|
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. |
On November 13 2017 14:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 09:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 13 2017 08:27 KwarK wrote:On November 13 2017 08:23 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 13 2017 07:49 KwarK wrote:On November 13 2017 07:46 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 06:53 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Just the ones that latch on to extremism as a form of empowerment. I struggled a lot with racism during my childhood and I never let it bring me down. I frown on the types who let their frustration get the better of them. I am better than that. They can be too. What was "extremism" in that article? + Show Spoiler +I feel like this is going to end up the same way the last times you made these foolish rants... The problem is that you aren't willing to see that a lot of the ideals you hold on to are only appealing to you because they finally make you feel in control of the situation. You don't need to feel in control of the situation. You can continue on, powerless against a lot of the forces negatively impacted, just like me, and work towards making the world a better place without the polarization. These ideas don't come across as extreme to you because they are what you see as the only way to actually feel like you're making a difference. They are extreme, they polarize situations and they make people less likely to listen to your message. So sure, you pat yourself on the back for feeling like you're making a difference, but you're not. Edit: to answer your question, the "with us or against us" is the extremism. That's not extreme, it's a statement of fact. You are choosing to interpret the situation that way because you need to have well defined definitions of friend and foe so that you feel more safe. This is all just a reaction to feeling powerless. You don't need to be so rigid in your definition of friend and foe. This all feels like how you have chosen to respond to a life of feeling powerless rather than a well thought out perspective on how to best accomplish goals. It's not that people are actually your enemies. It's that you are so frustrated that you aren't willing to drudge through all the nuance and difficulty of bringing people over to your cause who plain and simply aren't convinced yet. Is racism really an area where there are more than two sides? Where someone can legitimately say "I'm not pro-racism, I just don't think we should get rid of it"? "I'm not saying I think the police should deny the constitutional rights of blacks, I just think that we should stop investigating the cases of them doing that" I thought this post by yourself did a good job delineating the nuances in positions of various degrees of white supremacy endorsement mohdoo is asking for.. You can say that 'either you're a racist or you're not', but when it comes to what policies you actively support, there are lots of different degrees of racism. According to yourself you're like a 7 out of 9, at what point of this scale does the binary go from 0 to 1? 9. 9 is the passing grade there. When the kid actually corrects the injustice at their own expense because they know it's the right thing to do and that, although they worked hard, they did not earn the benefit they received at the expense of the other kid. I'm a terrible ally. I'll freely admit that. I believe in all sorts of causes which I do absolutely nothing to further, while privately enjoying the privileges I receive due to the failure of those causes. I'll probably go max hypocrisy and send my kids to a private school and hell, it'll probably be racially segregated when I do. I'll say it's fucked up that the world is the way it is while shamelessly abusing the benefits of my own hypocrisy. The reality is that racism is a zero sum game. If you're a white guy who thinks black people should be able to sit at the front of the bus then the correct solution is obvious, you stand up and you give Rosa Parks your seat. If you refuse to give up your seat then no amount of words is sufficient. So to what degree must you favor violent property redistribution before you are an ally? I mean, I'm such a leftist that I probably come out better than mostly everyone else according to your definition, but I don't really agree with it anyway. I strongly believe in favoring policies that empower black people (and any other disenfranchised group), I want increased taxes across the board because I want a more equitable distribution of goods, even though this clearly disfavors my own privileged self. However, I also favor a 'whoever sat down first gets to keep their seat' as the literal answer to the bus dilemma, although I could definitely see my current self giving up my seat if I found myself in race segregated USA. (with the knowledge that my current self probably wouldn't be my current self if that's where I grew up.) Imo there's a very big difference between your average trump voter and your average mohdoo, much bigger than the difference between your average mohdoo and your average GH. Not sure why you're bringing up violent propert redistribution but that's not a part of my argument. Let's say you and a more qualified female coworker go for the same promotion. Your boss tells you not to worry and that you'll get it because your coworker will probably just end up getting pregnant and he wants someone more reliable. The duty there as an ally couldn't be more simple, if you refuse to accept the promotion then she'll get it. Anything less and you're making a choice to be complicit in the sexist establishment. It's a zero sum game.
Yea well the glorification of the US and Capitalism has taught people to be selfish because everyone should be/are selfish. So people really don't give a fuck about things like that and just say "them's the breaks I was lucky that time"
|
United States43971 Posts
Also the English beheaded their king long before the French did. We just didn't see the point in getting rid of the institution afterwards. They got the point and have been generally well behaved since.
|
On November 13 2017 14:07 Slaughter wrote:
Yea well the glorification of the US and Capitalism has taught people to be selfish because everyone should be/are selfish. So people really don't give a fuck about things like that and just say "them's the breaks I was lucky that time"
This appears to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism. Capitalism is how we entice selfish people to contribute to the rest of society.
|
Norway28794 Posts
On November 13 2017 14:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 09:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 13 2017 08:27 KwarK wrote:On November 13 2017 08:23 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 13 2017 07:49 KwarK wrote:On November 13 2017 07:46 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 06:53 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Just the ones that latch on to extremism as a form of empowerment. I struggled a lot with racism during my childhood and I never let it bring me down. I frown on the types who let their frustration get the better of them. I am better than that. They can be too. What was "extremism" in that article? + Show Spoiler +I feel like this is going to end up the same way the last times you made these foolish rants... The problem is that you aren't willing to see that a lot of the ideals you hold on to are only appealing to you because they finally make you feel in control of the situation. You don't need to feel in control of the situation. You can continue on, powerless against a lot of the forces negatively impacted, just like me, and work towards making the world a better place without the polarization. These ideas don't come across as extreme to you because they are what you see as the only way to actually feel like you're making a difference. They are extreme, they polarize situations and they make people less likely to listen to your message. So sure, you pat yourself on the back for feeling like you're making a difference, but you're not. Edit: to answer your question, the "with us or against us" is the extremism. That's not extreme, it's a statement of fact. You are choosing to interpret the situation that way because you need to have well defined definitions of friend and foe so that you feel more safe. This is all just a reaction to feeling powerless. You don't need to be so rigid in your definition of friend and foe. This all feels like how you have chosen to respond to a life of feeling powerless rather than a well thought out perspective on how to best accomplish goals. It's not that people are actually your enemies. It's that you are so frustrated that you aren't willing to drudge through all the nuance and difficulty of bringing people over to your cause who plain and simply aren't convinced yet. Is racism really an area where there are more than two sides? Where someone can legitimately say "I'm not pro-racism, I just don't think we should get rid of it"? "I'm not saying I think the police should deny the constitutional rights of blacks, I just think that we should stop investigating the cases of them doing that" I thought this post by yourself did a good job delineating the nuances in positions of various degrees of white supremacy endorsement mohdoo is asking for.. You can say that 'either you're a racist or you're not', but when it comes to what policies you actively support, there are lots of different degrees of racism. According to yourself you're like a 7 out of 9, at what point of this scale does the binary go from 0 to 1? 9. 9 is the passing grade there. When the kid actually corrects the injustice at their own expense because they know it's the right thing to do and that, although they worked hard, they did not earn the benefit they received at the expense of the other kid. I'm a terrible ally. I'll freely admit that. I believe in all sorts of causes which I do absolutely nothing to further, while privately enjoying the privileges I receive due to the failure of those causes. I'll probably go max hypocrisy and send my kids to a private school and hell, it'll probably be racially segregated when I do. I'll say it's fucked up that the world is the way it is while shamelessly abusing the benefits of my own hypocrisy. The reality is that racism is a zero sum game. If you're a white guy who thinks black people should be able to sit at the front of the bus then the correct solution is obvious, you stand up and you give Rosa Parks your seat. If you refuse to give up your seat then no amount of words is sufficient. So to what degree must you favor violent property redistribution before you are an ally? I mean, I'm such a leftist that I probably come out better than mostly everyone else according to your definition, but I don't really agree with it anyway. I strongly believe in favoring policies that empower black people (and any other disenfranchised group), I want increased taxes across the board because I want a more equitable distribution of goods, even though this clearly disfavors my own privileged self. However, I also favor a 'whoever sat down first gets to keep their seat' as the literal answer to the bus dilemma, although I could definitely see my current self giving up my seat if I found myself in race segregated USA. (with the knowledge that my current self probably wouldn't be my current self if that's where I grew up.) Imo there's a very big difference between your average trump voter and your average mohdoo, much bigger than the difference between your average mohdoo and your average GH. Not sure why you're bringing up violent propert redistribution but that's not a part of my argument. Let's say you and a more qualified female coworker go for the same promotion. Your boss tells you not to worry and that you'll get it because your coworker will probably just end up getting pregnant and he wants someone more reliable. The duty there as an ally couldn't be more simple, if you refuse to accept the promotion then she'll get it. Anything less and you're making a choice to be complicit in the sexist establishment. It's a zero sum game. You have to be willing to give something up.
It being a zero sum game is why I bring up property redistribution, and people's unwillingness to willingly part with their property is why I bring up violent.  To achieve true racial equality, the differences in wealth, neighborhoodly benefits (better education in 'white' neighborhoods etc) and all that jazz would have to be reverted. Me as an individual giving a more qualified black guy the job we're both aiming for is fine, but it doesn't change that my privileged upbringing means I'm statistically more likely to be better qualified than him. I don't believe my white privilege is related to the superiority of my aryan genes, but a consequence of cultural developments that have taken many generations to develop, and the blame for an absense of a similarly minded culture within black communities (I am generalizing here, probably too much, but again, kinda short on time) can't be placed on black people. For society as a whole to go for that '9' you're aiming for, truly radical change would have to take place.
I'm not advocating for that type of wealth shift to take place on a one or two generation basis because I think that'd lead to a violent, chaotic reaction that would leave everybody worse off. But I do support policies that would make poorer communities better, and where there's a conflict, at the expense of richer communities. It's a balancing game though.
|
Property redistribution is usually negative sum because of the resources spent performing the redistribution.
|
On November 13 2017 14:33 Buckyman wrote:
Property redistribution is usually negative sum because of the resources spent performing the redistribution.
This would be true if we were actually carting goods around, but for the most part, wealth redistribution via taxes and welfare is shifting the resource (dollars) electronically. You could call the wages of the people involved negative, but those people are going to spend that money back into the economy, so the resource is neither wasted nor destroyed.
|
On November 13 2017 14:19 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 14:07 Slaughter wrote:
Yea well the glorification of the US and Capitalism has taught people to be selfish because everyone should be/are selfish. So people really don't give a fuck about things like that and just say "them's the breaks I was lucky that time" This appears to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism. Capitalism is how we entice selfish people to contribute to the rest of society.
Capitalism is how selfish people provide moral justification for the accumulation of wealth at the expense of society.
|
On November 13 2017 14:19 Buckyman wrote:
This appears to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism. Capitalism is how we entice selfish people to contribute to the rest of society.
That's the ideal. The trouble is that there's often a dangerously thin line between letting someone think they're exploiting society, and actually letting them exploit it.
|
Canada11509 Posts
On November 13 2017 15:40 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 14:19 Buckyman wrote:On November 13 2017 14:07 Slaughter wrote:
Yea well the glorification of the US and Capitalism has taught people to be selfish because everyone should be/are selfish. So people really don't give a fuck about things like that and just say "them's the breaks I was lucky that time" This appears to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism. Capitalism is how we entice selfish people to contribute to the rest of society. Capitalism is how selfish people provide moral justification for the accumulation of wealth at the expense of society.
Why is wealth accumulation by default at the expense of society? Theoretically we are freely exchanging goods (or labour in order to get goods) that we have a surplus and couldn't use anyways. If we are generating wealth and I get what I want and you get what you want in an exchange that we are reasonably happy why would that be at the expense of each other? And that goes even if one of us manages to get filthy rich by selling something that more people are willing to pay a higher price... if we freely exchanged and one of us got rich, the other wasn't taken from- they didn't go down. They just didn't go up as much.
I don't think it's zero sum because you can constantly create value where none was found before. All that sand lying around? Turns out if processed correctly you can turn silica sand into silicon. For thousands of years it was virtually useless, and then someone figured out how to make it useful with contemporary technology and value was added to sand of all things.
|
On November 13 2017 18:38 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 15:40 Kyadytim wrote:On November 13 2017 14:19 Buckyman wrote:On November 13 2017 14:07 Slaughter wrote:
Yea well the glorification of the US and Capitalism has taught people to be selfish because everyone should be/are selfish. So people really don't give a fuck about things like that and just say "them's the breaks I was lucky that time" This appears to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism. Capitalism is how we entice selfish people to contribute to the rest of society. Capitalism is how selfish people provide moral justification for the accumulation of wealth at the expense of society. Why is wealth accumulation by default at the expense of society? Theoretically we are freely exchanging goods (or labour in order to get goods) that we have a surplus and couldn't use anyways. If we are generating wealth and I get what I want and you get what you want in an exchange that we are reasonably happy why would that be at the expense of each other?
What planet is this happening on?
|
On November 13 2017 12:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 11:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 11:43 Uldridge wrote:
And I'm saying, why don't you use your guns instead of showing them? And don't use them on me, but use them on the people that actually hold the power, people I didn't want in power.
I'm not saying to become more docile, I'm saying to become more aggressive. But you need more people than just a fraction to want to be involved, and that's just not the case, so no change will happen. Well you don't radicalize people by cajoling them you radicalize people by cudgeling them with the discomfort of the truth. When I break Danglars and xDaunt they are going to be more effective and vocal warriors for justice and equity than anyone else here, probably myself included. EDIT: meant to edit.
If you're genuinely interested in changing hearts and minds, the only way you'll do so is by opening your own to theirs. We throw the terms "good faith" and "bad faith" arguing around a lot, but I'm pretty sure 99% of the arguments on this thread are in bad faith.
In order to get through to Danglars and xDaunt (or any confident, intelligent individual with an opposing viewpoint), you need to develop and demonstrate an understanding and empathy of their beliefs and how/why they're formed, to the point that it could seem plausible that they could "break" you. It requires risk and vulnerability, and it isn't easy. This is "good faith" arguing.
The closest I have seen to this type of arguing is IgnE's very well thought-out post on his opinion of conservatism several pages back. It took a lot of effort on his part, but you can see the kind of response he got from xDaunt. I'm sure that xDaunt is more likely to personally reflect on IgnE's posts in the future as a result.
The issue I see you having in your goal is that the concept of beliefs that run counter to your own are anathema to you, as well as threatening. Granted, given the history of racism, you and the black community have more reason to feel that way than most. But unfortunately, this prevents you from having a conversation with them that leads anywhere meaningful, and typically ends the same way each time.
The reason this isn't easy is because it requires a sacrifice on your part. They're not the ones trying to convince you, so they can keep their guard up on their beliefs all they want. The burden is on YOU to adopt beliefs you may find initially repulsive. It requires a fluidity and confidence in your beliefs, an acknowledgement that "beliefs exist that are opposite of mine, and that's OK".
Personally, I believe there are universal truths that we as humans all try and aspire to. We're all playing our own version of the game, so to speak, but the game is the same. Ugh sorry I'm rambling, but you get the idea I'm sure =)
|
Did anyone see Biden "casually sitting" in the NYC pub with Matt Lauer during the football intermission last night? It was so fake, so staged, so canned. It made me physically ill to even watch the segment. A huge joke. Fake people.
|
On November 13 2017 22:51 pNRG wrote:
Did anyone see Biden "casually sitting" in the NYC pub with Matt Lauer during the football intermission last night? It was so fake, so staged, so canned. It made me physically ill to even watch the segment. A huge joke. Fake people.
Faker than the Mike Pence walk out?
|
On November 13 2017 22:37 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 12:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 11:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 11:43 Uldridge wrote:
And I'm saying, why don't you use your guns instead of showing them? And don't use them on me, but use them on the people that actually hold the power, people I didn't want in power.
I'm not saying to become more docile, I'm saying to become more aggressive. But you need more people than just a fraction to want to be involved, and that's just not the case, so no change will happen. Well you don't radicalize people by cajoling them you radicalize people by cudgeling them with the discomfort of the truth. When I break Danglars and xDaunt they are going to be more effective and vocal warriors for justice and equity than anyone else here, probably myself included. EDIT: meant to edit. If you're genuinely interested in changing hearts and minds, the only way you'll do so is by opening your own to theirs. We throw the terms "good faith" and "bad faith" arguing around a lot, but I'm pretty sure 99% of the arguments on this thread are in bad faith. In order to get through to Danglars and xDaunt (or any confident, intelligent individual with an opposing viewpoint), you need to develop and demonstrate an understanding and empathy of their beliefs and how/why they're formed, to the point that it could seem plausible that they could "break" you. It requires risk and vulnerability, and it isn't easy. This is "good faith" arguing. The closest I have seen to this type of arguing is IgnE's very well thought-out post on his opinion of conservatism several pages back. It took a lot of effort on his part, but you can see the kind of response he got from xDaunt. I'm sure that xDaunt is more likely to personally reflect on IgnE's posts in the future as a result. The issue I see you having in your goal is that the concept of beliefs that run counter to your own are anathema to you, as well as threatening. Granted, given the history of racism, you and the black community have more reason to feel that way than most. But unfortunately, this prevents you from having a conversation with them that leads anywhere meaningful, and typically ends the same way each time. The reason this isn't easy is because it requires a sacrifice on your part. They're not the ones trying to convince you, so they can keep their guard up on their beliefs all they want. The burden is on YOU to adopt beliefs you may find initially repulsive. It requires a fluidity and confidence in your beliefs, an acknowledgement that "beliefs exist that are opposite of mine, and that's OK". Personally, I believe there are universal truths that we as humans all try and aspire to. We're all playing our own version of the game, so to speak, but the game is the same. Ugh sorry I'm rambling, but you get the idea I'm sure =)
I'm inclined to wonder if you think you did that here?
But I would point out that what I do empowers people who do what you want, despite the consistent assertion otherwise. Perennial evidence stands in the familiar refrain calling for the (fictionalized) restraint/focus shown by MLK jr.
On November 13 2017 22:51 pNRG wrote:
Did anyone see Biden "casually sitting" in the NYC pub with Matt Lauer during the football intermission last night? It was so fake, so staged, so canned. It made me physically ill to even watch the segment. A huge joke. Fake people.
Biden is awful and if it weren't the Democratic party I couldn't imagine anyone being so dumb as to think now is the time to float old Creep Uncle Joe around people's minds. If it weren't such an amazing way to nip his candidacy in the bud I'd think they were doing it on purpose and taking advantage of an out of touch old man.
|
Alabama republican senate candidate Roy Moore probably will not win the senate seat due to allegations of misconduct involving minors from decades ago. Sad but on the other hand that is the NPR's viewpoint on that issue and NPR is definitely a bastion of liberal thought in this day & age so I guess I don't know how the electorate will see this issue.
|
On November 13 2017 22:53 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 22:51 pNRG wrote:
Did anyone see Biden "casually sitting" in the NYC pub with Matt Lauer during the football intermission last night? It was so fake, so staged, so canned. It made me physically ill to even watch the segment. A huge joke. Fake people. Faker than the Mike Pence walk out?
Because I deride Biden, please don't mistake me for a Pence fan in any regard. I'd actually rather see Biden wield power than Pence. They're all fake.
|
I can't think of anyone who actually wants Biden to run. I give 49/51 odds that he decides to "bow out and let the new generation carry the torch" or finishes near the bottom of the pack in Iowa. Either way, a lot of people lose their rose-colored glasses and he's remembered as something other than a tier 1 VP (probably something less favorable).
Oh, and he definitely is writing a book.
|
On November 13 2017 23:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
I can't think of anyone who actually wants Biden to run. I give 49/51 odds that he decides to "bow out and let the new generation carry the torch" or finishes near the bottom of the pack in Iowa. Either way, a lot of people lose their rose-colored glasses and he's remembered as something other than a tier 1 VP (probably something less favorable).
Oh, and he definitely is writing a book.
Every single person I know wanted Biden to run in 2016, and most still want him to run in 2020 (I would want him to run myself if he wasn't so old)
After trump all of Biden gaffs seem like nothing so I don't think anyone would really have a problem with him.
|
On November 13 2017 22:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 22:37 Ryzel wrote:On November 13 2017 12:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 11:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 11:43 Uldridge wrote:
And I'm saying, why don't you use your guns instead of showing them? And don't use them on me, but use them on the people that actually hold the power, people I didn't want in power.
I'm not saying to become more docile, I'm saying to become more aggressive. But you need more people than just a fraction to want to be involved, and that's just not the case, so no change will happen. Well you don't radicalize people by cajoling them you radicalize people by cudgeling them with the discomfort of the truth. When I break Danglars and xDaunt they are going to be more effective and vocal warriors for justice and equity than anyone else here, probably myself included. EDIT: meant to edit. If you're genuinely interested in changing hearts and minds, the only way you'll do so is by opening your own to theirs. We throw the terms "good faith" and "bad faith" arguing around a lot, but I'm pretty sure 99% of the arguments on this thread are in bad faith. In order to get through to Danglars and xDaunt (or any confident, intelligent individual with an opposing viewpoint), you need to develop and demonstrate an understanding and empathy of their beliefs and how/why they're formed, to the point that it could seem plausible that they could "break" you. It requires risk and vulnerability, and it isn't easy. This is "good faith" arguing. The closest I have seen to this type of arguing is IgnE's very well thought-out post on his opinion of conservatism several pages back. It took a lot of effort on his part, but you can see the kind of response he got from xDaunt. I'm sure that xDaunt is more likely to personally reflect on IgnE's posts in the future as a result. The issue I see you having in your goal is that the concept of beliefs that run counter to your own are anathema to you, as well as threatening. Granted, given the history of racism, you and the black community have more reason to feel that way than most. But unfortunately, this prevents you from having a conversation with them that leads anywhere meaningful, and typically ends the same way each time. The reason this isn't easy is because it requires a sacrifice on your part. They're not the ones trying to convince you, so they can keep their guard up on their beliefs all they want. The burden is on YOU to adopt beliefs you may find initially repulsive. It requires a fluidity and confidence in your beliefs, an acknowledgement that "beliefs exist that are opposite of mine, and that's OK". Personally, I believe there are universal truths that we as humans all try and aspire to. We're all playing our own version of the game, so to speak, but the game is the same. Ugh sorry I'm rambling, but you get the idea I'm sure =) I'm inclined to wonder if you think you did that here? But I would point out that what I do empowers people who do what you want, despite the consistent assertion otherwise. Perennial evidence stands in the familiar refrain calling for the (fictionalized) restraint/focus shown by MLK jr.
Sorry, I'm stupid and need more clarification. What is it that you're wondering if I think I did? My intention was to convey that the most effective way to sway the mind of an intelligent person confident in their beliefs is to find common ground, typically by embracing their beliefs since they won't make the same effort for you, and then making your argument from that framework.
Do I think I made that effort to sway your mind? Honestly I could have done better, I only just kind of gave lip service to the difficulty you would have without going into detail, so it probably comes off that I don't acknowledge that difficulty.
Again I'm stupid, but I'm also not quite sure what you mean by "what I do", or empowering people that do "what I want". Is that in reference to what I think I did? And what do you mean by "consistent assertions"? I think I've brought something like this up before, but I don't remember if it was directed at you.
And I'm having trouble deciphering the point of your last sentence. There's always people saying that MLK Jr emphasized focus and restraint, which is similar to my point, yet he didn't actually say that?
Do you not agree with the point I'm trying to convey (which I outlined 1st paragraph of this post)? I was of the understanding that point was pretty universal, but if you don't agree we could certainly argue that point.
|
On November 13 2017 22:56 A3th3r wrote:
Alabama republican senate candidate Roy Moore probably will not win the senate seat due to allegations of misconduct involving minors from decades ago. Sad but on the other hand that is the NPR's viewpoint on that issue and NPR is definitely a bastion of liberal thought in this day & age so I guess I don't know how the electorate will see this issue.
It's hard to say, there's not a lot of real evidence. On the one hand you have a few polls showing him down 2 points, on the other Alabama is about as red as you can get and there was a poll in the state showing that it made evangelical voters, a big part of Alabama, more likely to vote for him, not less (grist for the fake news mill in their mind).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
