Assasination attempt on Donald Trump today (July 13, 2024)

Hopefully extremist fringes of no kind won’t influence those within the halls of power too much.

That's kind of a Trumpian sentence there; actually it might be more G.W. Bushean. But I have to disagree. Fringe does not always equal bad. At prior points in history, positions like the abolition of slavery, women's rights, agnosticism, and the decriminalization of homosexuality were all fringe views. Veganism at present is quite fringe and probably always will be. Good morality does not always win a popularity contest.
 
That's kind of a Trumpian sentence there; actually it might be more G.W. Bushean. But I have to disagree. Fringe does not always equal bad. At prior points in history, positions like the abolition of slavery, women's rights, agnosticism, and the decriminalization of homosexuality were all fringe views. Veganism at present is quite fringe and probably always will be. Good morality does not always win a popularity contest.
That’s true. Of course there have been absolutely essential fringe elements in our society, historically. But I don’t see too many of those today. I don’t want the…I dunno…Proud Boys to influence society.
 
That’s true. Of course there have been absolutely essential fringe elements in our society, historically. But I don’t see too many of those today. I don’t want the…I dunno…Proud Boys to influence society.

Right. That's a fringe group we'd rather not have. Our worldviews must be very different, though, because most of the positions I hold would probably be considered fringe, and I find the political mainstream overwhelmingly polluted with bad ideas and bad policy. I have never been compelled to vote for a candidate of either major party.
 
Right. That's a fringe group we'd rather not have. Our worldviews must be very different, though, because most of the positions I hold would probably be considered fringe, and I find the political mainstream overwhelmingly polluted with bad ideas and bad policy. I have never been compelled to vote for a candidate of either major party.
I wonder how we would feel if we switched countries.
 
I wonder how we would feel if we switched countries.

I don't know if my views would be significantly less fringe in Sweden, although on certain issues (such as Israel and euthanasia) almost any secular European country would be more amenable to me than here.
 
I don't know if my views would be significantly less fringe in Sweden, although on certain issues (such as Israel and euthanasia) almost any secular European country would be more amenable to me than here.
Sounds kind of interesting, though, I must say.
 
Maybe we'll have a Freaky Friday where you wake up in red-state America and I wake up in vanilla-left Scandinavia.
And we’ll both shit ourselves. I think I’ll have it better off than you, though. You won’t have any problem finding vegan food, so that’s a plus.
 
I wonder how we would feel if we switched countries.

Yes, I wonder how you would feel. I think you should move to Chicago or Detroit or St. Louis and see how long your current worldview lasts:

IMG_3240.jpeg

IMG_3241.jpeg

IMG_3242.jpeg


The murder of Emmett Till?
:lbf:
 
⬆️ Statistically speaking, Asians in the U.S. are very peaceful. They're sending their best.
 
⬆️ Statistically speaking, Asians in the U.S. are very peaceful. They're sending their best.
Most East Asians are civil to me here in Vancouver, Canada. Some have been very kind to me. A few have been vicious. My neighbourhood consists of mostly East Asians.
 
Yes, I wonder how you would feel. I think you should move to Chicago or Detroit or St. Louis and see how long your current worldview lasts:

View attachment 107295
View attachment 107296
View attachment 107297


:lbf:
I know you are deep into your nazi rabbit hole, far, far beyond redemption, but even you should still, deep down, know that people aren’t criminal just because their skin is black. Black people aren’t inherently bad. People aren’t inherently criminal. We should accept how things are, if they are factual, yes, but we should also know why things are. But I refuse to try and educate you, the most viciously hateful person on this forum, on these basic matters. I know it’ll be many futile hours spent, and absolutely no one will gain anything from it. Especially not you. Or me, for that matter.

May I just advise you to not sit angrily on your computer in the wee hours of the morning, getting worked up over people disagreeing with your worldview? It’s not healthy.
 
I know you are deep into your nazi rabbit hole, far, far beyond redemption, but even you should still, deep down, know that people aren’t criminal just because their skin is black. Black people aren’t inherently bad. People aren’t inherently criminal. We should accept how things are, if they are factual, yes, but we should also know why things are. But I refuse to try and educate you, the most viciously hateful person on this forum, on these basic matters. I know it’ll be many futile hours spent, and absolutely no one will gain anything from it. Especially not you. Or me, for that matter.

May I just advise you to not sit angrily on your computer in the wee hours of the morning, getting worked up over people disagreeing with your worldview? It’s not healthy.
To be fair though, Gregor, no one on this thread has suggested that disparities in crime statistics are due to one race or ethnic group being 'inherently bad' or 'inherently criminal'. I certainly haven't and wouldn't suggest that. Far from it. But that is how you have interpreted some of the posts on this thread, regardless of the fact that no one posting on this thread has actually said that. My guess is that most people who have contributed to this thread would agree that there are lots of different factors at play in creating disparities in crime statistics - economic and historical. I certainly would. This is why I refused to answer the question as to whether 4 very different events in history were 'racist' - much to the chagrin of yourself and Zoom. Just as in those disparities in crime statistics, I think there were lots of different factors at play in those 4 events, economic and historical. Don't forget, the cops who beat up Rodney King were not convicted, and the men who murdered Emmett Till were not convicted. The judge in the trial was biased and disallowed evidence that might have convicted the killers. The educated class and the institutions you praised in one of your posts failed. A song like Only A Pawn in their Game very well describes the wider economic and class factors that arguably play a part in such events. The same is very true in the other events you mentioned in your list. The creation of apartheid laws in South Africa were very much driven by wider economic and ownership of wealth considerations. And so too was the Holocaust. It is estimated that the Nazis seizing Jewish wealth amounted to as much as 20 billion US dollars in today's money. And that doesn't include the profits that several corporations made out of the Holocaust - it was, after all, the application of Fordist production methods applied to mass murder, rather than making cars. Were things like racial purity ideology and race hatred also a factor? Of course. But I just think putting all 4 of the events you listed down to 'racism' and nothing else, is overly simplistic and not helpful. Maybe you need to read a bit more Marx and the role of 'materialism' in world history? Marx wasn't one for the idea that history is driven by abstract concepts in people's heads.


 
To be fair though, Gregor, no one on this thread has suggested that disparities in crime statistics are due to one race or ethnic group being 'inherently bad' or 'inherently criminal'. I certainly haven't and wouldn't suggest that. Far from it. But that is how you have interpreted some of the posts on this thread, regardless of the fact that no one posting on this thread has actually said that. My guess is that most people who have contributed to this thread would agree that there are lots of different factors at play in creating disparities in crime statistics - economic and historical. I certainly would. This is why I refused to answer the question as to whether 4 very different events in history were 'racist' - much to the chagrin of yourself and Zoom. Just as in those disparities in crime statistics, I think there were lots of different factors at play in those 4 events, economic and historical. Don't forget, the cops who beat up Rodney King were not convicted, and the men who murdered Emmett Till were not convicted. The judge in the trial was biased and disallowed evidence that might have convicted the killers. The educated class and the institutions you praised in one of your posts failed. A song like Only A Pawn in their Game very well describes the wider economic and class factors that arguably play a part in such events. The same is very true in the other events you mentioned in your list. The creation of apartheid laws in South Africa were very much driven by wider economic and ownership of wealth considerations. And so too was the Holocaust. It is estimated that the Nazis seizing Jewish wealth amounted to as much as 20 billion US dollars in today's money. And that doesn't include the profits that several corporations made out of the Holocaust - it was, after all, the application of Fordist production methods applied to mass murder, rather than making cars. Were things like racial purity ideology and race hatred also a factor? Of course. But I just think putting all 4 of the events you listed down to 'racism' and nothing else, is overly simplistic and not helpful. Maybe you need to read a bit more Marx and the role of 'materialism' in world history? Marx wasn't one for the idea that history is driven by abstract concepts in people's heads.


My post was directed at Born. He said blacks commit more violent crime than whites. I wished for him to look at why that is.

And wouldn’t most people agree that race was in fact the biggest factor in those events? I would guess so. Not saying there wasn’t other factors. And often I think the factors race and wealth went hand in hand for the oppressors. Because of their race, the white oppressors didn’t want the Jews or in the case of SA the blacks, to have any financial wherewithal to speak of. Wealth/means equal power, and they didn’t want the oppressed to have any power.

And yes, too often those in power are corrupted. Especially in the Jim Crowe south. And in the case of a lot the police brutality as well. Hard evidence isn’t enough to get them convicted. But I still want to believe in proper institutions and rule of law. That’s just who I am.
 
Last edited:
I just wanted to announce not that i am leaving solo but that I am no longer wading into this thread!!

It is MUCH too mucky and I don't have proper mud boots!!

just another day on solo …

Alejandro Jodorowsky Festival GIF by Arrow Video
 
My post was directed at Born. He said blacks commit more violent crime than whites. I wished for him to look at why that is.

And wouldn’t most people agree that race was in fact the biggest factor in those events? I would guess so. Not saying there wasn’t other factors. And often I think the factors race and wealth went hand in hand for the oppressors. Because of their race, the white oppressors didn’t want the Jews or in the case of SA the blacks, to have any financial wherewithal to speak of. Wealth/means equal power, and they didn’t want the oppressed to have any power.

And yes, too often those in power are corrupted. Especially in the Jim Crowe south. And in the case of a lot the police brutality as well. Hard evidence isn’t enough to get them convicted. But I still want to believe in proper institutions and rule of law. That’s just who I am.
Yes, aware you were responding to Born and not me. But you did rather accuse me of all sorts of similar unpleasantness in several of your posts.
You suggest in your post that 'race' was the biggest factor in those events. I was originally asked whether 'racism' was the biggest factor in those events. Those are different things. But no, I'm not sure whether 'race' was the biggest factor in all those events. It may have been. In the Rodney King case, for example, men in uniform don't need an excuse to beat up a civilian. That happens in every country in the world, and is rife in many African countries, for example. The officers who beat up Rodney King were charged with assault and using excessive force. None were charged with racially aggravated assault, so there must have been no evidence that 'race' or 'racism' was a factor when they were prosecuted. Was 'race' or 'racism' a factor in the jury finding them not guilty? I don't know. I don't think anyone can know, except the jurors themselves.
This focus on 'common decency' I think is the central issue. I don't think that is a constant, which you seem to be suggesting it is. Over the past 1000 years - 'common decency' was that women are the property of their husband and should not have the vote; that children should have no rights of any kind; that animals should have no rights of any kind; that public execution and torture of criminals is appropriate; that any form of sexual behaviour other than between a man and a woman who are married is a sin; that any child born outside marriage is a bastard; that Empire is a great thing, white people are born to rule the world and the rest of the world should know their place, etc. Only really very gradually in the 19th and 20th century did 'common decency' start to change towards something we might recognise as 'common decency' today in 2024. And even today, there is still much disagreement about what constitutes 'common decency'. I am not sure if I place that much weight on 'common decency'. And it is also not a constant across cultures. What constitutes 'common decency' in Sweden, may not constitute 'common decency' in Saudi Arabia.
What I would suggest is more of a constant is the untrustworthiness of those in power. And how the educated class and the institutions that you so praise act in their own interests and not in the interests of those they claim to serve. Those holding power tend to use it for their own ends. I would suggest that is pretty much a constant over the past 1000 years. The same people who for a 1000 years told us white people are born to rule the world, are now the same people telling us diversity is a strength. Is it because those who rule us have suddenly morally evolved? I don't think so. I think it is because telling us 'diversity is a strength', and the mass immigration and low wages that comes with it, serves their interests. And you seem entirely comfortable giving those in power the right to control what we say, and therefore, what we think. I don't call that progress.
 
Back
Top Bottom