|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Canada11583 Posts
On July 14 2017 00:18 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
And we've come full circle to racism. There are groups of people who actively try to destroy the inner city where many black people live. There are poor white communities and other minorities in the USA as well. Not discounting that. But this is the root of the problem. Those groups of people aren't being marginalized solely based on skin color. They're just being left alone to figure it out on their own. Blacks are being targeted by the system on almost every level.
Curious about the bolded part: who is and in what way?
|
On July 14 2017 04:07 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2017 01:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 14 2017 00:35 mozoku wrote:That's a...pretty dumb view of history you have there.
"Asia" is not a culture any more than "Africa" is. And Asia as a whole had very long periods of war, conquest and violence across the thousands of cultures that spanned even more years, and mostly reached some forms of stability and nationhood because there were clear winners over significant periods of time.
Same as Europe, really.
Both continents were just "fortunate" enough to have their periods of war and conquest contained within their convenient continental labels. And, of course, to have reached some level of nationhood, stability and nationhood before other parts of the world reached them.
(Which also completely ignores the regions in Asia that were conquered by European nations) You completely ignored my point and made a veiled accusation of ignorance/ethnocentrism. I'm actually extremely familiar with Asian history, but it wasn't relevant to my point. East Asia culture is heavily influenced by Confucianism, which places social value on the characteristics I listed: "culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability." That is entirely noncontroversial, and based on historical flows of culture and information. Furthermore, the discussion is based on the present-day, where East Asia usually refers to Korea, Japan, and China. I'm not talking about hundreds of cultures from history. If you had read carefully, you'd have noticed I never listed anything that says that East Asians are any less violent between states than Europeans. So next time please read what I said instead of assuming my ignorance on an off-topic point and giving me a lecture about it. Your point just sucks then. North American culture is heavily influenced by Christian religion, which places social value on the same things. African-Americans are a part of North American culture. Therefore African-Americans are peaceful, QED or something. I'd recommend not trying to broad-stroke the entirety of China, or Korea, or Japan, as a comparison point. It's not even relevant to my point that Confucianism influenced all three cultures. I only mentioned Confucianism to justify why I grouped the three together for a point about what academics agree are Confucian values held in the culture of all three countries. Not to mention, my reference to Asia was a subpoint in a larger argument that you've totally ignored. Your posts have literally served no purpose other than to play overzealous and misguided "PC Police." Sorry you're butthurt that you got embarrassingly caught in your game of "Grandstand the Ignorant Ethnocentrist!" The point is that Korea, Japan, and China share the cultural values of "work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability." I didn't make cultural any claims beyond that, and you haven't even denied that those countries' cultures do share those traits. That claim isn't even remotely controversial, which is why your outrage is so silly and immature. All you've done is obstinately object that I dare try to group the three together for any cultural reason whatsoever, and tell me "your point just sucks then." You've added nothing of value to this discussion. Go troll somewhere else. In fact, let me expand my "broad-stroke" and say that you can include Taiwan along with Korea, Japan, and China for the purposes of this discussion.
To quote the entire post I responded to:
Lots of cultures throughout the world have been as poor/poorer than the African American community and managed to raise themselves out of poverty. See Asia. The difference is that the Asians (despite their own issues with racism and other problems) have a culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability, etc.
Poverty doesn't necessarily lead to violence. Figuring out to change black culture to be less self-destructive would be a much more productive use of time than accusing whites of privilege and microaggressions.
I mean, you literally say here that the African American community can raise itself out of poverty because Asia did it. And Asians did it because they have a better culture than African Americans.
If you don't want to be called out on bad posts, don't make bad posts.
|
On July 14 2017 04:05 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2017 03:56 Danglars wrote:On July 14 2017 03:37 ticklishmusic wrote:
Headline is sensational, but basically Sessions lied on his security clearance forms. Basically, from other sources he was instructed by the FBI not to include diplomatic contacts as part of his Senatorial duties. I swear the last twenty/thirty pages that included Mother Jones and Think Progress make an excellent case for more Infowars and conservative blogosphere articles. So every single meeting falls under that official Senatorial duties exclusion? Forgive me if I find that somewhere between hard to believe and completely implausible. Infowars is a flaming dumpster of conspiracies. I acknowledge the obvious liberal bent of thinkprogress and MoJo, but they've been known to do some actual investigative reporting. Comparing them to Infotrash is a false equivalency you should be ashamed of.
Meeting with Russia's ambassador certainly does. The Senate is the body that ratifies treaties with foreign powers.
"What's he hiding" yeah fuck the talk of shame. I'd rather see all ideological sources full of trash than just the left wing "infowars is slightly worse don't worry" garbage. Breitbart, Hot Air, The Federalist, NRO, Daily Wire, Campus Reform, here we come. We're all biased to think the sources that agree with our worldview aren't as bad as the same that oppose it.
|
The idea that zero of his foreign contacts were in connection with his campaign duties seems implausible.
|
On July 14 2017 04:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2017 03:18 zlefin wrote:On July 13 2017 11:34 zlefin wrote:On July 13 2017 11:21 Danglars wrote:On July 13 2017 10:56 zlefin wrote:On July 13 2017 10:45 Danglars wrote:On July 13 2017 10:25 KwarK wrote:
Are we forgetting that the Trump voters actually didn't like Obama because he was black? Or are we just not supposed to talk about that? Birtherism didn't happen in a vacuum. ::Dems have problems convincing poor families struggling to get by that they're members of the privileged class and didn't like Obama because he was black or Hillary because she was a woman Kwark: Trump voters actually didn't like Obama because he was black. There we have it, gentlemen. The ultimate perpetuating loop of rationalizing the division and justifying it. Please have some consultant in the Democrat's 2020 campaign that likes "You're all racists. No, really, I can prove it to you!" You'll have to do a better job hiding the fact that you detest Republican voters and a vote against Obama was partially motivated by Obama's race. On July 13 2017 10:30 zlefin wrote:On July 13 2017 10:19 Danglars wrote:On July 13 2017 09:53 rageprotosscheesy wrote:On July 13 2017 09:31 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Its not the nationalism that is a problem for EU-US international relations. Its stability.
China is politically stable and has shown little interest in interfering in EU politics or dragging anyone into wars.
The US on the other hand can swing rather wildly depending on which party has the Presidency. And no one likes such schizophrenic changes every 4-8 years. And that's really the problem. If the Republicans were somewhat sensible and consistent, it'd be something. But they're clearly not, a lot of their opinions shift dramatically just because Fox News drum up some narrative. The majority of opinion polls show a dramatic shift in opinion towards Russia/Putin the minute Fox News started drumming up support for Trump. Similarly with regards to things like the the current state of the economy that can't realistically change in a matter of months. Republicans, unlike China, aren't remotely ideologically consistent at this point, outside of certain social issues like supporting Confederate monuments, cutting taxes and abolishing abortion. You're missing the reactionary element. It's very consistent to oppose the group of people that despise who you are and what you do. Dems are great if you're a poor Democrat voter or a minority. If you're white, or poor but oppose their poverty ideas, or middle class, you're resented or hated. They made it a little too obvious with the "deplorables" comment from Hillary and the constant drum beat of "Trump voters are racist." If Democrats concealed their message of disunity and dislike of uneducated flyover voters, they'd have a better shot at winning elections. Now, they're basically stuck pandering to their coastal base and firing jabs at Trump (makes himself an easy target, obviously) and talking about how dumb everybody is with their ideological inconsistencies. This script--convincing poor families struggling to get by that they're members of the privileged class and didn't like Obama because he was black or Hillary because she was a woman--will take years to rewrite. Current plan seems to be doubling down on the widespread electoral disasters of the last seven years. odd; then why does the Republican message of disunity and their open numerous insults to many Americans, and their dislike of people who live in cities/coasts, succeed? it's a mirror of the same thing; so why does it work for one and not the other? Care to elaborate? Reactionary doesn't presume that this is the first cause-effect go-around. what's to elaborate on? the republicans use a message of disunity, and show open dislike of the people living in cities/coasts. you say the Dems have a message of disunity and dislike of uneducated flyover voters. and that that hurts their chances. why does the strategy work for republicans, yet not work for democrats? this isn't really relevant to the reactionary part. it's a simple question of why does a strategy work for one side and not the other. What's the message and why do you think it's one of disunity? that's not an answer to my question. can you please answer the question asked? as to your questoin: if I'm going to accept for purposes of this discussion your claim that the dems have a message of disunity and dislike of flyover voters; it seems reasonable for you to accept my claim that reps have a message of disunity and a dislike of urban/coastal voters. why would you doubt it given how often some republicans rant about those exact voter groups? I don't see the republican message as being inclusive to all americans, it clearly is unfriendly toward some. thus, disunity. it's also an utterly typical political tactics, so i'd expect to see if found everywhere on all sides. you might claim the message isn't one of disunity, just as I might claim the dems isn't one of disunity. it's not that hard to spin the messages so they look good/bad, not with so much partisanship flying around. @danglars this musta gotten missed in the overnight transition; I'd still like to hear your answer. I detailed what I thought was divisive; you just took for granted some opposite message without explanation. I'm not in the mood to indulge in hypotheticals or see you moan about both sides doing the same thing. If you'll remember, I responded to a post about the ideological consistency of Republican views and focused on a reactionary spirit, which you may read again in the quote train if you forgot.
So it's cool to criticize Democrats, but it's not cool to recognize that Republicans are worthy of similar criticism. Am I reading this right?
On July 14 2017 04:08 Wulfey_LA wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 14 2017 02:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
When the actual details from these meetings leak next week, Trump will boast of how effective his campaign was at getting dirt on Hillary from the Russian government.
"I have the best collusion with Russia. Yuge. My son and I do it as a bonding exercise."
|
Trump is going to slip up and screw up his script on the Don JR meeting. DJT knows about what happened in that meeting and you can see him straining to remember his lines. At some point he will just blurt out enough information to reveal that he knew about the meeting before and after it happened.
|
On July 14 2017 04:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2017 04:07 mozoku wrote:On July 14 2017 01:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 14 2017 00:35 mozoku wrote:That's a...pretty dumb view of history you have there.
"Asia" is not a culture any more than "Africa" is. And Asia as a whole had very long periods of war, conquest and violence across the thousands of cultures that spanned even more years, and mostly reached some forms of stability and nationhood because there were clear winners over significant periods of time.
Same as Europe, really.
Both continents were just "fortunate" enough to have their periods of war and conquest contained within their convenient continental labels. And, of course, to have reached some level of nationhood, stability and nationhood before other parts of the world reached them.
(Which also completely ignores the regions in Asia that were conquered by European nations) You completely ignored my point and made a veiled accusation of ignorance/ethnocentrism. I'm actually extremely familiar with Asian history, but it wasn't relevant to my point. East Asia culture is heavily influenced by Confucianism, which places social value on the characteristics I listed: "culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability." That is entirely noncontroversial, and based on historical flows of culture and information. Furthermore, the discussion is based on the present-day, where East Asia usually refers to Korea, Japan, and China. I'm not talking about hundreds of cultures from history. If you had read carefully, you'd have noticed I never listed anything that says that East Asians are any less violent between states than Europeans. So next time please read what I said instead of assuming my ignorance on an off-topic point and giving me a lecture about it. Your point just sucks then. North American culture is heavily influenced by Christian religion, which places social value on the same things. African-Americans are a part of North American culture. Therefore African-Americans are peaceful, QED or something. I'd recommend not trying to broad-stroke the entirety of China, or Korea, or Japan, as a comparison point. It's not even relevant to my point that Confucianism influenced all three cultures. I only mentioned Confucianism to justify why I grouped the three together for a point about what academics agree are Confucian values held in the culture of all three countries. Not to mention, my reference to Asia was a subpoint in a larger argument that you've totally ignored. Your posts have literally served no purpose other than to play overzealous and misguided "PC Police." Sorry you're butthurt that you got embarrassingly caught in your game of "Grandstand the Ignorant Ethnocentrist!" The point is that Korea, Japan, and China share the cultural values of "work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability." I didn't make cultural any claims beyond that, and you haven't even denied that those countries' cultures do share those traits. That claim isn't even remotely controversial, which is why your outrage is so silly and immature. All you've done is obstinately object that I dare try to group the three together for any cultural reason whatsoever, and tell me "your point just sucks then." You've added nothing of value to this discussion. Go troll somewhere else. In fact, let me expand my "broad-stroke" and say that you can include Taiwan along with Korea, Japan, and China for the purposes of this discussion. To quote the entire post I responded to: Show nested quote +Lots of cultures throughout the world have been as poor/poorer than the African American community and managed to raise themselves out of poverty. See Asia. The difference is that the Asians (despite their own issues with racism and other problems) have a culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability, etc.
Poverty doesn't necessarily lead to violence. Figuring out to change black culture to be less self-destructive would be a much more productive use of time than accusing whites of privilege and microaggressions. I mean, you literally say here that the African American community can raise itself out of poverty because Asia did it. And Asians did it because they have a better culture than African Americans. If you don't want to be called out on bad posts, don't make bad posts.
I was clearly referring to economically successful countries in Asia by the context. Which would imply... drum roll... Taiwan, Japan, Korea, China. Those countries share certain traits in their culture, which I listed explicitly and is a fact that you still haven't denied is true because common knowledge.
I'm done responding to a grandstanding troll. Come back if you want to have a real discussion. You're literally doing nothing but saying "You grouped Asia together" when it was clear from context and my following posts that it wasn't my intention to so beyond a few common cultural characteristics that have driven their economic rise. I've made several long posts with at least plausible logic and ideas going back several pages. That's a lot more effort than this troll sequence from you where you've done nothing but say "but but but you grouped 'Asia'", so maybe do some self-reflection before criticizing my posting.
|
On July 14 2017 04:26 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2017 04:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 14 2017 04:07 mozoku wrote:On July 14 2017 01:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 14 2017 00:35 mozoku wrote:That's a...pretty dumb view of history you have there.
"Asia" is not a culture any more than "Africa" is. And Asia as a whole had very long periods of war, conquest and violence across the thousands of cultures that spanned even more years, and mostly reached some forms of stability and nationhood because there were clear winners over significant periods of time.
Same as Europe, really.
Both continents were just "fortunate" enough to have their periods of war and conquest contained within their convenient continental labels. And, of course, to have reached some level of nationhood, stability and nationhood before other parts of the world reached them.
(Which also completely ignores the regions in Asia that were conquered by European nations) You completely ignored my point and made a veiled accusation of ignorance/ethnocentrism. I'm actually extremely familiar with Asian history, but it wasn't relevant to my point. East Asia culture is heavily influenced by Confucianism, which places social value on the characteristics I listed: "culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability." That is entirely noncontroversial, and based on historical flows of culture and information. Furthermore, the discussion is based on the present-day, where East Asia usually refers to Korea, Japan, and China. I'm not talking about hundreds of cultures from history. If you had read carefully, you'd have noticed I never listed anything that says that East Asians are any less violent between states than Europeans. So next time please read what I said instead of assuming my ignorance on an off-topic point and giving me a lecture about it. Your point just sucks then. North American culture is heavily influenced by Christian religion, which places social value on the same things. African-Americans are a part of North American culture. Therefore African-Americans are peaceful, QED or something. I'd recommend not trying to broad-stroke the entirety of China, or Korea, or Japan, as a comparison point. It's not even relevant to my point that Confucianism influenced all three cultures. I only mentioned Confucianism to justify why I grouped the three together for a point about what academics agree are Confucian values held in the culture of all three countries. Not to mention, my reference to Asia was a subpoint in a larger argument that you've totally ignored. Your posts have literally served no purpose other than to play overzealous and misguided "PC Police." Sorry you're butthurt that you got embarrassingly caught in your game of "Grandstand the Ignorant Ethnocentrist!" The point is that Korea, Japan, and China share the cultural values of "work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability." I didn't make cultural any claims beyond that, and you haven't even denied that those countries' cultures do share those traits. That claim isn't even remotely controversial, which is why your outrage is so silly and immature. All you've done is obstinately object that I dare try to group the three together for any cultural reason whatsoever, and tell me "your point just sucks then." You've added nothing of value to this discussion. Go troll somewhere else. In fact, let me expand my "broad-stroke" and say that you can include Taiwan along with Korea, Japan, and China for the purposes of this discussion. To quote the entire post I responded to: Lots of cultures throughout the world have been as poor/poorer than the African American community and managed to raise themselves out of poverty. See Asia. The difference is that the Asians (despite their own issues with racism and other problems) have a culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability, etc.
Poverty doesn't necessarily lead to violence. Figuring out to change black culture to be less self-destructive would be a much more productive use of time than accusing whites of privilege and microaggressions. I mean, you literally say here that the African American community can raise itself out of poverty because Asia did it. And Asians did it because they have a better culture than African Americans. If you don't want to be called out on bad posts, don't make bad posts. I was clearly referring to economically successful countries in Asia by the context. Which would imply... drum roll... Taiwan, Japan, Korea, China. Those countries share certain traits in their culture, which I listed explicitly and is a fact that you still haven't denied is true because common knowledge. I'm done responding to a grandstanding troll. Come back if you want to have a real discussion. You're literally doing nothing but saying "You grouped Asia together" when it was clear from context and my following posts that it wasn't my attention. I've made several long posts with at least plausible logic and ideas going back several pages. That's a lot more effort than this troll sequence from you where you've done nothing but say "but but but you grouped 'Asia'", so maybe do some self-reflection before criticizing my posting.
Yes, so Taiwan, Japan, Korea and China are all nations, comparable to the United States.
Each of those countries have their own regions, varying in economic prosperity and poverty, with multiple mingling cultures that are fairly distinct from one another.
And yes, some of those cultural groups can be separated into "haves" and "have nots", and the latter could be comparable to African-Americans in the US.
So I don't see why you're comparing the African-American community to China. Or Japan. Or any sovereign nation.
|
So, the new healthcare bill has at minimum two GOP senators saying they won't vote for it. Time to see if this is another DeVos scenario where Collins is objecting because the party gave her the go-ahead and everyone else will fall in line or not.
|
On July 14 2017 04:40 TheTenthDoc wrote:So, the new healthcare bill has at minimum two GOP senators saying they won't vote for it. Time to see if this is another DeVos scenario where Collins is objecting because the party gave her the go-ahead and everyone else will fall in line or not.
Have the newer bills even addressed anything that Republicans are voting against? Or is this more of a millstone strategy where they make cosmetic changes and hope they feel pressure from the inactivity?
|
On July 14 2017 04:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2017 04:26 mozoku wrote:On July 14 2017 04:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 14 2017 04:07 mozoku wrote:On July 14 2017 01:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 14 2017 00:35 mozoku wrote:That's a...pretty dumb view of history you have there.
"Asia" is not a culture any more than "Africa" is. And Asia as a whole had very long periods of war, conquest and violence across the thousands of cultures that spanned even more years, and mostly reached some forms of stability and nationhood because there were clear winners over significant periods of time.
Same as Europe, really.
Both continents were just "fortunate" enough to have their periods of war and conquest contained within their convenient continental labels. And, of course, to have reached some level of nationhood, stability and nationhood before other parts of the world reached them.
(Which also completely ignores the regions in Asia that were conquered by European nations) You completely ignored my point and made a veiled accusation of ignorance/ethnocentrism. I'm actually extremely familiar with Asian history, but it wasn't relevant to my point. East Asia culture is heavily influenced by Confucianism, which places social value on the characteristics I listed: "culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability." That is entirely noncontroversial, and based on historical flows of culture and information. Furthermore, the discussion is based on the present-day, where East Asia usually refers to Korea, Japan, and China. I'm not talking about hundreds of cultures from history. If you had read carefully, you'd have noticed I never listed anything that says that East Asians are any less violent between states than Europeans. So next time please read what I said instead of assuming my ignorance on an off-topic point and giving me a lecture about it. Your point just sucks then. North American culture is heavily influenced by Christian religion, which places social value on the same things. African-Americans are a part of North American culture. Therefore African-Americans are peaceful, QED or something. I'd recommend not trying to broad-stroke the entirety of China, or Korea, or Japan, as a comparison point. It's not even relevant to my point that Confucianism influenced all three cultures. I only mentioned Confucianism to justify why I grouped the three together for a point about what academics agree are Confucian values held in the culture of all three countries. Not to mention, my reference to Asia was a subpoint in a larger argument that you've totally ignored. Your posts have literally served no purpose other than to play overzealous and misguided "PC Police." Sorry you're butthurt that you got embarrassingly caught in your game of "Grandstand the Ignorant Ethnocentrist!" The point is that Korea, Japan, and China share the cultural values of "work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability." I didn't make cultural any claims beyond that, and you haven't even denied that those countries' cultures do share those traits. That claim isn't even remotely controversial, which is why your outrage is so silly and immature. All you've done is obstinately object that I dare try to group the three together for any cultural reason whatsoever, and tell me "your point just sucks then." You've added nothing of value to this discussion. Go troll somewhere else. In fact, let me expand my "broad-stroke" and say that you can include Taiwan along with Korea, Japan, and China for the purposes of this discussion. To quote the entire post I responded to: Lots of cultures throughout the world have been as poor/poorer than the African American community and managed to raise themselves out of poverty. See Asia. The difference is that the Asians (despite their own issues with racism and other problems) have a culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability, etc.
Poverty doesn't necessarily lead to violence. Figuring out to change black culture to be less self-destructive would be a much more productive use of time than accusing whites of privilege and microaggressions. I mean, you literally say here that the African American community can raise itself out of poverty because Asia did it. And Asians did it because they have a better culture than African Americans. If you don't want to be called out on bad posts, don't make bad posts. I was clearly referring to economically successful countries in Asia by the context. Which would imply... drum roll... Taiwan, Japan, Korea, China. Those countries share certain traits in their culture, which I listed explicitly and is a fact that you still haven't denied is true because common knowledge. I'm done responding to a grandstanding troll. Come back if you want to have a real discussion. You're literally doing nothing but saying "You grouped Asia together" when it was clear from context and my following posts that it wasn't my attention. I've made several long posts with at least plausible logic and ideas going back several pages. That's a lot more effort than this troll sequence from you where you've done nothing but say "but but but you grouped 'Asia'", so maybe do some self-reflection before criticizing my posting. Yes, so Taiwan, Japan, Korea and China are all nations, comparable to the United States. Each of those countries have their own regions, varying in economic prosperity and poverty, with multiple mingling cultures that are fairly distinct from one another. And yes, some of those cultural groups can be separated into "haves" and "have nots", and the latter could be comparable to African-Americans in the US. So I don't see why you're comparing the African-American community to China. Or Japan. Or any sovereign nation.
Fine, continue to believe that an emphasis on education, family values, and non-violence in the community won't help the African-American community. After all, they're obviously doing so well with a culture where missing fathers are rampant, education levels are horrible, and violence is rampant. I'm sure arguing about privilege, microagressions, and BLM are going to fix those any day now.
EDIT: To more directly answer your point, while there are "haves" and "have not" groups in every society, the "haves" between societies tend to share common cultural characteristics. Conversely, the "have nots" tend to share common cultural characteristics as well. Perhaps the habits of the "haves" would be useful to the "have nots."
2nd EDIT: Also, to be clear, the Asia comparison was originally raised to point out that poverty doesn't necessarily incite violence.
|
On July 14 2017 04:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2017 04:05 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 14 2017 03:56 Danglars wrote:Basically, from other sources he was instructed by the FBI not to include diplomatic contacts as part of his Senatorial duties. I swear the last twenty/thirty pages that included Mother Jones and Think Progress make an excellent case for more Infowars and conservative blogosphere articles. So every single meeting falls under that official Senatorial duties exclusion? Forgive me if I find that somewhere between hard to believe and completely implausible. Infowars is a flaming dumpster of conspiracies. I acknowledge the obvious liberal bent of thinkprogress and MoJo, but they've been known to do some actual investigative reporting. Comparing them to Infotrash is a false equivalency you should be ashamed of. Meeting with Russia's ambassador certainly does. The Senate is the body that ratifies treaties with foreign powers. "What's he hiding" yeah fuck the talk of shame. I'd rather see all ideological sources full of trash than just the left wing "infowars is slightly worse don't worry" garbage. Breitbart, Hot Air, The Federalist, NRO, Daily Wire, Campus Reform, here we come. We're all biased to think the sources that agree with our worldview aren't as bad as the same that oppose it.
you've lost all sense of relativity. ok dude enjoy the gay frogs.
|
On July 14 2017 04:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2017 03:18 zlefin wrote:On July 13 2017 11:34 zlefin wrote:On July 13 2017 11:21 Danglars wrote:On July 13 2017 10:56 zlefin wrote:On July 13 2017 10:45 Danglars wrote:On July 13 2017 10:25 KwarK wrote:
Are we forgetting that the Trump voters actually didn't like Obama because he was black? Or are we just not supposed to talk about that? Birtherism didn't happen in a vacuum. ::Dems have problems convincing poor families struggling to get by that they're members of the privileged class and didn't like Obama because he was black or Hillary because she was a woman Kwark: Trump voters actually didn't like Obama because he was black. There we have it, gentlemen. The ultimate perpetuating loop of rationalizing the division and justifying it. Please have some consultant in the Democrat's 2020 campaign that likes "You're all racists. No, really, I can prove it to you!" You'll have to do a better job hiding the fact that you detest Republican voters and a vote against Obama was partially motivated by Obama's race. On July 13 2017 10:30 zlefin wrote:On July 13 2017 10:19 Danglars wrote:On July 13 2017 09:53 rageprotosscheesy wrote:On July 13 2017 09:31 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Its not the nationalism that is a problem for EU-US international relations. Its stability.
China is politically stable and has shown little interest in interfering in EU politics or dragging anyone into wars.
The US on the other hand can swing rather wildly depending on which party has the Presidency. And no one likes such schizophrenic changes every 4-8 years. And that's really the problem. If the Republicans were somewhat sensible and consistent, it'd be something. But they're clearly not, a lot of their opinions shift dramatically just because Fox News drum up some narrative. The majority of opinion polls show a dramatic shift in opinion towards Russia/Putin the minute Fox News started drumming up support for Trump. Similarly with regards to things like the the current state of the economy that can't realistically change in a matter of months. Republicans, unlike China, aren't remotely ideologically consistent at this point, outside of certain social issues like supporting Confederate monuments, cutting taxes and abolishing abortion. You're missing the reactionary element. It's very consistent to oppose the group of people that despise who you are and what you do. Dems are great if you're a poor Democrat voter or a minority. If you're white, or poor but oppose their poverty ideas, or middle class, you're resented or hated. They made it a little too obvious with the "deplorables" comment from Hillary and the constant drum beat of "Trump voters are racist." If Democrats concealed their message of disunity and dislike of uneducated flyover voters, they'd have a better shot at winning elections. Now, they're basically stuck pandering to their coastal base and firing jabs at Trump (makes himself an easy target, obviously) and talking about how dumb everybody is with their ideological inconsistencies. This script--convincing poor families struggling to get by that they're members of the privileged class and didn't like Obama because he was black or Hillary because she was a woman--will take years to rewrite. Current plan seems to be doubling down on the widespread electoral disasters of the last seven years. odd; then why does the Republican message of disunity and their open numerous insults to many Americans, and their dislike of people who live in cities/coasts, succeed? it's a mirror of the same thing; so why does it work for one and not the other? Care to elaborate? Reactionary doesn't presume that this is the first cause-effect go-around. what's to elaborate on? the republicans use a message of disunity, and show open dislike of the people living in cities/coasts. you say the Dems have a message of disunity and dislike of uneducated flyover voters. and that that hurts their chances. why does the strategy work for republicans, yet not work for democrats? this isn't really relevant to the reactionary part. it's a simple question of why does a strategy work for one side and not the other. What's the message and why do you think it's one of disunity? that's not an answer to my question. can you please answer the question asked? as to your questoin: if I'm going to accept for purposes of this discussion your claim that the dems have a message of disunity and dislike of flyover voters; it seems reasonable for you to accept my claim that reps have a message of disunity and a dislike of urban/coastal voters. why would you doubt it given how often some republicans rant about those exact voter groups? I don't see the republican message as being inclusive to all americans, it clearly is unfriendly toward some. thus, disunity. it's also an utterly typical political tactics, so i'd expect to see if found everywhere on all sides. you might claim the message isn't one of disunity, just as I might claim the dems isn't one of disunity. it's not that hard to spin the messages so they look good/bad, not with so much partisanship flying around. @danglars this musta gotten missed in the overnight transition; I'd still like to hear your answer. I detailed what I thought was divisive; you just took for granted some opposite message without explanation. I'm not in the mood to indulge in hypotheticals or see you moan about both sides doing the same thing. If you'll remember, I responded to a post about the ideological consistency of Republican views and focused on a reactionary spirit, which you may read again in the quote train if you forgot.
ok, I'll take that to mean you're arguing in bad faith, as you refuse to answer an eminently reasonable question, and I did explain it sufficiently, you're simply unwilling to admit the basic fact that the republicans (as with the democrats) sometimes use messages that are disunited and disparage various groups of americans, I need not cite specific ones for it to be abundantly clear that such things occur. I indulged in your hypothetical, and you refused to indulge in mine. Whatever you responded to initially doesn't change the validity of my point.
Attacking an outgroup, which mostly consists of the other sides' voters (or people outside the country), is a very basic political tactic since forever.
as such I will disregard your complaints about dem's lack of unity, as you're unwilling to look at the exact same problems as they occur from your side, and thus display high levels of bias.
|
On July 14 2017 04:44 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2017 04:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 14 2017 04:26 mozoku wrote:On July 14 2017 04:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 14 2017 04:07 mozoku wrote:On July 14 2017 01:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 14 2017 00:35 mozoku wrote:That's a...pretty dumb view of history you have there.
"Asia" is not a culture any more than "Africa" is. And Asia as a whole had very long periods of war, conquest and violence across the thousands of cultures that spanned even more years, and mostly reached some forms of stability and nationhood because there were clear winners over significant periods of time.
Same as Europe, really.
Both continents were just "fortunate" enough to have their periods of war and conquest contained within their convenient continental labels. And, of course, to have reached some level of nationhood, stability and nationhood before other parts of the world reached them.
(Which also completely ignores the regions in Asia that were conquered by European nations) You completely ignored my point and made a veiled accusation of ignorance/ethnocentrism. I'm actually extremely familiar with Asian history, but it wasn't relevant to my point. East Asia culture is heavily influenced by Confucianism, which places social value on the characteristics I listed: "culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability." That is entirely noncontroversial, and based on historical flows of culture and information. Furthermore, the discussion is based on the present-day, where East Asia usually refers to Korea, Japan, and China. I'm not talking about hundreds of cultures from history. If you had read carefully, you'd have noticed I never listed anything that says that East Asians are any less violent between states than Europeans. So next time please read what I said instead of assuming my ignorance on an off-topic point and giving me a lecture about it. Your point just sucks then. North American culture is heavily influenced by Christian religion, which places social value on the same things. African-Americans are a part of North American culture. Therefore African-Americans are peaceful, QED or something. I'd recommend not trying to broad-stroke the entirety of China, or Korea, or Japan, as a comparison point. It's not even relevant to my point that Confucianism influenced all three cultures. I only mentioned Confucianism to justify why I grouped the three together for a point about what academics agree are Confucian values held in the culture of all three countries. Not to mention, my reference to Asia was a subpoint in a larger argument that you've totally ignored. Your posts have literally served no purpose other than to play overzealous and misguided "PC Police." Sorry you're butthurt that you got embarrassingly caught in your game of "Grandstand the Ignorant Ethnocentrist!" The point is that Korea, Japan, and China share the cultural values of "work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability." I didn't make cultural any claims beyond that, and you haven't even denied that those countries' cultures do share those traits. That claim isn't even remotely controversial, which is why your outrage is so silly and immature. All you've done is obstinately object that I dare try to group the three together for any cultural reason whatsoever, and tell me "your point just sucks then." You've added nothing of value to this discussion. Go troll somewhere else. In fact, let me expand my "broad-stroke" and say that you can include Taiwan along with Korea, Japan, and China for the purposes of this discussion. To quote the entire post I responded to: Lots of cultures throughout the world have been as poor/poorer than the African American community and managed to raise themselves out of poverty. See Asia. The difference is that the Asians (despite their own issues with racism and other problems) have a culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability, etc.
Poverty doesn't necessarily lead to violence. Figuring out to change black culture to be less self-destructive would be a much more productive use of time than accusing whites of privilege and microaggressions. I mean, you literally say here that the African American community can raise itself out of poverty because Asia did it. And Asians did it because they have a better culture than African Americans. If you don't want to be called out on bad posts, don't make bad posts. I was clearly referring to economically successful countries in Asia by the context. Which would imply... drum roll... Taiwan, Japan, Korea, China. Those countries share certain traits in their culture, which I listed explicitly and is a fact that you still haven't denied is true because common knowledge. I'm done responding to a grandstanding troll. Come back if you want to have a real discussion. You're literally doing nothing but saying "You grouped Asia together" when it was clear from context and my following posts that it wasn't my attention. I've made several long posts with at least plausible logic and ideas going back several pages. That's a lot more effort than this troll sequence from you where you've done nothing but say "but but but you grouped 'Asia'", so maybe do some self-reflection before criticizing my posting. Yes, so Taiwan, Japan, Korea and China are all nations, comparable to the United States. Each of those countries have their own regions, varying in economic prosperity and poverty, with multiple mingling cultures that are fairly distinct from one another. And yes, some of those cultural groups can be separated into "haves" and "have nots", and the latter could be comparable to African-Americans in the US. So I don't see why you're comparing the African-American community to China. Or Japan. Or any sovereign nation. Fine, continue to believe that an emphasis on education, family values, and non-violence in the community won't help the African-American community. After all, they're obviously doing so well with a culture where missing fathers are rampant, education levels are horrible, and violence is rampant. I'm sure arguing about privilege, microagressions, and BLM are going to fix those any day now.
The separation were having isn't on the viability of community building a in black communities, it's about the notion that violence, education, and missing fathers are the fault of black culture rather than, for example, the war on drugs putting more black men in prison thusly removing the father from the family unit.
|
On July 14 2017 04:48 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2017 04:44 mozoku wrote:On July 14 2017 04:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 14 2017 04:26 mozoku wrote:On July 14 2017 04:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 14 2017 04:07 mozoku wrote:On July 14 2017 01:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 14 2017 00:35 mozoku wrote:That's a...pretty dumb view of history you have there.
"Asia" is not a culture any more than "Africa" is. And Asia as a whole had very long periods of war, conquest and violence across the thousands of cultures that spanned even more years, and mostly reached some forms of stability and nationhood because there were clear winners over significant periods of time.
Same as Europe, really.
Both continents were just "fortunate" enough to have their periods of war and conquest contained within their convenient continental labels. And, of course, to have reached some level of nationhood, stability and nationhood before other parts of the world reached them.
(Which also completely ignores the regions in Asia that were conquered by European nations) You completely ignored my point and made a veiled accusation of ignorance/ethnocentrism. I'm actually extremely familiar with Asian history, but it wasn't relevant to my point. East Asia culture is heavily influenced by Confucianism, which places social value on the characteristics I listed: "culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability." That is entirely noncontroversial, and based on historical flows of culture and information. Furthermore, the discussion is based on the present-day, where East Asia usually refers to Korea, Japan, and China. I'm not talking about hundreds of cultures from history. If you had read carefully, you'd have noticed I never listed anything that says that East Asians are any less violent between states than Europeans. So next time please read what I said instead of assuming my ignorance on an off-topic point and giving me a lecture about it. Your point just sucks then. North American culture is heavily influenced by Christian religion, which places social value on the same things. African-Americans are a part of North American culture. Therefore African-Americans are peaceful, QED or something. I'd recommend not trying to broad-stroke the entirety of China, or Korea, or Japan, as a comparison point. It's not even relevant to my point that Confucianism influenced all three cultures. I only mentioned Confucianism to justify why I grouped the three together for a point about what academics agree are Confucian values held in the culture of all three countries. Not to mention, my reference to Asia was a subpoint in a larger argument that you've totally ignored. Your posts have literally served no purpose other than to play overzealous and misguided "PC Police." Sorry you're butthurt that you got embarrassingly caught in your game of "Grandstand the Ignorant Ethnocentrist!" The point is that Korea, Japan, and China share the cultural values of "work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability." I didn't make cultural any claims beyond that, and you haven't even denied that those countries' cultures do share those traits. That claim isn't even remotely controversial, which is why your outrage is so silly and immature. All you've done is obstinately object that I dare try to group the three together for any cultural reason whatsoever, and tell me "your point just sucks then." You've added nothing of value to this discussion. Go troll somewhere else. In fact, let me expand my "broad-stroke" and say that you can include Taiwan along with Korea, Japan, and China for the purposes of this discussion. To quote the entire post I responded to: Lots of cultures throughout the world have been as poor/poorer than the African American community and managed to raise themselves out of poverty. See Asia. The difference is that the Asians (despite their own issues with racism and other problems) have a culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability, etc.
Poverty doesn't necessarily lead to violence. Figuring out to change black culture to be less self-destructive would be a much more productive use of time than accusing whites of privilege and microaggressions. I mean, you literally say here that the African American community can raise itself out of poverty because Asia did it. And Asians did it because they have a better culture than African Americans. If you don't want to be called out on bad posts, don't make bad posts. I was clearly referring to economically successful countries in Asia by the context. Which would imply... drum roll... Taiwan, Japan, Korea, China. Those countries share certain traits in their culture, which I listed explicitly and is a fact that you still haven't denied is true because common knowledge. I'm done responding to a grandstanding troll. Come back if you want to have a real discussion. You're literally doing nothing but saying "You grouped Asia together" when it was clear from context and my following posts that it wasn't my attention. I've made several long posts with at least plausible logic and ideas going back several pages. That's a lot more effort than this troll sequence from you where you've done nothing but say "but but but you grouped 'Asia'", so maybe do some self-reflection before criticizing my posting. Yes, so Taiwan, Japan, Korea and China are all nations, comparable to the United States. Each of those countries have their own regions, varying in economic prosperity and poverty, with multiple mingling cultures that are fairly distinct from one another. And yes, some of those cultural groups can be separated into "haves" and "have nots", and the latter could be comparable to African-Americans in the US. So I don't see why you're comparing the African-American community to China. Or Japan. Or any sovereign nation. Fine, continue to believe that an emphasis on education, family values, and non-violence in the community won't help the African-American community. After all, they're obviously doing so well with a culture where missing fathers are rampant, education levels are horrible, and violence is rampant. I'm sure arguing about privilege, microagressions, and BLM are going to fix those any day now. The separation were having isn't on the viability of community building a in black communities, it's about the notion that violence, education, and missing fathers are the fault of black culture rather than, for example, the war on drugs putting more black men in prison thusly removing the father from the family unit.
Then why are the "success rates" (pick your metric) of AA families with a present father still so low relative to other races?
|
On July 14 2017 04:44 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2017 04:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 14 2017 04:26 mozoku wrote:On July 14 2017 04:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 14 2017 04:07 mozoku wrote:On July 14 2017 01:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 14 2017 00:35 mozoku wrote:That's a...pretty dumb view of history you have there.
"Asia" is not a culture any more than "Africa" is. And Asia as a whole had very long periods of war, conquest and violence across the thousands of cultures that spanned even more years, and mostly reached some forms of stability and nationhood because there were clear winners over significant periods of time.
Same as Europe, really.
Both continents were just "fortunate" enough to have their periods of war and conquest contained within their convenient continental labels. And, of course, to have reached some level of nationhood, stability and nationhood before other parts of the world reached them.
(Which also completely ignores the regions in Asia that were conquered by European nations) You completely ignored my point and made a veiled accusation of ignorance/ethnocentrism. I'm actually extremely familiar with Asian history, but it wasn't relevant to my point. East Asia culture is heavily influenced by Confucianism, which places social value on the characteristics I listed: "culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability." That is entirely noncontroversial, and based on historical flows of culture and information. Furthermore, the discussion is based on the present-day, where East Asia usually refers to Korea, Japan, and China. I'm not talking about hundreds of cultures from history. If you had read carefully, you'd have noticed I never listed anything that says that East Asians are any less violent between states than Europeans. So next time please read what I said instead of assuming my ignorance on an off-topic point and giving me a lecture about it. Your point just sucks then. North American culture is heavily influenced by Christian religion, which places social value on the same things. African-Americans are a part of North American culture. Therefore African-Americans are peaceful, QED or something. I'd recommend not trying to broad-stroke the entirety of China, or Korea, or Japan, as a comparison point. It's not even relevant to my point that Confucianism influenced all three cultures. I only mentioned Confucianism to justify why I grouped the three together for a point about what academics agree are Confucian values held in the culture of all three countries. Not to mention, my reference to Asia was a subpoint in a larger argument that you've totally ignored. Your posts have literally served no purpose other than to play overzealous and misguided "PC Police." Sorry you're butthurt that you got embarrassingly caught in your game of "Grandstand the Ignorant Ethnocentrist!" The point is that Korea, Japan, and China share the cultural values of "work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability." I didn't make cultural any claims beyond that, and you haven't even denied that those countries' cultures do share those traits. That claim isn't even remotely controversial, which is why your outrage is so silly and immature. All you've done is obstinately object that I dare try to group the three together for any cultural reason whatsoever, and tell me "your point just sucks then." You've added nothing of value to this discussion. Go troll somewhere else. In fact, let me expand my "broad-stroke" and say that you can include Taiwan along with Korea, Japan, and China for the purposes of this discussion. To quote the entire post I responded to: Lots of cultures throughout the world have been as poor/poorer than the African American community and managed to raise themselves out of poverty. See Asia. The difference is that the Asians (despite their own issues with racism and other problems) have a culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability, etc.
Poverty doesn't necessarily lead to violence. Figuring out to change black culture to be less self-destructive would be a much more productive use of time than accusing whites of privilege and microaggressions. I mean, you literally say here that the African American community can raise itself out of poverty because Asia did it. And Asians did it because they have a better culture than African Americans. If you don't want to be called out on bad posts, don't make bad posts. I was clearly referring to economically successful countries in Asia by the context. Which would imply... drum roll... Taiwan, Japan, Korea, China. Those countries share certain traits in their culture, which I listed explicitly and is a fact that you still haven't denied is true because common knowledge. I'm done responding to a grandstanding troll. Come back if you want to have a real discussion. You're literally doing nothing but saying "You grouped Asia together" when it was clear from context and my following posts that it wasn't my attention. I've made several long posts with at least plausible logic and ideas going back several pages. That's a lot more effort than this troll sequence from you where you've done nothing but say "but but but you grouped 'Asia'", so maybe do some self-reflection before criticizing my posting. Yes, so Taiwan, Japan, Korea and China are all nations, comparable to the United States. Each of those countries have their own regions, varying in economic prosperity and poverty, with multiple mingling cultures that are fairly distinct from one another. And yes, some of those cultural groups can be separated into "haves" and "have nots", and the latter could be comparable to African-Americans in the US. So I don't see why you're comparing the African-American community to China. Or Japan. Or any sovereign nation. Fine, continue to believe that an emphasis on education, family values, and non-violence in the community won't help the African-American community. After all, they're obviously doing so well with a culture where missing fathers are rampant, education levels are horrible, and violence is rampant. I'm sure arguing about privilege, microagressions, and BLM are going to fix those any day now. EDIT: To more directly answer your point, while there are "haves" and "have not" groups in every society, the "haves" between societies tend to share common cultural characteristics. Conversely, the "have nots" tend to share common cultural characteristics as well. Perhaps the habits of the "haves" would be useful to the "have nots."
Yeah, and that cultural characteristic tends to be which group won a war and conquered a region.
|
On July 14 2017 04:50 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2017 04:48 Zambrah wrote:On July 14 2017 04:44 mozoku wrote:On July 14 2017 04:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 14 2017 04:26 mozoku wrote:On July 14 2017 04:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 14 2017 04:07 mozoku wrote:On July 14 2017 01:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 14 2017 00:35 mozoku wrote:That's a...pretty dumb view of history you have there.
"Asia" is not a culture any more than "Africa" is. And Asia as a whole had very long periods of war, conquest and violence across the thousands of cultures that spanned even more years, and mostly reached some forms of stability and nationhood because there were clear winners over significant periods of time.
Same as Europe, really.
Both continents were just "fortunate" enough to have their periods of war and conquest contained within their convenient continental labels. And, of course, to have reached some level of nationhood, stability and nationhood before other parts of the world reached them.
(Which also completely ignores the regions in Asia that were conquered by European nations) You completely ignored my point and made a veiled accusation of ignorance/ethnocentrism. I'm actually extremely familiar with Asian history, but it wasn't relevant to my point. East Asia culture is heavily influenced by Confucianism, which places social value on the characteristics I listed: "culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability." That is entirely noncontroversial, and based on historical flows of culture and information. Furthermore, the discussion is based on the present-day, where East Asia usually refers to Korea, Japan, and China. I'm not talking about hundreds of cultures from history. If you had read carefully, you'd have noticed I never listed anything that says that East Asians are any less violent between states than Europeans. So next time please read what I said instead of assuming my ignorance on an off-topic point and giving me a lecture about it. Your point just sucks then. North American culture is heavily influenced by Christian religion, which places social value on the same things. African-Americans are a part of North American culture. Therefore African-Americans are peaceful, QED or something. I'd recommend not trying to broad-stroke the entirety of China, or Korea, or Japan, as a comparison point. It's not even relevant to my point that Confucianism influenced all three cultures. I only mentioned Confucianism to justify why I grouped the three together for a point about what academics agree are Confucian values held in the culture of all three countries. Not to mention, my reference to Asia was a subpoint in a larger argument that you've totally ignored. Your posts have literally served no purpose other than to play overzealous and misguided "PC Police." Sorry you're butthurt that you got embarrassingly caught in your game of "Grandstand the Ignorant Ethnocentrist!" The point is that Korea, Japan, and China share the cultural values of "work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability." I didn't make cultural any claims beyond that, and you haven't even denied that those countries' cultures do share those traits. That claim isn't even remotely controversial, which is why your outrage is so silly and immature. All you've done is obstinately object that I dare try to group the three together for any cultural reason whatsoever, and tell me "your point just sucks then." You've added nothing of value to this discussion. Go troll somewhere else. In fact, let me expand my "broad-stroke" and say that you can include Taiwan along with Korea, Japan, and China for the purposes of this discussion. To quote the entire post I responded to: Lots of cultures throughout the world have been as poor/poorer than the African American community and managed to raise themselves out of poverty. See Asia. The difference is that the Asians (despite their own issues with racism and other problems) have a culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability, etc.
Poverty doesn't necessarily lead to violence. Figuring out to change black culture to be less self-destructive would be a much more productive use of time than accusing whites of privilege and microaggressions. I mean, you literally say here that the African American community can raise itself out of poverty because Asia did it. And Asians did it because they have a better culture than African Americans. If you don't want to be called out on bad posts, don't make bad posts. I was clearly referring to economically successful countries in Asia by the context. Which would imply... drum roll... Taiwan, Japan, Korea, China. Those countries share certain traits in their culture, which I listed explicitly and is a fact that you still haven't denied is true because common knowledge. I'm done responding to a grandstanding troll. Come back if you want to have a real discussion. You're literally doing nothing but saying "You grouped Asia together" when it was clear from context and my following posts that it wasn't my attention. I've made several long posts with at least plausible logic and ideas going back several pages. That's a lot more effort than this troll sequence from you where you've done nothing but say "but but but you grouped 'Asia'", so maybe do some self-reflection before criticizing my posting. Yes, so Taiwan, Japan, Korea and China are all nations, comparable to the United States. Each of those countries have their own regions, varying in economic prosperity and poverty, with multiple mingling cultures that are fairly distinct from one another. And yes, some of those cultural groups can be separated into "haves" and "have nots", and the latter could be comparable to African-Americans in the US. So I don't see why you're comparing the African-American community to China. Or Japan. Or any sovereign nation. Fine, continue to believe that an emphasis on education, family values, and non-violence in the community won't help the African-American community. After all, they're obviously doing so well with a culture where missing fathers are rampant, education levels are horrible, and violence is rampant. I'm sure arguing about privilege, microagressions, and BLM are going to fix those any day now. The separation were having isn't on the viability of community building a in black communities, it's about the notion that violence, education, and missing fathers are the fault of black culture rather than, for example, the war on drugs putting more black men in prison thusly removing the father from the family unit. Then why are the "success rates" (pick your metric) of AA families with a present father still so low relative to other races?
Do the metrics you're using involve the socioeconomic disparities between the average black community and say the average white community?
|
On July 14 2017 04:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2017 04:44 mozoku wrote:On July 14 2017 04:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 14 2017 04:26 mozoku wrote:On July 14 2017 04:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 14 2017 04:07 mozoku wrote:On July 14 2017 01:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 14 2017 00:35 mozoku wrote:That's a...pretty dumb view of history you have there.
"Asia" is not a culture any more than "Africa" is. And Asia as a whole had very long periods of war, conquest and violence across the thousands of cultures that spanned even more years, and mostly reached some forms of stability and nationhood because there were clear winners over significant periods of time.
Same as Europe, really.
Both continents were just "fortunate" enough to have their periods of war and conquest contained within their convenient continental labels. And, of course, to have reached some level of nationhood, stability and nationhood before other parts of the world reached them.
(Which also completely ignores the regions in Asia that were conquered by European nations) You completely ignored my point and made a veiled accusation of ignorance/ethnocentrism. I'm actually extremely familiar with Asian history, but it wasn't relevant to my point. East Asia culture is heavily influenced by Confucianism, which places social value on the characteristics I listed: "culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability." That is entirely noncontroversial, and based on historical flows of culture and information. Furthermore, the discussion is based on the present-day, where East Asia usually refers to Korea, Japan, and China. I'm not talking about hundreds of cultures from history. If you had read carefully, you'd have noticed I never listed anything that says that East Asians are any less violent between states than Europeans. So next time please read what I said instead of assuming my ignorance on an off-topic point and giving me a lecture about it. Your point just sucks then. North American culture is heavily influenced by Christian religion, which places social value on the same things. African-Americans are a part of North American culture. Therefore African-Americans are peaceful, QED or something. I'd recommend not trying to broad-stroke the entirety of China, or Korea, or Japan, as a comparison point. It's not even relevant to my point that Confucianism influenced all three cultures. I only mentioned Confucianism to justify why I grouped the three together for a point about what academics agree are Confucian values held in the culture of all three countries. Not to mention, my reference to Asia was a subpoint in a larger argument that you've totally ignored. Your posts have literally served no purpose other than to play overzealous and misguided "PC Police." Sorry you're butthurt that you got embarrassingly caught in your game of "Grandstand the Ignorant Ethnocentrist!" The point is that Korea, Japan, and China share the cultural values of "work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability." I didn't make cultural any claims beyond that, and you haven't even denied that those countries' cultures do share those traits. That claim isn't even remotely controversial, which is why your outrage is so silly and immature. All you've done is obstinately object that I dare try to group the three together for any cultural reason whatsoever, and tell me "your point just sucks then." You've added nothing of value to this discussion. Go troll somewhere else. In fact, let me expand my "broad-stroke" and say that you can include Taiwan along with Korea, Japan, and China for the purposes of this discussion. To quote the entire post I responded to: Lots of cultures throughout the world have been as poor/poorer than the African American community and managed to raise themselves out of poverty. See Asia. The difference is that the Asians (despite their own issues with racism and other problems) have a culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability, etc.
Poverty doesn't necessarily lead to violence. Figuring out to change black culture to be less self-destructive would be a much more productive use of time than accusing whites of privilege and microaggressions. I mean, you literally say here that the African American community can raise itself out of poverty because Asia did it. And Asians did it because they have a better culture than African Americans. If you don't want to be called out on bad posts, don't make bad posts. I was clearly referring to economically successful countries in Asia by the context. Which would imply... drum roll... Taiwan, Japan, Korea, China. Those countries share certain traits in their culture, which I listed explicitly and is a fact that you still haven't denied is true because common knowledge. I'm done responding to a grandstanding troll. Come back if you want to have a real discussion. You're literally doing nothing but saying "You grouped Asia together" when it was clear from context and my following posts that it wasn't my attention. I've made several long posts with at least plausible logic and ideas going back several pages. That's a lot more effort than this troll sequence from you where you've done nothing but say "but but but you grouped 'Asia'", so maybe do some self-reflection before criticizing my posting. Yes, so Taiwan, Japan, Korea and China are all nations, comparable to the United States. Each of those countries have their own regions, varying in economic prosperity and poverty, with multiple mingling cultures that are fairly distinct from one another. And yes, some of those cultural groups can be separated into "haves" and "have nots", and the latter could be comparable to African-Americans in the US. So I don't see why you're comparing the African-American community to China. Or Japan. Or any sovereign nation. Fine, continue to believe that an emphasis on education, family values, and non-violence in the community won't help the African-American community. After all, they're obviously doing so well with a culture where missing fathers are rampant, education levels are horrible, and violence is rampant. I'm sure arguing about privilege, microagressions, and BLM are going to fix those any day now. EDIT: To more directly answer your point, while there are "haves" and "have not" groups in every society, the "haves" between societies tend to share common cultural characteristics. Conversely, the "have nots" tend to share common cultural characteristics as well. Perhaps the habits of the "haves" would be useful to the "have nots." Yeah, and that cultural characteristic tends to be which group won a war and conquered a region.
Maybe true, but the blacks born in 1990 aren't poor because (a) their great-great-grandfather was a slave two hundred years ago. They're poor because (b) they didn't get an education and consequently couldn't get a job. Maybe (a) had a large influence on how (b) came to be, but that doesn't change the solution for the problem that (b) is.
Do the metrics you're using involve the socioeconomic disparities between the average black community and say the average white community?
Of course? That's how these things are usually measured. Median income, HS/college graduation rates, etc. Though I don't see why it should be limited to whites... comparing it to the average non-black US resident seems fine.
|
United States44191 Posts
I feel like this shouldn't really need saying but whatever. Inequality didn't disappear with the end of slavery.
|
Btw europe and asia both heavily used affirmative action to bring formally oppressed minorities out of perpetual poverty usually by only having to do it for 20-30 years, a generation's worth of kids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
