Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Would You Like A Warranty With Your Magic Beans?


Jace, Extat

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Vetrani Weekić said:

Einstein's brilliance in astrophysics is your argument as the potential value of racists in solving social, economic, and political issues? Not in the least bit relevant to the point I was making.

No... seriously, that's what you got from that? I just thought it was a funny coincidence since the article literally just came out and thought it'd be interesting news to people in the thread . Your post was just  appropriate satirical framework for it . Wasn't even attempting to address it .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Vin said:

No... seriously, that's what you got from that? I just thought it was a funny coincidence since the article literally just came out and thought it'd be interesting news to people in the thread . Your post was just  appropriate satirical framework for it . Wasn't even attempting to address it .

I was reading in the context of the point I was making -- typically that's how a back-and-forth would work. Throwing out an article that is obliquely related (only if you're confused) is not helpful or interesting.

The article is not particularly interesting on its own either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Vin said:

Don't be so sure  cause apparently racists can be Genius and have marvelous ideas .

Edit : hyphyper link not working :(

here https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/science-environment-44472277

edit 2 : now it bloody works 

What's your point? The quotes are from 1922 and 23. How about the end of the story?

Quote

The Jewish scientist described racism as "a disease of white people" in a 1946 speech at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania - the first university in the US to award degrees to black people.

Sounds like a dramatic change and self-awareness between 23 and 46.

You, on the other hand, just said

Quote

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vetrani Weekić said:

I was reading in the context of the point I was making -- typically that's how a back-and-forth would work. Throwing out an article that is obliquely related (only if you're confused) is not helpful or interesting.

The article is not particularly interesting on its own either. 

I thought it was amusing . Sorry you didn't .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

What's your point? The quotes are from 1922 and 23. How about the end of the story?

Sounds like a dramatic change and self-awareness between 23 and 46.

You, on the other hand, just said


 

 

22 minutes ago, Vin said:

No... seriously, that's what you got from that? I just thought it was a funny coincidence since the article literally just came out and thought it'd be interesting news to people in the thread . Your post was just  appropriate satirical framework for it . Wasn't even attempting to address it .

Not sure why you're trying to find some hidden agenda , I just thought the timing was a funny coincidence and that the article was interesting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vin said:

You mean AT&T and time Warner right ? That's the big one anyway and yeah it just got green lit . There's a general move towards making bigger cable bundles which I I think is somewhat attempting to fight back against streaming services . 

 

BTW what do you people think about the vote to split California into 3 states ?

Several telecom companies here in Europe are expanding into media and broadcasting too. 

As far as I know the main reason is not so much related to fighting back against streaming as it is to the telecom companies trying to increase their customer retention via the bundlings you touched upon. 

The usual network services these companies offer right now are the same shit more or less, meaning that customers are prone to switch between different providers based on who offers the lowest price. This subsequently drives down the margins for that entire industry. If they can instead package these services together with accesses to their own TV channels and the like they might be able to make themselves more unique, and thus create greater lock-in effects among their customers.  

I wouldn't read too much into it in terms of general corporate consolidation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Vin said:

Don't be so sure  cause apparently racists can be Genius and have marvelous ideas .

Edit : hyphyper link not working :(

here https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/science-environment-44472277

edit 2 : now it bloody works 

Let's try again.

The quotes from Einstein are from 1922 and 1923, a time I think most people consider pretty unenlightened. Gandhi was saying nasty things about Africans at the same time.

But it's like you didn't even bother reading to the bottom of the article. 

Quote

Einstein would later in life advocate for civil rights in the US, calling racism "a disease of white people".

And you just said

Quote

I feel bad that the effects of slavery can still be felt today but to say that I as a white person am somehow complicit and guilty in that by virtue of simply being white is ludicrous.

You aren't even living in 1946 yet.

 

eta: thunderstorm here doing weird things to my internet, showed my post was lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fragile Bird said:

Let's try again.

The quotes from Einstein are from 1922 and 1923, a time I think most people consider pretty unenlightened. Gandhi was saying nasty things about Africans at the same time.

But it's like you didn't even bother reading to the bottom of the article. 

And you just said

You aren't even living in 1946 yet.

Now THAT is amusing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vetrani Weekić said:

New states can only be created with the consent of Congress - that's a non-starter for the immediate future.

Revisionist History's first ep this season is about splitting Texas into 5 states. I've been meaning to read more into it and this will be a good reminder to do so now -- http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/21-divide-and-conquer

That was an interesting episode, with all the nitpicking on the grammar and mentioning West-Virginia; but ignoring that West-Virginia was created in the territory of a CSA state, and as such wasn't actually covered by the US constitution; and ignoring the perfectly fine legal precedence of Maine existing as a state.

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Listening to NPR, there are a lot of major corporate mergers going on right now, and it makes me wonder how long will it take for there to be three to five companies that own everything, and furthermore, how long will it take for these companies to be bigger, wealthier and ultimately stronger than major nations?

Of course the situation has changed over the centuries, but I doubt there is enough profit in it. The last companies I am aware of to amass this level of power went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by their respective governments (Dutch and British East India companies). I don't think the Hudson's Bay company ever got the same level of power.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Several telecom companies here in Europe are expanding into media and broadcasting too. 

As far as I know the main reason is not so much related to fighting back against streaming as it is to Telecom companies trying to increase their customer retention via the bundlings you touched upon. 

The usual network services these companies offer right now are the same shit more or less, meaning that customers are prone to switch between different providers based on who offers the lowest price. This subsequently drives down the margins for that entire industry. If they can instead package these services together with accesses to their own TV channels and the like they figure that they will be able to make themselves more unique, and thus create "lock- in" effects among their customers.  

I wouldn't read too much into it in terms of general corporate consolidation. 

That makes sense but if you ask me I don't think it's gonna give that much of an edge .it's actually quite obvious in their advertising campaigns now that I think about it . 

Yeah , this is definitely not a scary monopoly.

2 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Let's try again.

The quotes from Einstein are from 1922 and 1923, a time I think most people consider pretty unenlightened. Gandhi was saying nasty things about Africans at the same time.

But it's like you didn't even bother reading to the bottom of the article. 

And you just said

You aren't even living in 1946 yet.

 

eta: thunderstorm here doing weird things to my internet

I thought an article was interesting,. Does that mean I should agree with it ? 

You want me to feel guilty. I don't . We've been over this , you can enjoy all the guilt you want just don't try to force it on me .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Vin said:

You want me to feel guilty. I don't . We've been over this , you can enjoy all the guilt you want just don't try to force it on me .

Personally, I do not care how you feel -- guilt, amusement, confusion, apoplexy, whatever -- none of that changes the fact that America is built on institutional racism based in white supremacy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Vetrani Weekić said:

Personally, I do not care how you feel -- guilt, amusement, confusion, apoplexy, whatever -- none of that changes the fact that America is built on institutional racism based in white supremacy. 

You can push that narrative but I don't have to buy it .

Agree to disagree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apropos of this whole discussion about racism.

Today when I was reading comments on news stories about Trump starting a trade war with Canada, I ran across just a gem of a comment from an American. 

"Those snow monkeys have to be taught a lesson".

Now, this person did not mention who they voted for, but I rather doubt it was Hilary Clinton.

And I don't think he used "snow monkeys" because he couldn't spell "polar bear".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anti-racism, like other crucial political concepts, such as liberty, is capable of a variety of definitions. Just as Isaiah Berlin divided liberty into positive and negative liberty, so we might divide anti-racism into two opposing forms.

One we can call conservative anti-racism. This is the more restrictive definition. Conservative anti-racism denies the claim that some races or ethnic groups are superior to others and that the superior groups have the right to treat individuals belonging to the inferior groups in a way they would acknowledge as immoral if the individuals were part of their own group.

Progressive anti-racism defines racism much more broadly, and affirms that any preference for one own’s race or ethnic group is deeply immoral. Clearly this differs from the first definition, because I can clearly prefer some individuals to others without behaving immorally towards the ones I do not prefer.

In practical terms we can see this difference between conservative anti-racism and progressive anti-racism in the differing attitudes conservatives and progressives tend to take on the question of whether it is racist to express ethnic self-interest in immigration policy. In short conservatives do not tend to think expressing ethnic self-interest in immigration policy is racist, but a majority of progressives do (although there is a complication here, as we shall see).

Ethnic self-interest is expressed in immigration policy where members of one ethnic group support the immigration of members of their own ethnic group, or oppose the immigration of members of different ethnic groups, with a view to increasing or maintaining their own ethnic group’s share of the overall population of the country in question.

A study by the University of Birkbeck (London), conducted shortly after the triumph of Trump, revealed the following about the attitudes of Trump and Clinton voters on the racism of ethnic self-interest as expressed in immigration policy.

The survey found that 73% of white Clinton voters said white Americans who wanted to reduce immigration to preserve their group’s share of the population were racist, compared to 11% of white Trump voters.

So, a majority of white Americans clearly don’t think what I’ve labelled progressive anti-racism is true, but a majority of Clinton supporters do, and a small minority of Trump supporters agree.

This, I would suggest, is the essential intellectual divide between progressives and conservatives. Progressives define racism broadly, as the expression of any preference to live among one’s own ethnic group and to thereby ensure continuity of a community’s culture and institutions (or even the maintenance of the ‘privilege’ cultural Marxists claim ethnic majorities always enjoy) while conservatives define it more narrowly.

Although, it has to be said, this is not quite the true statement of the progressive view. The same survey, by the University of Birkbeck, highlighted that only 18% of white Clinton voters thought that a Latino or Asian American who wants to boost, via immigration, their own ethnic group’s share of the population is being racist. In other words, ethnic self-interest, as defined above, is not actually objected to per se by most progressives.

Specifically then, progressive anti-racism differs from conservative anti-racism because it adheres to the claim that any attempt by certain majority ethnic groups to maintain their majority status, via immigration policy (or any other sort of policy) is racist. However, if and when the ethnic majority has become a minority the progressive will likely shift to claiming that the dominant ethnic group, dominant that is in virtue of economic or cultural strength, as opposed to raw demographic weight, still has no right to an ethnically self-interested immigration policy, while all the ethnic groups still defined as oppressed or disadvantaged do. In short progressive anti-racism ultimately bottoms out on the neo-marxist view that western nations are racist patriarchies, inherently oppressive, an analysis leavened no doubt by theories of intersectionality and all the rest of it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Anti-racism, like other crucial political concepts, such as liberty, is capable of a variety of definitions. Just as Isaiah Berlin divided liberty into positive and negative liberty, so we might divide anti-racism into two opposing forms.

One we can call conservative anti-racism. This is the more restrictive definition. Conservative anti-racism denies the claim that some races or ethnic groups are superior to others and that the superior groups have the right to treat individuals belonging to the inferior groups in a way they would acknowledge as immoral if the individuals were part of their own group.

Progressive anti-racism defines racism much more broadly, and affirms that any preference for one own’s race or ethnic group is deeply immoral. Clearly this differs from the first definition, because I can clearly prefer some individuals to others without behaving immorally towards the ones I do not prefer.

In practical terms we can see this difference between conservative anti-racism and progressive racism in the differing attitudes conservatives and progressives tend to take on the question of whether it is racist to express ethnic self-interest in immigration policy. In short conservatives do not tend to think expressing ethnic self-interest in immigration policy is racist, but a majority of progressives do (although there is a complication here, as we shall see).

Ethnic self-interest is expressed in immigration policy where members of one ethnic group support the immigration of members of their own ethnic group, or oppose the immigration of members of different ethnic groups, with a view to increasing or maintaining their own ethnic group’s share of the overall population of the country in question.

A study by the University of Birkbeck (London), conducted shortly after the triumph of Trump, revealed the following about the attitudes of Trump and Clinton voters on the racism of ethnic self-interest as expressed in immigration policy.

The survey found that 73% of white Clinton voters said white Americans who wanted to reduce immigration to preserve their group’s share of the population were racist, compared to 11% of white Trump voters.

So, a majority of white Americans clearly don’t think what I’ve labelled progressive anti-racism is true, but a majority of Clinton supporters do, and a small minority of Trump supporters agree.

This, I would suggest, is the essential intellectual divide between progressives and conservatives. Progressives define racism broadly, as the expression of any preference to live among one’s own ethnic group and to thereby ensure continuity of a community’s culture and institutions (or even the maintenance of the ‘privilege’ cultural Marxists claim ethnic majorities always enjoy) while conservatives define it more narrowly.

Although, it has to be said, this is not quite the true statement of the progressive view. The same survey, by the University of Birkbeck, highlighted that only 18% of white Clinton voters thought that a Latino or Asian American who wants to boost, via immigration, their own ethnic group’s share of the population is being racist. In other words, ethnic self-interest, as defined above, is not actually objected to per se by most progressives.

Specifically then, progressive anti-racism differs from conservative anti-racism because it adheres to the claim that any attempt by certain majority ethnic group to maintain their majority status, via immigration policy (or any other sort of policy) is racist. However, if and when the ethnic majority has become a minority the progressive will likely shift to claiming that the dominant ethnic group, dominant that is in virtue of economic or cultural strength, as opposed to raw demographic weight, still has no right to an ethnically self-interested immigration policy, while all the ethnic groups still defined as oppressed or disadvantaged do. In short progressive anti-racism ultimately bottoms out on the neo-marxist view that western nations are racist patriarchies, inherently oppressive, an analysis leavened no doubt by theories of intersectionality and all the rest of it. 

 

There aren't any anti racist conservatives. This is a lot of word salad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Anti-racism, like other crucial political concepts, such as liberty, is capable of a variety of definitions. Just as Isaiah Berlin divided liberty into positive and negative liberty, so we might divide anti-racism into two opposing forms.

One we can call conservative anti-racism. This is the more restrictive definition. Conservative anti-racism denies the claim that some races or ethnic groups are superior to others and that the superior groups have the right to treat individuals belonging to the inferior groups in a way they would acknowledge as immoral if the individuals were part of their own group.

Progressive anti-racism defines racism much more broadly, and affirms that any preference for one own’s race or ethnic group is deeply immoral. Clearly this differs from the first definition, because I can clearly prefer some individuals to others without behaving immorally towards the ones I do not prefer.

In practical terms we can see this difference between conservative anti-racism and progressive anti-racism in the differing attitudes conservatives and progressives tend to take on the question of whether it is racist to express ethnic self-interest in immigration policy. In short conservatives do not tend to think expressing ethnic self-interest in immigration policy is racist, but a majority of progressives do (although there is a complication here, as we shall see).

Ethnic self-interest is expressed in immigration policy where members of one ethnic group support the immigration of members of their own ethnic group, or oppose the immigration of members of different ethnic groups, with a view to increasing or maintaining their own ethnic group’s share of the overall population of the country in question.

A study by the University of Birkbeck (London), conducted shortly after the triumph of Trump, revealed the following about the attitudes of Trump and Clinton voters on the racism of ethnic self-interest as expressed in immigration policy.

The survey found that 73% of white Clinton voters said white Americans who wanted to reduce immigration to preserve their group’s share of the population were racist, compared to 11% of white Trump voters.

So, a majority of white Americans clearly don’t think what I’ve labelled progressive anti-racism is true, but a majority of Clinton supporters do, and a small minority of Trump supporters agree.

This, I would suggest, is the essential intellectual divide between progressives and conservatives. Progressives define racism broadly, as the expression of any preference to live among one’s own ethnic group and to thereby ensure continuity of a community’s culture and institutions (or even the maintenance of the ‘privilege’ cultural Marxists claim ethnic majorities always enjoy) while conservatives define it more narrowly.

Although, it has to be said, this is not quite the true statement of the progressive view. The same survey, by the University of Birkbeck, highlighted that only 18% of white Clinton voters thought that a Latino or Asian American who wants to boost, via immigration, their own ethnic group’s share of the population is being racist. In other words, ethnic self-interest, as defined above, is not actually objected to per se by most progressives.

Specifically then, progressive anti-racism differs from conservative anti-racism because it adheres to the claim that any attempt by certain majority ethnic groups to maintain their majority status, via immigration policy (or any other sort of policy) is racist. However, if and when the ethnic majority has become a minority the progressive will likely shift to claiming that the dominant ethnic group, dominant that is in virtue of economic or cultural strength, as opposed to raw demographic weight, still has no right to an ethnically self-interested immigration policy, while all the ethnic groups still defined as oppressed or disadvantaged do. In short progressive anti-racism ultimately bottoms out on the neo-marxist view that western nations are racist patriarchies, inherently oppressive, an analysis leavened no doubt by theories of intersectionality and all the rest of it. 

 

Run mate, Before they get you ! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Yup. Anyone claiming "I don't want to inject politics in this" probably is in that comfortable white Christian (usually male) demographic that this country was explicitly founded to cater to. "Politics" can be an abstract when it's not restricting your ability to vote or live free of police harassment or marry who you want.

DANTE, HOW DARE YOU INJECT POLITICS INTO MY FOOTBALL GAME WHILE I ENGAGE IN THE POLITICAL ACT OF STAND FOR THE ANTHEM!!!!  YOUR KNEELING SHOWS YOU HATE AMERICA AND WHAT IT STANDS FOR SO SHUT UP AND LEAVE!

God I hate how little those people think their position through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...