Freedom is not safe

I recall a phrase my father used, comedically and yet sincerely, "he's educated beyond his intelligence" - it's hard not to see it when that comes to mind.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. On the one hand you're saying that companies lacking outside pressure will only do what's in their own best interest, to which I'd agree, but at the same time you're saying they'd discriminate against women and minorities --- how is that in their best interest? Hmmm

Turned out to be a good suggestion! Tucker seems pretty on target so far. Guess who else I found... Greg Gutfeld. He's pretty funny. Seems like a parody on the doofy late night TV hosts in some ways. While exposing stupidity. Not hard considering how prolific it is but thankfully some people are doing it. If I see the lady come up I'll check her out.

 

FYI, he asked how you define the concepts, not how others do.

Is that unreasonable considering everything you pump out is fallaciously "left wing fantastic, right wing horrible"?

We see you like to be the only one asking the questions and not much for answering them.

 

It's really fascinating to watch you silly folks flop about... One minute you're touting "the right (or Republicans or conservatives) is about the richest people and their companies" and then when it's more convenient for your twisted arguments, the next minute it's "they're the low life factory workers and dirty trade workers". I know it's hard to see the fallacy of one's own ways.

 

Have you read about Germany during the twenties and thirties?
Lesson: Why was there a rise in political extremism in Germany after WW1? | Teacher Hub | Oak National Academy
Quite a turbulent time. All those militias running around
Weimar paramilitary groups - Wikipedia

--something we haven't seen in the West since until
The rise of modern militias.
The Rise of American Militias, From Timothy McVeigh to Kyle Rittenhouse
Why armed militia groups are surging across the nation

Along came a demagogue named Hitler, who perfected the theory he called the Big Lie. Tell an outrageous falsehood often enough and people will begin to believe it.
Trump's Big Lie and Hitler's: Is this how America's slide into totalitarianism begins?
"Alternative facts" was Trump's Senior Counselor, Kellyanne Conway's term for it. The Historical Origin of "Alternative Facts"
Have you heard lately that Trump really won the 2020 election? None other than the My Pillow Guy says he'll be reinstated by August (Hey, that's next month!) Opinion | Trump's dangerous August reinstatement theory is worse than it looks
And the Conservative Political Action Conference, that respected voice of right wing opinion, even has a seven-point plan to get him back in before the next election.
Trump Supporters Insist Far-Fetched 7-Point Plan Will Get Him Back In Office | HuffPost

Then, there was the abortive effort by Hitler's supporters to bring the Nazis to power in 1923--the Beer Hall Putsch--sorta like what the "patriots" tried here with Trump on January 6.The Nazis kept on trying, though, and finally--incredibly enough--they were elected to the Reichstag and Hitler was made Chancellor, cuz he'd bring "LAW AND ORDER"

What Trump Really Means When He Tweets “LAW & ORDER!!!”

As Lon Fuller brilliantly argued in The Morality of Law, if law is about the ordering of human behavior by rules, Nazi Germany was a thoroughly lawless regime, because there were no real rules, just whatever the Führer said it was.
What is Nazism? A form of Fascism--at the time a unique political system consisting of six elements: populism+Nativism+Nationalism+Scapegoating+leadership Principle+Statism. Fascism is populist in gearing its messaging to the little guy who feels left out of the distribution of wealth, status and power in society--especially those who feel they're losing ground to the "others"--those who aren't like us in race, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. It is nativist in being against foreign influence and immigration. Do any politicians today harp on that issue? It is nationalist in stressing national glory and superiority (for Mussolini, restoring the glory of the Roman Empire; for Hitler, fulfilling the destiny of the Aryan Master Race embodied in the Third Reich), Trump in "Make America Great Again". It scapegoats out groups (for Mussolini, socialists and communists, who were beaten up by his blackshirts; for Hitler, Jews, gypsies and homosexuals, who were beaten up by his brownshirts). as the source of society's evils. Add Muslims and Mexicans to the list, and we have the targets of the MAGA militias. It puts it's faith primarily in a Leader instead of policies or institutions (IL Duce, for Mussolini's followers; Der Furher, for Hitler's). Interesting that the Republican Party no longer bothers with a platform. It's "principles" are whatever the Donald says they are on a given day. And it advocates Statism, in which the government is given totalitarian control over people's lives.Trump hasn't gone there yet, but give him time.

So all of these parallels concern me. But of course nobody has accused Trump and the MAGA boys of being "Socialist", so I guess we can relax and enjoy our lawn darts.

 

"Tucker seems pretty on target so far." How would one argue with someone that makes that statement? Look at the differences in posters answers / information on the last few pages. It pays to know who and what one is dealing with.

 

Like father, like son!

Hmmm is right. What a remarkable statement. Your comment suggests you think there was no discrimination against women and minorities by private companies back in the day. Could you (or anyone) possibly believe that? Any casebook on employment law is full of examples of private businesses and corporations doing just that. North of the Mason Dixon line, there was no Jim Crow imposing government discrimination, but businesses discriminated nonetheless cuz they could, because it was to their advantage to give preference to white males in employment, to pay them more, and promote them faster. So there's really no contradictions in my statements you seem to think are contradictory. The civil rights legislation during the Johnson Administration made that illegal, but it took decades of courtroom battles to enforce it, and the fight is still going on. https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-con...PR-RWJF-HSPH-Discrimination-Final-Summary.pdf

I thought you'd like them. Fox recently won a defamation lawsuit for something Tucker Carlson said, because the court said no reasonable person would believe a thing he said.

 

Quoted for truth...

 

To the simple mind, complex realities seem "twisted". However, any thoughtful student of history would understand that the wealthy, realizing the precariousness of being outnumbered, learned early on to engage in clever strategies to persuade the "low life factory workers" (your label) they're on their side against those #$% others, who are their real enemies--a phenomenon which Marxists call "false consciousness", defined as: the systematic misrepresentation of dominant social relations in the consciousness of subordinate classes. false consciousness Actually, it works remarkably well, cuz the lower classes have limited education, relative deprivation focuses their attention on comparative reference groups which are closer to them in SES, and status insecurity is often a more potent motivator than economic inequality. In the early nineteenth century, the Whig Party representing the wealthy elite managed to win the election of 1840 by projecting a populist image, running the military hero of the battle of Tippecanoe, William Henry Harrison, and hosting campaign rallies featuring kegs of hard cider--touting their candidate as ."the log cabin and hard cider " candidate" from the rough and tumble West. For an excellent analysis of how this works today, I recommend Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America, who deals with how a state that was once a hotbed of the Left-wing Populist movement became a rock-ribbed Red State in conflict with what he argues is its own best economic interests. Conservative politicians and pundits accomplish this by playing on the social conservative side of Kansans: abortion and immigration. Another example from our own time, billionaire ex-President the Donald has his main support base among white working class men without a college education. They revere him as a successful businessman (ignoring the millions his dad spent on launching him and the shady practices that got him there) and perceiving him as one of their own because he's crude and vulgar, and because he's so skillful in playing on their fears of the browns, blacks, etc. To Fox, the issues du jour are the teaching of critical race theory in our public schools (despite the fact that critical race theory isn't being taught in our public schools) and the self-censorship by publishers of Dr. Seuss books.

I'm aware that you'll dismiss everything I write here because I haven't used four-letter words and twenty-second sound bites. So it goes.

 

I maintain your detractor can feign neither misunderstanding of , nor ignorance of your "twisted arguments. " You are and have been quite concise in the points you have made. There are apparently complete different sets of "alternate realities / and facts " and millions for whom ACTUAL facts do not enter into any political / societal discussions in any meaningful form. You are engaging with one such.

 

Trud

Sorry who is going on about ‘low life factory workers and dirty trade workers’?

Hell I’ve been a factory worker, farm and builders labourer and trade worker

There is a saying - Contempt for the conmen. Compassion for the conned

Wealth spends a lot of money trying to con people into voting against their interests and in favour of the interests of wealth.

Wealth promoted Social Darwinist ideas, they set up think tanks to promoted free market ideas, they AstroTurf things like the Tea Party movement, they spend millions on lobbyists and PR firms to shape peoples viewpoints - wealthy individuals’ foundations, companies and institutions bankroll the many right wing grifters in the media and politics – all to try and bamboozle the unwary into voting against their interests.

But it’s all an empty shell – smoke and mirrors

Where are the substantive arguments the actual rational evidence to favour the interests of the wealthy over the majority over the common worker?

They are not there – just look at the pages on these forums

Where are the actual arguments against left wing ideas – just saying ‘its evil’ is not a real argument and just saying right wing views ‘are good’ isn’t a real argument but it seems like the only one many right wingers here have.

 

If "educated" were represented as how you come across (closed minded and fully secure in your conceived opinions) then I'll distance myself. I do fall to the Duning-Kruger effect, where I know enough to realize how little I know of how much there is to know. This effect keeps me from locking into countless solid opinions of things I haven't personally confirmed. And to view the news as a comedy show. Feel free to continue your attempts at denigrating others who may not share your opinions. I don't care one iota about what you think or read, your "education" (as it were) is entirely up to you. I just point out that your views are rigid and one-sided. It could be a reaction of rebellion from your troubled childhood if I may fathom a guess knowing only what you've shared. I feel like you could be happier and wiser - if you wanted to be and put forth some effort.

 

Trud

LOL - To paraphrase I’d look to the beam in your own eye before trying to find the non-existent mote in anothers.

Sorry the insights you have given to your own ‘education’ the deeply biased and disingenuous books and a belief that Tucker Carlson is ‘pretty on target’, would seem to suggest you lack the critical ability to sperate the chaff from the grain which is made plain by you conduct on the forum.

I mean you must have noticed that the person who is refusing to answer question let alone address the many outstanding criticisms of their views is you – that one of the most close minded individual here is yourself.

 

Pot calls kettle black, but pot has no evidence or arguments to back up its assessments. We now have an extensive record of your posts. The pattern is clear. You state simple right wing opinions, usually coupled with some disparaging remarks about folks who don't share your views. The views expressed are of the caliber of street corner wisdom--the consensus of every right thinking (and I stress "right") Retrumplican white guy in town thinks, so they must be right. I guess the appropriate response would be to say "You're full of shit", because that would be on the same intellectual level. Instead, we try to explain, by argument and evidence, why we disagree. Then you fall back on the standard: "you think you're so smart with your fancy egghead arguments and evidence but your views are "rigid and one-sided." No attempt to explain how. When I read your posts, I hear in my mind a piano playing the theme song from All in the Family, and Archie Bunker singing" :Songs that old Glenn Miller played. Songs that made the Hit Parade....Guys like me, we had it made. Those were the Daaaaaaaaaays." I don't know whether or not you're older than I am, but it sure seems that way. You seem stuck in a time warp back in the Eisenhower era, or want to turn things back to that time. But it doesn't work that way. There's no going back, and many of us don't want to.

I think I'm as open as the next one to persuasion by facts and reasoned argument, but I haven't heard any from you. When somebody says "Nazism was mainly about Socialism", how does anyone respond to that without citing facts about the Nazi movement in Germany and getting into an analysis of what Nazism was all about? And I think it's important to respond, because half-baked opinions like that have legs in the current political climate. And really, I think we've shown restraint when you tell us that your list of good, objective books includes Rush Limbaugh and Tucker Carlson. Hard to keep a straight face! You impress me as one of the more closed minded people on this Forum.

I don't think my childhood was more "troubled" than most, even factoring in the nus with rulers, and I really think I have a great life now, with a wonderful wife and family. Try another theory.

 

I might add, if you detect a sense of urgency and distress in my posts, that I'm really concerned about the direction in which this country is rapidly headed--which is over a cliff. The single most dangerous force responsible for this are Retrumplicans and Qanon conspiracy nuts with "alternative facts" and cult-like devotion to a crime boss. Many of you seem to be itching for Civil War, and short of that, to somehow rig the electoral process so that your Dear Leader gets another term. That would be the end of our democracy, the most precious thing this country has going, and it will be an end to real freedom as well as social justice. Sure we might still be free to play with lawn jarts and dash our brains out riding motorcycles without a helmet, but the political freedoms that we cherish willl be gone. And if it happens it will be the result of ignorane, fake news, alternative facts, and specious reasoning-- or no reasoning at all.

Do Democrats, liberals, and Progressives have their faults? You bet. And I'll deal with those in good time. But I think the priority has to be dealing with the Retrumplican right, which has taken leave of its senses and seems insurrection bound.

 

You missed the question, HOW was (it) to their advantage to give preference to white males in employment, to pay them more, and promote them faster ???

You're just repeating your claim. And it's contrary to natural logic. So how did that gain them advantage? How?

 

I think you're taking to heart the opinions of the wrong people. I've met a lot of Trump supporters and not a single one equated themselves with him in any way. They just like an open honest fair shake, appreciate a person who speaks his mind, and astonished that anyone in political office would actually work on bringing their promises to fruition.

 

Wealth benefits us all. Gates with computers in our homes, Musk with great strides in electric transportation, internet access, and space flight, Bezos with online purchasing and delivery to the home (and space flight), for prominent examples. For innovation to occur, incentive must be available.