http://tigron-x.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
tigron-x.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
politicartoons2017-02-09 11:52 am
tigron-x.livejournal.com) wrote in politicartoons2017-02-09 11:52 am
Entry tags:
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Did you even open up that Penn state link I gave you? They were connecting genes to facial features. That means race is not like language which is epistemically objective, but rather race is ontologically objective. Otherwise that computer would not be able to do what it was doing.
Regression of society? How do you arrive at that? You're not trying to stealth in some kind of "the negro is a lesser race" old-skool shit in here are you? Because I would be very disappointed.
From my point of view, society as a whole has actually improved drastically in my lifetime. Many governments and parts of governments are still subject to corruption and manipulation, and probably always will be, but the spread of communications and mapping technology and the growth of the collectivist attitude "on the ground" has been incredible.
My favorite example: The two most powerful nations on this Earth are currently entrenched in a shared economy producing the one gadget that is now almost indispensable in modern society: The humble smartphone. That is freaking amazing.
I'd never say the upward trend is guaranteed. But I think it's more upward than downward.
From my point of view, society as a whole has actually improved drastically in my lifetime. Many governments and parts of governments are still subject to corruption and manipulation, and probably always will be, but the spread of communications and mapping technology and the growth of the collectivist attitude "on the ground" has been incredible.
My favorite example: The two most powerful nations on this Earth are currently entrenched in a shared economy producing the one gadget that is now almost indispensable in modern society: The humble smartphone. That is freaking amazing.
I'd never say the upward trend is guaranteed. But I think it's more upward than downward.
Noooo, they were correlating chunks of the genome to facial features, with a suspiciously large margin of error. They are still way waaaayy distant from being able to alter DNA to give you those facial features.
And as I pointed out elsewhere. There are many many facial features, and shades of distinction amongst those features, and where you draw the lines to declare a race is not objective, "ontologically" or otherwise. The races defined even vary across different disciplines - forensic anthropology versus sociology versus archaeology for example - and are even contested within those disciplines, and are also in a state of flux.
And as I pointed out elsewhere. There are many many facial features, and shades of distinction amongst those features, and where you draw the lines to declare a race is not objective, "ontologically" or otherwise. The races defined even vary across different disciplines - forensic anthropology versus sociology versus archaeology for example - and are even contested within those disciplines, and are also in a state of flux.
Edited 2017-02-12 02:09 (UTC)
That doesn't sound like we watched the same video. The rabbi never said anything like that. You're putting words in his mouth.
The rabbi is warning fellow Jews not to abandon the Torah like the Jews that caused the Russian Revolution and also those that tried to abandon their own people to become German. The rabbi substantiated Hitler's and Wagner's points.
He never said anything about them being twisted. That's something YOU are projecting onto the rabbi's speech because that is YOUR bias regarding those events.
The rabbi is warning fellow Jews not to abandon the Torah like the Jews that caused the Russian Revolution and also those that tried to abandon their own people to become German. The rabbi substantiated Hitler's and Wagner's points.
He never said anything about them being twisted. That's something YOU are projecting onto the rabbi's speech because that is YOUR bias regarding those events.
No, I'm referencing stuff like the retarded feminist that dropped period blood on a canvas and called it art. Or this...
LOL. Yes, it's true, that Rabbi doesn't want his people to assimilate, and he's using Hitler and Wagner's own inane words to buttress his claim that assimilation is what caused their (the Jews) downfall. He also knows he's making a controversial statement that goes against both the Torah and the attitude of his own community (he points out examples of both).
But you're trying to make a leap even beyond that. Are you honestly trying to equate the Jews' partial assimilation into German society as an act of war?
But you're trying to make a leap even beyond that. Are you honestly trying to equate the Jews' partial assimilation into German society as an act of war?
Actually, these were freakin' common, not amazing. As to specifics, it depended on the neighborhood (http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/covenants.htm). I live in Hayes Park, a subdivision in Ravenna, so mine read:
Most of these were repealed by a vote of the communities. One, along Lake Washington, decided to keep theirs intact. (Matthews Beach might have been the holdout; I can't remember exactly.)
Oh, and just for emphasis: Eastern Europeans were not considered "white" or "caucasian" enough. My friend's grandfather had to move to the East side of Lk. WA because he was Croatian, and didn't want to buy property next to blacks.
No person other than one of the white race shall be permitted to occupy any portion of any lot in said plat or of any building thereon, except a domestic servant actually employed by a white occupant of such building.
Most of these were repealed by a vote of the communities. One, along Lake Washington, decided to keep theirs intact. (Matthews Beach might have been the holdout; I can't remember exactly.)
Oh, and just for emphasis: Eastern Europeans were not considered "white" or "caucasian" enough. My friend's grandfather had to move to the East side of Lk. WA because he was Croatian, and didn't want to buy property next to blacks.
Richard Spencer's reaction video (referenced in your link) is worth watching in full: 'My video on the attacks on me and what the AltRight can learn from it.' (https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/823178714506788865"")
He's very careful in how he describes and presents himself and those who have attacked him. He definitely wants people on the right, including all Trump voters, to perceive leftist protesters as a common enemy and a real threat, but I don't think he has any intention of going quiet.
As for Milo, I agree that he should be no platformed for his abusive behaviours, but I don't think that will do anything to damage his popularity and his media reach. In fact, his book has since become a best seller on Amazon.
I think this article does a good job of explaining how that's happened: I Helped Create the Milo Trolling Playbook. You Should Stop Playing Right Into It (http://observer.com/2017/02/i-helped-create-the-milo-trolling-playbook-you-should-stop-playing-right-into-it/)
I don't think that you can stop the spread of ideas like these by punching the people who hold them.
He's very careful in how he describes and presents himself and those who have attacked him. He definitely wants people on the right, including all Trump voters, to perceive leftist protesters as a common enemy and a real threat, but I don't think he has any intention of going quiet.
As for Milo, I agree that he should be no platformed for his abusive behaviours, but I don't think that will do anything to damage his popularity and his media reach. In fact, his book has since become a best seller on Amazon.
I think this article does a good job of explaining how that's happened: I Helped Create the Milo Trolling Playbook. You Should Stop Playing Right Into It (http://observer.com/2017/02/i-helped-create-the-milo-trolling-playbook-you-should-stop-playing-right-into-it/)
I don't think that you can stop the spread of ideas like these by punching the people who hold them.
I have a very succinct definition of racist: Anyone who fears the color/religion/anything else of his or her grandchildren will be different.
This is to be defined as an emotional reaction, not a reasoned and dispassionate logical explanation. I've seen a quite reasonable person shudder with rage, for example, when I've told them their black co-worker has a cute blond wife.
He was raised by Southern folks who were unappologetically racist, but he's getting better. I think.
This is to be defined as an emotional reaction, not a reasoned and dispassionate logical explanation. I've seen a quite reasonable person shudder with rage, for example, when I've told them their black co-worker has a cute blond wife.
He was raised by Southern folks who were unappologetically racist, but he's getting better. I think.
Worse, it wasn't repealed officially until about ten years ago.
I agree. Clinton had a big fat blind spot in finance, for example, just because her son-in-law and daughter have interests there. And if we don't reform finance, we're all screwed, every one of us.
Osama was a terrorist who orchestrated attacks that claimed the lives of thousands and was the leader of the Al-Qaeda terrorist group when he was killed as part of a military operation designed to end the threat he posed.
Thatcher was an elected politician who became Prime Minister of the UK when 43.9% of British voters voted for her party. Her time in government was divisive but she was long since retired from politics when she died of a stroke after suffering from dementia.
Very different people who died in different circumstances but it's reasonably clear who the worst of the two is; if the death of the terrorist who claimed responsibility for 9-11 doesn't deserve celebration then the death of an ex-prime minister suffering from dementia doesn't either.
In any case, if a person is serious in their 'celebration of death is abhorrent' stance then that shouldn't be subject to partisan bias. It comes down to a matter of integrity; don't abandon your ideals, values and principles just to take a cheap shot at your political opponents.
Thatcher was an elected politician who became Prime Minister of the UK when 43.9% of British voters voted for her party. Her time in government was divisive but she was long since retired from politics when she died of a stroke after suffering from dementia.
Very different people who died in different circumstances but it's reasonably clear who the worst of the two is; if the death of the terrorist who claimed responsibility for 9-11 doesn't deserve celebration then the death of an ex-prime minister suffering from dementia doesn't either.
In any case, if a person is serious in their 'celebration of death is abhorrent' stance then that shouldn't be subject to partisan bias. It comes down to a matter of integrity; don't abandon your ideals, values and principles just to take a cheap shot at your political opponents.
A "conspiracy theory" (as you derisively use the term) is one devoid of facts to back up the theory itself, or one that runs contrary to facts. What part of my synopsis do you question, find devoid of facts, or object to due to falsehoods?
I would be happy to provide clarifying material. I've been collecting it for years.
As to "their end game," it was stated quite plainly in the 1971 document (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_F._Powell_Jr.#Powell_Memorandum) that inspired quite a bit of this activity. The end game: recapturing the country from the leftist forces the memo claims will mean the end of the enterprise system, capitalism, the system of American business (Powell used all of these terms in the memo itself).
Powell himself did not foresee the use of appeals to fringe groups to advance individual political agendas: that innovation was the work of Joe Overton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Overton).
I'm currently working on a rough narrative of the document, the details Powell set forth, and how the thrust of the system is evolving thanks to work like Overton's. It's fascinating.
And very, very well documented.
Addendum: Y'know, if you want to gauge their end game, go to their web site, the one that distributed the comic. There is plenty there to read. Most of it supports law changes or fights for policy that will either appeal to values voters or make business a shit-ton more money. And quite a bit of it was really esoteric stuff about law in process, stuff very, very few average voters care about in the least.
I would be happy to provide clarifying material. I've been collecting it for years.
As to "their end game," it was stated quite plainly in the 1971 document (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_F._Powell_Jr.#Powell_Memorandum) that inspired quite a bit of this activity. The end game: recapturing the country from the leftist forces the memo claims will mean the end of the enterprise system, capitalism, the system of American business (Powell used all of these terms in the memo itself).
Powell himself did not foresee the use of appeals to fringe groups to advance individual political agendas: that innovation was the work of Joe Overton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Overton).
I'm currently working on a rough narrative of the document, the details Powell set forth, and how the thrust of the system is evolving thanks to work like Overton's. It's fascinating.
And very, very well documented.
Addendum: Y'know, if you want to gauge their end game, go to their web site, the one that distributed the comic. There is plenty there to read. Most of it supports law changes or fights for policy that will either appeal to values voters or make business a shit-ton more money. And quite a bit of it was really esoteric stuff about law in process, stuff very, very few average voters care about in the least.
Edited 2017-02-12 03:23 (UTC)
Why did you suddenly omit Bolshevism? The rabbi was also talking about the murderous Bolsheviks that killed 66 million Russians from 1918 to 1957.
The Bolsheviks were Jews. And their politics is what was being assimilated into Germany. This is what the rabbi is pointing out.
That's pretty damn significant point you're glossing over.
The Bolsheviks were Jews. And their politics is what was being assimilated into Germany. This is what the rabbi is pointing out.
That's pretty damn significant point you're glossing over.
Oh, and how is it a Democrat gets vetted to run who does not mention Global Climate Change? That really pisses me off.
Page 7 of 9