Page 78 of 82 FirstFirst ... 2853686970717273747576777879808182 LastLast
Results 1,541 to 1,560 of 1639

Thread: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

  1. #1541

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    And how stopping a part of the 0.2% from using bathrooms would protect women? If someone plans to rape or hit or rob a woman, that "but it is illegal to step there" won't stop him. It is illegal to rape, hit or rob as well and that doesn't seem to stop people from trying.
    Maybe we should remove the "no gun" rule for government buildings? I mean if someone decides to assassinate a politician or a few, surely "no guns" sign won't stop them?
    How about those tax audit laws? Surely if someone cheats on taxes, audits won't stop him.
    I could go on for a while. My point is that such laws are deterrents. Its not about preventing all crimes altogether, just making more difficult to commit them.

  2. #1542

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    I agree with you on toilet laws. Let's be reasonable: If someone wants commit a crime as serious as sexual assault in a bathroom, the threat of a fine won't stop that person.
    In which case what is the rationale for having gendered bathrooms at all?

  3. #1543

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    https://youtu.be/cfmpnGV0IGc?t=375

    Solid summary of where the country is at and where we’re headed. America can’t possibly win the fight for the future against foreign enemies while losing it at home. I’ve included some links below to original documents. These deliberately destructive, radical elements are being forced upon Americans by our own institutions, with the express goal of abolishing things like capitalism, meritocracy, and the traditional American concept of individual rights.

    DHS trains employees to believe that principles of racial equality are in fact racist, and that white Americans are inherently racist and oppressive.

    https://christopherrufo.com/the-smallest-injustice/

    National Nuclear Security Administration sends white male employees to a 3 day training where they are told “white male culture” is analogous to mass killings and forces unfair meritocratic standards on society.

    https://christopherrufo.com/nuclear-consequences/

    Third graders in Cupertino, CA forced to deconstruct their “intersectional identities” and rank themselves by “power and privilege.”

    https://christopherrufo.com/woke-elementary/

    Public school teachers forced to locate themselves on an “oppression matrix,” wherein white, Christian males are part of the “oppressor class,” for which they must atone - told principles of meritocracy and racial equality are racist.

    https://christopherrufo.com/antiraci...the-heartland/

    Philadelphia school children forced to study and celebrate the life of communist activist Angela Davis, and re enact a black power rally simulating a protest of her imprisonment (including posters emblazoned with “Jail Trump” for some reason lol)

    https://christopherrufo.com/bad-education/

    Seattle teachers trained that they are perpetuating white supremacy by teaching “white culture,” thus “murdering the spirits” of non white students, and must “bankrupt their privilege” in order to teach politically correct ideology in the classroom.

    https://christopherrufo.com/seattle-teaching-hate/
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    No, we don't care about your libertarian "evidence".
    “To live without faith, without a heritage to defend, without battling constantly for truth, is not to live but to ‘get along’; we must never just ‘get along’.” - Pier Giorgio Frassati

  4. #1544

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    How could this possibly have happened?


  5. #1545
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    16,611

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    How could this possibly have happened?

    Crazy enough it looks like relations between white and black people worsened significantly between 2013 to 2015.

    That coincides completely with the shootings/deaths of Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner from police officers. Black Lives Matter also started in 2013, in response to Zimmerman being found not guilty in the death of Trayvon Martin.
    Last edited by Vanoi; July 23, 2021 at 12:24 PM.

  6. #1546

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    So... relations worsened because a bunch of criminals got legally shot in self-defense? I don't think this is the point you want to make lol.

  7. #1547
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    16,611

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    So... relations worsened because a bunch of criminals got legally shot in self-defense? I don't think this is the point you want to make lol.
    Talking out of your ass isn't going to help you. Eric Garner wasn't shot in self-defense and Tamir Rice was a 9 year old boy.

    Why did you call Tamir Rice a criminal? What crime did he committ?

  8. #1548

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    You also used Travyon Martin case, where he was shot by a man he was trying to kill. I mean the only objective point one can make is that corporate media is deliberately hyping up racial tensions. Conflicts within the society make money and racial conflicts are the golden goose of the media.

  9. #1549

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    How could this possibly have happened?

    Media sensationalism….





    ….coincided with the creation of a far left radical organization…..
    Quote Originally Posted by BLM Executive Director
    The first thing, I think, is that we actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories.

    https://therealnews.com/pcullors0722blacklives
    Quote Originally Posted by BLM Executive Director
    I think, for me, learning and reading the literature that I was given, and then living the life I was living, and then feeling like, "I have all this language. I know what racism is. I know what capitalism is. I'm living this life. What do I do with it?" I think that was the next phase for me and I was hungry for activism. I didn't know that that's what it was called then, but I was hungry for organizing. I joined, I went to a social justice camp called NCCJ, the National Conference for Community and Justice.

    I went through their youth leadership program and became a youth leader, but it still wasn't enough for me. I was like, "Cool. I'm learning more, but how do I take down local government? How do I transform systems? How do I create new pathways?" That's when I came across the [communist] Labor Community Strategy Center and the Bus Rider's Union, which is a local civil rights organization ran by an old-school [communist] organizer activist from the 60s, 70s, Eric Mann.

    I was organized into the Bus Rider's Union and I spent eleven years there where I really learned my organizing ... was trained as an organizer, base builder, someone that transforms systems. I mean, really that organization gave me my foundation. Then, I went off to start Dignity and Power Now, my local organization that took on the sheriff's department. And then a year later, I would be one of the co-founders of Black Lives Matter.

    https://www.aclu.org/podcast/patriss...es-matter-ep-4
    ….whose mission was originally to propagate a false narrative that blacks are being deliberately killed en masse by police…..

    Black Lives Matter began as a call to action in response to state-sanctioned violence and anti-Black racism. Our intention from the very beginning was to connect Black people from all over the world who have a shared desire for justice to act together in their communities. The impetus for that commitment was, and still is, the rampant and deliberate violence inflicted on us by the state.

    Ferguson helped to catalyze a movement to which we’ve all helped give life. Organizers who call this network home have ousted anti-Black politicians, won critical legislation to benefit Black lives, and changed the terms of the debate on Blackness around the world. Through movement and relationship building, we have also helped catalyze other movements and shifted culture with an eye toward the dangerous impacts of anti-Blackness.

    https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/
    ….based on a debunked myth…..

    'Hands up, don't shoot' ranked one of biggest 'Pinocchios' of 2015

    https://www.politico.com/story/2015/...t-false-216736
    When adjusting for crime, we find no systematic evidence of anti-Black disparities in fatal shootings, fatal shootings of unarmed citizens, or fatal shootings involving misidentification of harmless objects.

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs...48550618775108
    …..and was subsequently bankrolled by the Democrat establishment…..

    Some of the biggest donors on the left plan to meet behind closed doors next week in Washington with leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement and their allies to discuss funding the burgeoning protest movement, POLITICO has learned.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2015/...-matter-215814
    …..and now here we are.
    Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; July 23, 2021 at 01:39 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    No, we don't care about your libertarian "evidence".
    “To live without faith, without a heritage to defend, without battling constantly for truth, is not to live but to ‘get along’; we must never just ‘get along’.” - Pier Giorgio Frassati

  10. #1550
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    16,611

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    You also used Travyon Martin case, where he was shot by a man he was trying to kill. I mean the only objective point one can make is that corporate media is deliberately hyping up racial tensions. Conflicts within the society make money and racial conflicts are the golden goose of the media.
    You mean where Zimmerman was told by the 911 operator to not confront Trayvon but he did anyways, leading to his death? I only mentioned it solely because the Black Lives Matter movement formed out of that.

    Answer the question. Why did you refer to Tamir Rice as a criminal?

  11. #1551

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    Crazy enough it looks like relations between white and black people worsened significantly between 2013 to 2015.

    That coincides completely with the shootings/deaths of Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner from police officers. Black Lives Matter also started in 2013, in response to Zimmerman being found not guilty in the death of Trayvon Martin.
    It is certainly true that these cases were used as emotional bait for the establishment's culture war. Significant numbers of Americans (particularly liberals) now grossly over estimate the number of unarmed black men killed by police.
    Last edited by Cope; July 23, 2021 at 01:47 PM.

  12. #1552

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    You mean where Zimmerman was told by the 911 operator to not confront Trayvon but he did anyways, leading to his death? I only mentioned it solely because the Black Lives Matter movement formed out of that.
    Are you saying Zimmerman deserved to die because he left his vehicle?
    And groups like KKK or BLM are basically two sides of the same coin, government honeypots that only exist to distract the public from the common enemy that are the ruling corporate elites.

  13. #1553

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    I wonder why so many people are uncomfortable with Marxian ideas/theories being treated as useful, if not enlightened, in educational institutions. It's not as if attempted applications of said ideas are associated with any negative outcomes.
    I'm sorry...do you hold Karl Marx responsible for the atrocities committed by Communist governments? That makes about as much sense as blaming Friedrich Nietzsche for the Holocaust or Adam Smith for child sweat shops; that is to say, incredibly ridiculous. Like it or not, Marx was an actual academic who contributed valid concepts to the fields he worked in, mostly Sociology, in a way I compared to Sigmund Freud's contributions to Psychology. And, to be clear, Critical Theory did not JUST come from Marx's works, Immanuel Kant had significant influence as well along with other academics of the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The perception of “weirdo” as a buzzword was implied. It was the central semantic criticism offered of post #1443. The subsequent mention of buzzwords can only be in reference to it.
    Then you would think I would have said as such in the criticism directed at the post, which I didn't. I accurately described it as a vacuous platitude. Then, while speaking to you, not the poster or the post, I used the term "buzzwords" as I figured you agreed (you do) and buzzwords are frequently used as vacuous platitudes. Like, wtf are you even doing? 'Buzzword' isn't all that far off from the original critique; the main difference being the frequency in the word's usage in broader society. The poster did weaken his post through his use of rhetoric, I pointed it out in a critique, he agreed and even repped me, and now you are playing some kind of strange "gotcha" game that no one really cares about. God only knows what you think you are proving with all of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    At least there’s a tacit acknowledgement that conflating all Trump supporters with the radical right is poor form, even if comes with the usual fabricated accusation of hypocrisy.
    I have never said anything to the contrary, of course conflating all Trump supporters with the radical right is poor form. And, of course it will come with an accusation of hypocrisy as you will decry the "abuse" that Trump supporters get while being content or even supporting conflating "opposing" groups as being extremists, such as BLM or the Democratic party at large, both massive organizations. See, I can actually decry extremism from all sides (by say, condemning rioting done during BLM riots or challenging Leftists on their insanity) because I decided not to commit myself to being a partisan hack.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    It isn’t controversial to consider the successor ideology radical. I doubt even its acolytes would deny it, considering how obsessed they are with “systemic” change.
    So, from all my political experience, "successor ideology" isn't a thing people actually identify with and is likely something you just want to catch on so you can swing it like a cudgel at your perceived enemies. We can go down the whole "radicals" path if you like; but unless you have had a change of heart about, say, the Founding Fathers of the USA (you know, Radicals) or the move from monarchies to representative democracies, I am going to guess you don't actually have a problem with "radicals" or radicalism and instead think you can use it to get your "acolyte" jabs in. As I said, there is nothing wrong with Radicals inherently, I just have a problem with harmful political extremists. Though, if you would like to go on the record of calling the Patriots during the American Revolution "acolytes", I would be all ears.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The dismissal of inconvenient empirical data is to be expected, even as senior liberals rush to distance the party from the defundists. Of course, some can always be counted on to s* the bed:
    Wut? I haven't dismissed any data, I have dismissed your incredibly biased and agenda-driven interpretation of data. Look, if you want to be a hack propagandist, that's on you, all I can do is recommend people to not fall for your partisan proselytizing and look at the broader crime trends.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Furthermore, I addressed the long-term trend by noting that it serves primarily as evidence that policing in America was working prior to the lib/left histrionics of last summer (which are almost certainly responsible, at least in part, for the significant uptick in violent crime since then).
    The reasons for the fall in the crime rate post 90s are multifaceted, but to quote the article I just linked:
    What Caused the Crime Decline? examines one of the nation’s least understood recent phenomena – the dramatic decline in crime nationwide over the past two decades – and analyzes various theories for why it occurred, by reviewing more than 40 years of data from all 50 states and the 50 largest cities. It concludes that over-harsh criminal justice policies, particularly increased incarceration, which rose even more dramatically over the same period, were not the main drivers of the crime decline. In fact, the report finds that increased incarceration has been declining in its effectiveness as a crime control tactic for more than 30 years. Its effect on crime rates since 1990 has been limited, and has been non-existent since 2000.
    Last edited by The spartan; July 23, 2021 at 05:18 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  14. #1554

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    I'm sorry...do you hold Karl Marx responsible for the atrocities committed by Communist governments? That makes about as much sense as blaming Friedrich Nietzsche for the Holocaust or Adam Smith for child sweat shops; that is to say, incredibly ridiculous. Like it or not, Marx was an actual academic who contributed valid concepts to the fields he worked in, mostly Sociology, in a way I compared to Sigmund Freud's contributions to Psychology. And, to be clear, Critical Theory did not JUST come from Marx's works, Immanuel Kant had significant influence as well along with other academics of the time.
    I hold Marxian theories/ideas (and those who propagate them) responsible. The path to utopia is invariably strewn with blood – just as the Communist Manifesto demands.

    Then you would think I would have said as such in the criticism directed at the post, which I didn't. I accurately described it as a vacuous platitude. Then, while speaking to you, not the poster or the post, I used the term "buzzwords" as I figured you agreed (you do) and buzzwords are frequently used as vacuous platitudes. Like, wtf are you even doing? 'Buzzword' isn't all that far off from the original critique; the main difference being the frequency in the word's usage in broader society. The poster did weaken his post through his use of rhetoric, I pointed it out in a critique, he agreed and even repped me, and now you are playing some kind of strange "gotcha" game that no one really cares about. God only knows what you think you are proving with all of this.
    This seems to be a concession that the term “weirdo” was in fact being characterized as a buzzword.

    I have never said anything to the contrary, of course conflating all Trump supporters with the radical right is poor form. And, of course it will come with an accusation of hypocrisy as you will decry the "abuse" that Trump supporters get while being content or even supporting conflating "opposing" groups as being extremists, such as BLM or the Democratic party at large, both massive organizations. See, I can actually decry extremism from all sides (by say, condemning rioting done during BLM riots or challenging Leftists on their insanity) because I decided not to commit myself to being a partisan hack.

    So, from all my political experience, "successor ideology" isn't a thing people actually identify with and is likely something you just want to catch on so you can swing it like a cudgel at your perceived enemies. We can go down the whole "radicals" path if you like; but unless you have had a change of heart about, say, the Founding Fathers of the USA (you know, Radicals) or the move from monarchies to representative democracies, I am going to guess you don't actually have a problem with "radicals" or radicalism and instead think you can use it to get your "acolyte" jabs in. As I said, there is nothing wrong with Radicals inherently, I just have a problem with harmful political extremists. Though, if you would like to go on the record of calling the Patriots during the American Revolution "acolytes", I would be all ears.
    So, I’m a hack for allegedly generalizing all my opponents as “extremists”, and a hack for narrowly defining said extremists (i.e. acolytes of the successor ideology). As a famous man once said: sigh.

    Of course, one might have cause to be “radical” if his oppression was actual rather than imagined. Somehow neo-Marxist culture warriors just aren’t as impressive as the founders they despise.

    Wut? I haven't dismissed any data, I have dismissed your incredibly biased and agenda-driven interpretation of data. Look, if you want to be a hack propagandist, that's on you, all I can do is recommend people to not fall for your partisan proselytizing and look at the broader crime trends.
    Data was presented showing a 25% increase in homicides in 2020 (~5000 more than in 2019). This is the largest increase in homicides in a single year since national crime statistics were first published in the 1960’s.

    This data was dismissed as irrelevant because it did not match broader trends, despite it being raised to highlight the correlation between the race riots/defundist rhetoric and an increase in violent crime/homicides. The most significant spike in killings coincided with the start of the Floyd demonstrations.

    That said, homicides rates in 2020 exceeded previous rates throughout the entire year and there was a structural break in the city average in June, indicating a large, statistically significant increase in rates after adjusting for seasonality and the longer-term trend. After this break, homicide rates increased sharply through July, then declined through the end of the year, though not to levels observed in the prior year.

    https://build.neoninspire.com/counci...e_Designed.pdf
    The reasons for the fall in the crime rate post 90s are multifaceted, but to quote the article I just linked:
    Policing and sentencing are different. Police officers do not hand down prison terms. The evidence shows that crimes rates are inversely proportional to police funding – hence the inherent anti-intellectualism of the defundists.

    First, the good: Though the crime bill was not responsible for the entire drop in crime, it likely helped — not by locking people up, but by putting more cops on the street, studies show. It provided funding for 100,000 new police officers and $14 billion in grants for community-oriented policing, for example. From 1990 to 1999, the number of police officers rose 28 percent, from 699,000 to 899,000, partly funded by the crime bill.

    https://www.brennancenter.org/our-wo...994-crime-bill
    Last edited by Cope; July 24, 2021 at 09:19 AM.

  15. #1555

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    I hold Marxian theories/ideas (and those who propagate them) responsible. The path to utopia is invariably strewn with blood – just as the Communist Manifesto demands.
    That's really weird. Again, you may as well blame Nietzsche for the Holocaust and Adam Smith of child sweat shops. Or perhaps you just bought wholesale into red scare rhetoric to the point that you have no idea who Marx was or what he did. Enjoy your anti-intellectualism, I guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    This seems to be a concession that the term “weirdo” was in fact being characterized as a buzzword.
    You know, one would think that if anyone would be capable of feeling shame, it would be devout Christians.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    So, I’m a hack for allegedly generalizing all my opponents as “extremists”, and a hack for narrowly defining said extremists (i.e. acolytes of the successor ideology). As a famous man once said: sigh.
    I don't think you narrowly defined anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Of course, one might have cause to be “radical” if his oppression was actual rather than imagined. Somehow neo-Marxist culture warriors just aren’t as impressive as the founders they despise.
    Oh? And during the revolutionary war Americans just knew the oppression was real and didn't disagree on what was reasonable and what wasn't? You are aware that those Radical Liberals even went so far as to attack Conservatives, yes? Who needs principles when you can just be a 20/20 hindsight warrior.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Data was presented showing a 25% increase in homicides in 2020 (~5000 more than in 2019). This is the largest increase in homicides in a single year since national crime statistics were first published in the 1960’s.
    So let's say you have the number 100 and you add 5 to it. That's a 5% increase. Now let's say you have the number 10 and you add 5 to it. That's a 50% increase. Not making any point here, I just really like math.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    This data was dismissed as irrelevant because it did not match broader trends, despite it being raised to highlight the correlation between the race riots/defundist rhetoric and an increase in violent crime/homicides. The most significant spike in killings coincided with the start of the Floyd demonstrations.
    No data was dismissed. You are lying again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Policing and sentencing are different. Police officers do not hand down prison terms. The evidence shows that crimes rates are inversely proportional to police funding – hence the inherent anti-intellectualism of the defundists.
    You really could just read the report in the article, I doubt you will find yourself agreeing with it, much:
    The report concludes that considering the immense social, fiscal, and economic costs of mass incarceration, programs that improve economic opportunities, modernize policing practices, and expand treatment and rehabilitation programs, all could be a better public safety investment.
    It's also very bizarre to see you wield "anti-intellectualism" as an insult when you have, more or less, dismissed modern understanding of Sociology because Karl Marx has a scary name (as if he was even the only one involved).
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  16. #1556

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    That's really weird. Again, you may as well blame Nietzsche for the Holocaust and Adam Smith of child sweat shops. Or perhaps you just bought wholesale into red scare rhetoric to the point that you have no idea who Marx was or what he did. Enjoy your anti-intellectualism, I guess.
    It shouldn’t be too difficult to draw a line between Marxism and Marxists. Some essential reading.

    I don't think you narrowly defined anything.
    By political standards, it is a reasonably narrow definition.

    Oh? And during the revolutionary war Americans just knew the oppression was real and didn't disagree on what was reasonable and what wasn't? You are aware that those Radical Liberals even went so far as to attack Conservatives, yes? Who needs principles when you can just be a 20/20 hindsight warrior.
    Hindsight is precisely what informs contemporary distrust of Marxists/neo-Marxists. Personally, I’d rather avoid another failed experiment, even if America seems insistent on trying.

    So let's say you have the number 100 and you add 5 to it. That's a 5% increase. Now let's say you have the number 10 and you add 5 to it. That's a 50% increase. Not making any point here, I just really like math.
    The real increase in homicides was provided above (~5000 more compared to 2019). These killings disproportionately affected poorer, minority communities – the very areas that BLM activists purport to be representing.

    No data was dismissed. You are lying again.
    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    As with in 2016, crime fear mongers cried wolf too many times. If every year-to-year uptick is proof for a new analysis, then that analysis is probably worthless. Better luck next time.
    You really could just read the report in the article, I doubt you will find yourself agreeing with it, much
    The remarks I just cited regarding police funding/numbers came from a co-author of said report. Her comments refer to information found on pp. 41-43.

    It's also very bizarre to see you wield "anti-intellectualism" as an insult when you have, more or less, dismissed modern understanding of Sociology because Karl Marx has a scary name (as if he was even the only one involved).
    I dare say both that my opposition to Marxism is more than superficial (i.e. based on a scary name) and that modern sociology extends somewhat beyond Marxism.

    At the same time, American sociology faculties have become unrepresentative, ideological hug boxes where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by forty to one. Little wonder then that interest in far-left solutions among the white intelligentsia is becoming more than flirtatious.
    Last edited by Cope; July 24, 2021 at 01:40 PM.

  17. #1557
    Ludicus's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    11,988

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by enoch View Post
    Those monkeys from those African countries - Ronald Reagan

    Was his racism... a problem in his work?
    Obviously.The author,Tim Naftaly is a clinical associate professor of history at NYU. The first director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum.
    Ronald Reagan's Racist Conversation With Richard Nixon -The Atlantic ...


    The day after the United Nations voted to recognize the People’s Republic of China, then–California Governor Ronald Reagan phoned President Richard Nixon at the White House and vented his frustration at the delegates who had sided against the United States. “Last night, I tell you, to watch that thing on television as I did,” Reagan said. “Yeah,” Nixon interjected. Reagan forged ahead with his complaint: “To see those, those monkeys from those African countries—damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!”.

    This October 1971 exchange between current and future presidents is a reminder that other presidents have subscribed to the racist belief that Africans or African Americans are somehow inferior.

    The exchange was taped by Nixon, and then later became the responsibility of the Nixon Presidential Library, which I directed from 2007 to 2011.

    ...Had the story stopped there, it would have been bad enough. Racist venting is still racist.

    But what happened next showed the dynamic power of racism when it finds enablers. Nixon used Reagan’s call as an excuse to adapt his language to make the same point to others. Right after hanging up with Reagan, Nixon sought out Secretary of State William Rogers.

    Even though Reagan had called Nixon to press him to withdraw from the United Nations, in Nixon’s telling, Reagan’s complaints about Africans became the primary purpose of the call.
    “As you can imagine,” Nixon confided in Rogers, “there’s strong feeling that we just shouldn’t, as [Reagan] said, he saw these, as he said, he saw these—” Nixon stammered, choosing his words carefully—“these, uh, these cannibals on television last night, and he says, ‘Christ, they weren’t even wearing shoes, and here the United States is going to submit its fate to that,’ and so forth and so on.”

    Nixon couldn’t stop retelling his version of what Reagan had said. Oddly unfocused, he spoke with Rogers again two hours later and repeated the story as if it would be new to the secretary.

    Reagan called me last night,” Nixon said, “and I didn’t talk to him until this morning, but he is, of course, outraged. And I found out what outraged him, and I find this is typical of a lot of people: They saw it on television and, he said, ‘These cannibals jumping up and down and all that.’ And apparently it was a pretty grotesque picture.” Like Nixon, Rogers had not seen the televised images. But Rogers agreed: “Apparently, it was a terrible scene.” Nixon added, “And they cheered.

    Then Nixon said, “He practically got sick at his stomach, and that’s why he called. And he said, ‘It was a terrible scene.’ And that sort of thing will have an emotional effect on people … as [Reagan] said, ‘This bunch of people who don’t even wear shoes yet, to be kicking the United States in the teeth’ … It was a terrible thing, they thought.”

    Nixon didn’t think of himself as a racist; perhaps that’s why it was so important to him to keep quoting Reagan’s racism, rather than own the sentiment himself. But Reagan’s comment about African leaders resonated with Nixon, because it reflected his warped thinking about African Americans.

    In the fall of 1971, the Nixon administration was engaged in a massive welfare-reform effort, and was also facing school busing. These two issues apparently inspired Nixon to examine more deeply his own thinking on whether African Americans could make it in American society.

    Only three weeks before the call with Reagan, Nixon had revealed his opinions on Africans and African Americans in a conversation with the Harvard professor Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who had briefly served in the Nixon administration.

    Nixon was attracted to the theories of Richard Herrnstein and Arthur Jensen, which linked IQ to race, and wondered what Moynihan thought.

    “I have reluctantly concluded, based at least on the evidence presently before me … that what Herrnstein says, and what was said earlier by Jensen, is probably … very close to the truth,”

    Nixon explained to a quiet Moynihan. Nixon believed in a hierarchy of races, with whites and Asians much higher up than people of African descent and Latinos.

    And he had convinced himself that it wasn’t racist to think black people, as a group, were inferior to whites, so long as he held them in paternalistic regard.

    Nixon’s analysis of African leadership reflected his prejudice toward America’s black citizens.

    This is, at least, what he told Moynihan. “Have in mind one fact: Did you realize there is not, of the 40 or 45—you’re at the United Nations—black countries that are represented there, not one has a president or a prime minister who is there as a result of a contested election such as we were insisting upon in Vietnam?” And, he continued, a little later in the conversation: “I’m not saying that blacks cannot govern; I am saying they have a hell of a time. Now, that must demonstrate something.”

    Fifty years later, the one fact that we should have in mind is that our nation’s chief executive assumed that the nonwhite citizens of the United States were somehow inferior. Nixon confided in Moynihan, who had been one of his house intellectuals, about the nature of his interest in research on African American intelligence: “The reason I have to know it is that as I go for programs, I must know that they have basic weaknesses.”

    As these and other tapes make clear, the 37th president of the United States was a racist: He believed in treating people according to their race, and that race implied fundamental differences in individual human beings. Nixon’s racism matters to us because he allowed his views on race to shape U.S. policies—both foreign and domestic. His policies need to be viewed through that lens.


    ...His comment on African leaders, however, sheds new light on what lay behind the governor’s passionate defense of the apartheid states of Rhodesia and South Africa later in the 1970s.

    During his 1976 primary-challenge run against Gerald Ford, Reagan publicly opposed the Ford administration’s rejection of white-minority rule in Rhodesia.

    These new tapes are a stark reminder of the racism that often lay behind the public rhetoric of American presidents.

    As I write a biography of JFK, I’ve found that this sort of racism did not animate President Kennedy—indeed, early on he took political risks to help African leaders, most notably Gamal Abdel Nasser and Kwame Nkrumah.

    But his reluctance to do more, sooner for African Americans cannot be separated from the paternalism he brought to the Oval Office or the prejudice held by parts of his Boston inner circle.
    Kennedy, at least, learned on the job that securing civil rights for all was a moral imperative.

    Donald Trump, on the other hand, is a symptom of a sickness that dwells in American society, sometimes deeply and weakly, sometimes on the surface and feverishly...it remains an ineluctable part of American culture, nonetheless.

    Nixon never changed his mind about the supposed inherent inferiority of Africans.

    At the end of October 1971, he discussed the UN vote with his best friend, Bebe Rebozo. Bebe delighted Nixon by echoing Reagan: “That reaction on television was, it proves how they ought to be still hanging from the trees by their tails.” Nixon laughed.

    These days, though Trump’s imagery is less zoological, it is pretty much the same in spirit. And this president, unlike Nixon, doesn’t believe he needs to hide behind anyone else’s racism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thesaurian View Post
    Of course, because Reagan telling Nixon a racist joke 50 years ago (from which fantasies of premeditated hate crime/murder are conspicuously absent) is totally relevant .
    First,it wasn’t a joke, read above. Second, it is not relevant for those like you who refuse to accept the existence of the structural factors that cause racial disparities, the structural racism in their own country- usually apologists of the white supremacy.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  18. #1558

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Man born in 1911 held some racist attitudes.

    More news at ten.

  19. #1559
    Ludicus's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    11,988

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Marx was an actual academic who contributed valid concepts to the fields he worked in
    Indeed.In fact, the old capitalism was masterfully described by Karl Marx, in language accessible to ordinary mortals,even reactionary neoliberals.
    Simply put, the new means of production, the Industrial Revolution, the new forms of labor generated two antagonistic classes: those who accumulated capital and those who produced value through labor on raw material, the proletariat.
    About 150 years later, the accumulation of capital has been transformed into rents, that is, money produced by immovable property, which does nothing for the development of society, but which adds a lot to the power of those who own it. Alongside the old capitalism, there is the new capitalism and this is the one that is based on the financial world. Lehman Brothers is an example of post-capitalism.Much of capital, for example, lives on this.
    And, above all, the great leap that there has been in money yielding for its own sake. The ancients called it "usury", the moderns call it "the financial area". Aristotle said in the Politics, "Interest, however, is money for money, so that of all crematistics this is the most contrary to nature." (PDF) Chrematistic Deviations - ResearchGate
    And Martin Luther, much later, in 1519, went further, In his “Treatise On Usury”: "The pagans could calculate by reason that a usurer is a fourfold thief and murderer. We Christians, however, hold them in such honor that we almost worship them for their money..."
    Pope Francis has also followed that thought. Pope Francis: 'Usury humiliates and kills' - Vatican News
    -----
    In fact, the exploitation of labor leads to human exhaustion: it is the search for work at the lowest price, facilitated by modern means of transportation, without the need to travel to the old/ex-colonies to look for work at low cost.
    It is the same as in China: intense exploitation of labor and accumulation of capital either by the state or by individual companies and capitalists. The new capitalism is based on the financial world and whose mechanism is the new computerized means of circulation. In 1928 it was the stock market that determined the crisis, and a few years later the war. In 2008, the crisis also began in the financial world, starting with the Lehman Brothers bank, and threw millions of people around the world into misery and poverty.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  20. #1560

    Default Re: The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

    Marx's ideas don't really have any inherent academic value. One can study them as a thought experiment, and study marxism itself as an example of cult-like political movements, but that's pretty much it.
    And even if they did they were designed with 1800s industrial Europe in mind and bear no relevancy to modern post-industrial society.
    Reason why people still embrace it is not because its "just", but mainly because people that do have low critical thinking ability or just are sociopath types that "want to see the world burn"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •