.
Aitrus wrote:that could provide such minutia, but it comes down to this: if members of the various white races didn't lead the way by getting things started with the first settlers and hadn't kept the ball rolling along down the years, would slaves have had any part in the building of the nation?
Again, that wasn't the question.

Of course the confederates lead the way, they went and purchased 600,000 slaves.
Aitrus wrote: I'm not saying that whites are better or worse for their doing so,
So, you're undecided on the issue.
Aitrus wrote: nor am I saying that modern blacks should be grateful that their ancestors went through what they did (and we're not even touching on the subject of slave owners who were black). But the fact remains that whites were the driving force for building the country - both in the leadership and in the workforce.
Again, we all know who the driving force behind building the country with slave labor. That still doesn't answer the question.
Aitrus wrote:As to the source of my data: The total number of blacks in the country from 1790 - 1870 never exceeded 19% of the total population, and the number of free blacks ranged between 7.9 - 13.7% of the total black population. That means that at least 81% of the population was non-black and presumably somewhat close to completely white (excepting a small number of non-white and non-black individuals, such as Spanish, Portuguese, etc.). By sheer numbers, this means that whites did more work in the building of the nation - however that is defined - than blacks did. Source: http://thomaslegioncherokee.tripod.com/ ... story.html
Again, that doesn't answer the question. (Btw, 10 slaves, under threat of death, could out produce all unemployed people at that time. My point is it's not about the population.)

Did you research the question, along with all this other research you did?

Sounds like you're avoiding the question.
Aitrus wrote:Cultures which support the idea of people being reliant on government, of the proper role of government as that of authoritarian and civil liberties are not a thing.
Which cultures are these?
Aitrus wrote:Then we'll have to agree to disagree. If we can't agree that the rule of law is central to the American culture, then there's little for us to agree on this topic.
You misunderstood. The culture immigrants bring with them is not "law." It doesn't have to be compatible with American law. They simply have to comply with American law, regardless their culture.

IOW, they don't have to denounce their culture, as long as their actions/omissions break no laws.
Aitrus wrote:Not outside the realm of possibility. Or am I thinking about it to a depth that not many people do, and that's part of the problem in society today?
Reread this thread regularly, you'll start to understand part of the problem.

Unlawful entry may be considered an invasion, imo; but not lawful entry. BTW, The settlers were the first invaders.
Aitrus wrote: Consider the fact that ~70-80% of non-whites vote Left / Democrat. Does this influx of new non-white immigrants mean that those who have deep roots in America should get no say in preserving what the traditional America they cherish
You mean that confederate south America?
Aitrus wrote: in favor of new arrivals who will boost the Democrat lean? This isn't an off-the-cuff remark, this kind of immigration has real consequences. Ex: Do you think it's possible for voters to ever turn California red again like it was (mostly) until the 1980s?
I think the same regard should be given to that, as what was given to the Native Americans. Maybe we'll put you and your 'federate flag buddies on a reservation. :lol:

Seriously, how did that argument work out for the Native Americans. Why should the result be different this time?

Was your ancestor's political leanings an issue when they immigrated to this country? But after they arrived, now it should be?

Maybe the R's should consider the real reason for the bias, instead of implying the reason is handouts.

Which race, by numbers/voters, receive the most 'welfare?'
Aitrus wrote:Ah, I see. I was approaching it from the standpoint that a teacher should be reasonably versed on the subject regardless of what the textbook was presenting, and have the integrity to present all sides to students (presumably her college education taught her critical thinking skills and how to present things in a non-biased manner).
I know you now understand, but I just wanted to add, for the record, that I didn't address the issue as to whether, or not, the teacher should know.
Aitrus wrote: My assertion was that if a teacher can't be suitably non-biased on all topics, then that person shouldn't be a teacher.
To be biased, requires that she knows, and acts contrary to what is proper. In our example, she didn't know, and therefore, couldn't be considered biased. Imo.

Certainly, no teacher can be required to know everything that should be present in a textbook, and spot it if it isn't. That's not realistic.

Chapter 10: What Makes Racism So Hard for Whites to See?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42981490

THE MOST RACIST PEOPLE ARE ALSO THE MOST LIKELY TO UNDERESTIMATE THEIR RACISM
https://psmag.com/news/the-most-racist- ... eir-racism
"In the land of idiots, the moron is King."

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: Fox News*Is*Different,Not Like The Other Networks--POLIT

Post by Aitrus »

userque wrote: That was not the issue I debated, you said: "The Founders viewed political parties as a necessary evil, that true patriots don't strive for higher office or political power."

Though verbose, nothing you've posted above, even in the clipped parts, supports this original assertion.
Perhaps you have misunderstood my assertion. My assertion should be understood as "The Founders viewed...that a true patriot doesn't strive for higher office or political power, rather, that a patriot will hold office solely in order to serve the people and not for the purpose of obtaining power or for the titles and honors the higher office bestows, and that any who would seek to hold higher offices in order to obtain such power and titles are not patriots." I am not revising my assertion - I'm clarifying it because it seems that I was unclear when I first stated it. I believe that the verbose way I have done so illuminates this point. Further:

"An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens." Thomas Jefferson, 1830

"I am not influenced by the expectation of promotion or pecuniary reward. I wish to be useful, and every kind of service necessary for the public good, become honorable by being necessary." Nathan Hale, 1776

"Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust must be men of unexceptionable characters." Sam Adams, 1775

"If men of wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth; if men possessed of these other excellent qualities are chosen to fill the seats of government, we may expect that our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation." Sam Adams, 1780

From here, this conversation – through our cooperative effort – has gone way off the rails.

Bottom lines:

- I am not a racist. Nothing I have said or did here has implicated such. As you stated: “How can they judge themselves by their skin, and not by their character? They know their character.” I know my character.

- I do not treat people differently because of race, nor do I think that any race is superior to another. Race is not a factor in how I interact with others. I offer no preference or malice to others due to race. My goal is to treat others as I would have myself be treated.

- I questioned the need for somebody to describe themselves as -American because – in my experience – a fair number who have done so did it for racial reasons, not purely out of pride of heritage. You used my response regarding my attitude towards those who fly the Confederate flag to point out that the act of merely voicing / claiming a heritage is harmless (as opposed to the further act of using that heritage to justify special treatment). I concede the point and thank you. You’ve helped me see a flaw in my logic. -Americanism doesn’t mean anything to me, but I can conceive of how it could be important to others.

- I feel I have kept an open mind in this entire conversation and feel that you have as well (for the most part – I don’t think you conceded any point that I made). I’d like to believe that you’re not striving to see racism where none exists. I don’t think you argue from a standpoint of malice or ill will.

- I don’t feel that I’ve misunderstood MLK. On the contrary, I feel that it would be an honor to meet the man and get his perspective on current race relations and the current state and actions of all people (whites as well as minorities) in America today. I think that what he would have to say would be very enlightening to both sides of the discussion.

And with that, I leave the conversation. I said all that I had to say, provided evidence to support my position (as you requested in other threads), and explained my rationale and reasonings. If you can’t understand my perspective, then I’m afraid there’s nothing more I can say without restarting the whole fight. I certainly understand your perspective and where you’re coming from, I just disagree with some of your conclusions.
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

User avatar
stilljammi
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2019 3:59 pm

Re: Fox News*Is*Different,Not Like The Other Networks--POLIT

Post by stilljammi »

Aitrus wrote:You said that I didn't claim that whites didn't do minorities a favor by removing them from their homes by force. So what is your point? That because I didn't talk about that specific point I'm somehow insulting somebody? I didn't ignore that fact, it simply wasn't germane to the conversation. How the slaves got to America had nothing to do with whether or not they contributed to the country, and if so to what extent (as userque and I were discussing).

We can't be afraid of discussing certain events or facts of history because it's uncomfortable. Discussing historical facts and events in a calm and rational discussion should not have negative consequences, and if it does then that is not the fault of those doing the discussing. Yes - slavery happened, and we now acknowledge it as bad, and it was right that we moved on from it. But that doesn't negate the facts that I stated.
I agree that no one should be afraid of sharing ideas. Having a discussion based on logic is always necessary, even and especially about sensitive topics. And if I don't like what you are saying for whatever reason, it's on me to stop listening. It's not on you to stop talking about your ideas, that would be an example of using freedom of speech against itself. Not many people understand that in this "cancel culture" era.

With that said, we should always be welcome to criticize bad and ridiculous ideas, you'd agree. It doesn't even need to be said that you're not disparaging blacks. No one in this forum is racist and it obviously wouldn't be tolerated. I don't even like having to say "obviously you're not racist," but I guess it's necessary for these discussions so you know that I know that. Off-topic but it reminds me of "This hamburger I made you is arsenic-free!" The act of saying it, even though it's true, makes it seem like it was a possibility in the first place.
Aitrus wrote:Some historians would assert that modern American history classes that are taught as you assert are the ones that are revisionist history to show whites as the bad guy (Indian wars, dropping the atomic bombs in WWII, slavery as you pointed out, etc). As I admitted to in my discussion with userque, black slaves did contribute to some of the building of the country. You make it sound as if the whole enterprise was because of slavery (and/or on the backs of the "oppressed" - a subjective term which is itself a whole other conversation), thus watering down or outright eliminating the worth of any and all contributions by whites. This is not the case.

It wasn't an either/or case I was making. In no way did I disparage the contribution of slaves and free blacks in the building this country. I'm keeping it in perspective with regard to the whole enterprise, neither dismissing them out of hand nor exaggerating their contribution.
But I'm saying that the picture that you're painting is largely incomplete and inaccurate by minimizing the contributions of minorities and the exploitation of all that free labor, free capital, and free land that this country is built on. I think where we disagree is I believe that this country and white peoples' status in this country was was made possible by these exploitations. Mostly? Partly? We can discuss that. I don't want to minimize the contributions by whites, because it's obvious that this country wouldn't be what it is today without them. The same needs to be said about blacks, Native Americans, etc. My main point is: The success of this country and whites' status in this country has to have an asterisk by it. Do you agree?
Aitrus wrote:1 - If there were no slaves in the Colonies, would America still have come to exist and expand afterward? I propose that the answer is "probably, because the reasons for the Revolution had nothing to do with slavery, but we can't know for sure".
If you are asking if the revolution would have still happened without slavery, I'd say eventually maybe, but the revolution isn't the only thing that caused America as we know it today. America as we know it today wouldn't have happened as quickly without all that free labor, which then turned to cheap labor, all of which led to many wealthy white families.

Saying that slavery didn't have anything to do with the revolution is false. I can point to some historians who can dispute that claim better than I can, but I don't think it even matters. I could concede to you that slavery had nothing to do with the revolution, but understanding the revolution is a necessary, but not sufficient, element of American history. Your claim is a fallacy. America didn't stop evolving and growing and changing after we declared war with Britain. You wouldn't know anything about this great country if you stopped reading American history at the revolution.

Slavery was a divisive issue even before the revolution. Slavery wasn't just a thing that everybody accepted, it was fought over. Some people, states, and countries rejected slavery. I said that to say: people knew better and some people chose to continue slavery. People rationalized it and politicians twisted themselves into pretzels to justify it. Pseudo-science backed them up with bad evidence. Philosophers backed them up with faulty logic and fallacies. This bag of tricks can be used to this day to justify just about anything by otherwise smart, moral people. The context of slavery is a necessary part of understanding the revolution, the constitution, and the growth of the country and the incredible power wielded by slavers.

Take the "other Washington" for example, D.C. was created from lands that flourished in the slave trade. The entire southern economy revolved around the assumption of free labor. The north abolished it, the south continued it and wanted to expand it to the west. So we fought a civil war over slavery and its place in American society. Even when the 13th amendment was passed, other less-profitable forms of disenfranchisement took its place in those economies.
Aitrus wrote:2 - If there were no whites in the Colonies, would America still have come to exist and expand afterward? I propose that the answer is emphatically "no" because there would not have been any Colonies if there were no whites to populate them.
Same answer, eventually maybe. Again, the premise doesn't lead to the conclusion. The colonies didn't need to be populated by whites in order for their ideas to be valid. What makes the American Revolution such an important event in American and human history is because of the ideas proposed. No taxation without representation, natural and legal rights, etc. Also important is the legal boot-strapping they did to legitimize their resistance, by drawing from known laws of the same government that was oppressing them.

As for your side notes: The fact that there were black slavers, or that other countries had slavery longer than the US, or the fact that other civilizations enslaved others, does not justify slavery by whites in the US. I obviously don't condone slavery anywhere, but slavery in the US has had a more direct impact on our lives today. So, we can talk about slavery in ancient Greece or in Babylon or among Native Americans, but I don't think it's as relevant. This is what's called a bad-faith argument and it doesn't argue the main point.

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: Fox News*Is*Different,Not Like The Other Networks--POLIT

Post by Aitrus »

Thank you for your reply, stilljammi. Good points all around.
I don't want to minimize the contributions by whites, because it's obvious that this country wouldn't be what it is today without them. The same needs to be said about blacks, Native Americans, etc. My main point is: The success of this country and whites' status in this country has to have an asterisk by it. Do you agree?
Yes, I agree with you (although there would likely be some further discussion of what you mean by "whites' status" and what would be included as part of the asterisk). I didn't think that I was suggesting otherwise, but perhaps I was mistaken.
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

User avatar
userque
Posts: 658
Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 5:43 pm

Re: Fox News*Is*Different,Not Like The Other Networks--POLIT

Post by userque »

Aitrus wrote:...And with that, I leave the conversation. ...
While I understand you won't be replying anymore; you did reply prior to saying you're leaving the conversation.

So I do reserve the 'right' to respond to your last post. I'd expect no response from you; but wouldn't object to one if you did.

That said, after briefly looking at your response, I think what I've already said covers it. If I find that this is not the case, I'll give my final response as well. Otherwise, this is my final response on the discussion.

Enjoyed the discussion! It's been very revealing, and thought provoking!

Also, I appreciate you proving that an internet conversation can remain civil, even while discussing extremely sensitive topics!
Last edited by userque on Fri May 29, 2020 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"In the land of idiots, the moron is King."

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: Fox News*Is*Different,Not Like The Other Networks--POLIT

Post by Aitrus »

Likewise, UQ.
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

User avatar
userque
Posts: 658
Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 5:43 pm

Re: Fox News*Is*Different,Not Like The Other Networks--POLIT

Post by userque »

Emphasis added. Post viewtopic.php?f=31&t=18031&p=85605#p85605
stilljammi wrote:
Aitrus wrote:You said that I didn't claim that whites didn't do minorities a favor by removing them from their homes by force. So what is your point? That because I didn't talk about that specific point I'm somehow insulting somebody? I didn't ignore that fact, it simply wasn't germane to the conversation. How the slaves got to America had nothing to do with whether or not they contributed to the country, and if so to what extent (as userque and I were discussing).

We can't be afraid of discussing certain events or facts of history because it's uncomfortable. Discussing historical facts and events in a calm and rational discussion should not have negative consequences, and if it does then that is not the fault of those doing the discussing. Yes - slavery happened, and we now acknowledge it as bad, and it was right that we moved on from it. But that doesn't negate the facts that I stated.
I agree that no one should be afraid of sharing ideas. Having a discussion based on logic is always necessary, even and especially about sensitive topics. And if I don't like what you are saying for whatever reason, it's on me to stop listening. It's not on you to stop talking about your ideas, that would be an example of using freedom of speech against itself. Not many people understand that in this "cancel culture" era.

With that said, we should always be welcome to criticize bad and ridiculous ideas, you'd agree. It doesn't even need to be said that you're not disparaging blacks. No one in this forum is racist and it obviously wouldn't be tolerated. I don't even like having to say "obviously you're not racist," but I guess it's necessary for these discussions so you know that I know that. Off-topic but it reminds me of "This hamburger I made you is arsenic-free!" The act of saying it, even though it's true, makes it seem like it was a possibility in the first place.

...
You said most of the last paragraph in response to my asking Aitrus about being a racist.

In light of the today's discussions, and the definition of racism, I was curious as to how you feel today about the exact same above topic.

I understand if you don't want to answer ... I'm getting used to that sort of response.
"In the land of idiots, the moron is King."

User avatar
stilljammi
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2019 3:59 pm

Re: Fox News*Is*Different,Not Like The Other Networks--POLIT

Post by stilljammi »

userque wrote:You said most of the last paragraph in response to my asking Aitrus about being a racist.

In light of the today's discussions, and the definition of racism, I was curious as to how you feel today about the exact same above topic.

I understand if you don't want to answer ... I'm getting used to that sort of response.
Good question, link to my answer because I think it has more to do with that topic: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=18165&p=86692#p86692

PhilJohn
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 10:38 am

Re: Fox News*Is*Different,Not Like The Other Networks--POLIT

Post by PhilJohn »

Rachel Maddow is a strange looking man.

User avatar
Tomanyiron
Posts: 4973
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:39 am

Re: Fox News*Is*Different,Not Like The Other Networks--POLIT

Post by Tomanyiron »

PhilJohn wrote:Rachel Maddow is a strange looking man.
I don't know about being a man, but doesn't know 'merde' (excuse my French). And is one of the biggest spreaders of fake news there is on TV.
"MSNBC's Rachel Maddow predicted that June's jobs report would be 'absolutely terrible'
'Brace yourself,' the liberal host warned viewers Wednesday night."

Her wishful thinking didn't work. Look at her face while she said it. Because she was thinking "Bad news for the country is good news for me and the Dems". Some times I wonder how much damage and chaos would have to happen before they would stop wishing for more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KQOOTeTBWU
"A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers." Plato
"Perfect numbers like perfect men are very rare." Rene Descartes

Locked

Fund Prices2024-03-28

FundPriceDayYTD
G $18.15 0.05% 1.05%
F $19.08 -0.06% -0.74%
C $82.21 0.11% 10.55%
S $82.43 0.30% 6.92%
I $42.57 -0.24% 5.95%
L2065 $16.38 0.02% 8.37%
L2060 $16.39 0.02% 8.38%
L2055 $16.39 0.02% 8.38%
L2050 $32.73 0.01% 6.95%
L2045 $14.91 0.02% 6.58%
L2040 $54.38 0.02% 6.22%
L2035 $14.34 0.02% 5.79%
L2030 $47.67 0.02% 5.38%
L2025 $13.15 0.03% 3.43%
Linc $25.61 0.03% 2.82%

Live Charts

Pending Allocations

Under development. For now, you may view Pending Allocations by going to "fantasy TSP" and selecting "Leaderboard sort" of "Pending Allocations".