Cultural appropriation, Confederate Flag, and evolving symbology

[Trigger Time]

I think we need to stop equating the race issues about the flag and the statues to the minorities who,may or may not like them.
The side that is starting all,of this B.S. are little white priveledged kids belonging to RADICAL violent and communist groups on the left. Funded by Democrat backers.
This isn't about racism it's about dividing us and creating anarchy and violence leading to very bad things

 

[rob63]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiuesTpIPVQ

NSFW or anyone....

I had never heard of that movie, have to watch it now.

 

[T.Lex]

1. You're simply wrong about chocolate and mint. The mint flavor ruins the chocolate flavor rather than complementing it. Mint is good. Chocolate is good. Mixing the two is evil.

Coming from the guy with a Darth avatar, I'm getting mixed messages as to whether you're endorsing the idea or not....

2. Like most fortune tellers Marx wasn't a good one. Poverty has decreased in the West as capitalism mixed with mostly compatible moral values of the West have evolved to raise the standards of living. The industrial revolution has never produced the promised organic movement towards public ownership of the means of production that Marx promised. Marxists have artificially caused the revolutions that brought about literally every communist regime.

Your last point, first: correct. That's part of the problem. Every attempt (so far) to actually adopt/implement communism has been forced basically from above, by the leadership claiming to be part of the proletariat. (Somewhat ironically, Lech Walesa was actually a product of the lower class but was able to upset the communist regime, although that was also a function of timing.)

As to your earlier assertions, I'm not convinced. If we strictly look at ownership of production, then yes - that superficially suggests Marx had it wrong. But, this is where I go back to my "trajectory" reference. Society is getting more fractious. The divide between haves and have nots is increasing, albeit in a "rising tide lifts all boats" way. The "poor" now have it FAR better than the poor 100 years ago. But, that is part of class compromise. The owner-class giving up measures of their wealth to appease the proletariat. It staves off the crisis, but ultimately cannot avoid it.

It feels like that's where we're heading now. That's also part of what makes this different than the 60s. The socio-economic divide wasn't as big.

 

[indiucky]

I had never heard of that movie, have to watch it now.

You will laugh til you cry......Germany had 80 years of Hitler jokes built up and put every one in this film...

[video=youtube;ylstybS6rqw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylstybS6rqw[/video]

[video=youtube;Q4K0h3Bp_eY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4K0h3Bp_eY[/video]

 

[jamil]

First, I hate the term "haves" and "have-nots". That's not really descriptive of reality. My assertion is that in the West, class animosity is mostly artificial. Take the Occupy movement, for example. They were convinced by ideologues that they have it really bad and that it's the 1%'s fault that they couldn't find jobs $80K/year jobs using their gender studies degrees. And they were convinced that they were somehow being oppressed. But when we compare THIER standards of living against the rest of the world, the snot-nosed basement dwellers are IN the 1%!

That's not to say that there isn't a growing difference between the richest and poorest in the West. There is. But it's not that the poor are getting poorer as much as it is the rich are getting richer. The rich are separating themselves from the poor more and more because they're smarter, more creative, more productive, more driven, and even in some cases, more malevolently smart/creative/productive/driven, than the rest of the population. The more you gain resources, the more resources you have to gain more.

But that doesn't mean the poor are getting poorer. They're only poorer in relation to the rich when we look at things across a larger timeframe. The standard of living for the poor in my childhood (sometimes we were very poor) was far above the standard of living for my dad when he was a kid. His standard of living was far greater as a kid than his dad's was. Today, in the US, how many people are born in one-room homes with dirt floors? How many families today, need to take their kids out of school in the 3rd grade to pick cotton like my dad was? Not as many as back then, I'll tell you that.

There was no organic uprising of the people in the West because the West produced progressively better-off generations. And they could tell.

That's not to say there aren't problems with free markets or contentions between labor and employers. No system is perfect. There is a natural phenomenon that exponentially favors the most competent people over the least competent. As long as there is a disparity between human competence, there will always be that dynamic, regardless of the economic system. There is that dynamic even in communist systems, which is why they tend to collapse. Maybe that's why China adopted a more "capitalist" sort of communism because they realized that. You have to let innovators innovate or they'll eventually innovate your ass out of power. No one has figured out how to deal with that dynamic other oppressing the doers.

Real oppression is what causes organic revolutions. Real oppression is a standard feature of communism because equality opposes human reality. People aren't equal. There is no marxist utopia that will naturally rise up from the people, because free markets left reasonably free generally are okay enough for most people. All these fake revolutions executed by ideologues tried to to force Marx's predictions to come true because they weren't coming true naturally.

 

[T.Lex]

First, I hate the term "haves" and "have-nots".

Shall we use... let's say... "proles."

t's not to say that there isn't a growing difference between the richest and poorest in the West. There is. But it's not that the poor are getting poorer as much as it is the rich are getting richer. The rich are separating themselves from the poor more and more because they're smarter, more creative, more productive, more driven, and even in some cases, more malevolently smart/creative/productive/driven, than the rest of the population. The more you gain resources, the more resources you have to gain more.

Ayn, is that you?

But more seriously, I don't disagree. But, it isn't the raw numbers of a divide that Marx forecast, it was the growing fissure. At some point, there will be no more class compromise because the wealthy won't or can't.

There was no organic uprising of the people in the West because the West produced progressively better-off generations. And they could tell.

That will likely mark the tipping point. When the proles have more economic/political "weight" than the wealthy.

I am not convinced that my kids will be progressively better off than we are.

Real oppression is what causes organic revolutions. Real oppression is a standard feature of communism because equality opposes human reality. People aren't equal. There is no marxist utopia that will naturally rise up from the people, because free markets left reasonably free generally are okay enough for most people. All these fake revolutions executed by ideologues tried to to force Marx's predictions to come true because they weren't coming true naturally.

Indeed, that's why most modern communists have it wrong. The communism selling point is marketing for authoritarians. It isn't really organic.

I will qualify that: the desire is organic. Subsistence farmers want better for their kids. If they think the communist guy is going to do that, they'll vote for/march for/fight for the communist. But, once the leader is installed, they tend to hoard the power and cool stuff for themselves and their cadres.

 

[printcraft]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiuesTpIPVQ

NSFW or anyone....

Good show, I felt sad for the dog.... but it was self defense.




Also: I've seriously considered sporting dreadlocks. Seriously considering.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The "N" word is only not what it used to be based upon who says it.

Keebler Grasshopper Cookies

Much more complicated than that. Context also applies. I know white people that use it, and they had to earn the right to use it.

 

[jamil]

Much more complicated than that. Context also applies. I know white people that use it, and they had to earn the right to use it.

In an age of the civil rights act, for that word to have no power of oppression people need to give it no power. If we want to get to a place where race doesn't matter, then we need ot deal with that word in a raceless manner. Either everyone needs to stop using it, or let it evolve into something harmless for anyone to say. If white people have to earn the right to use it, then race still matters. Untill that's no longer the case, maybe everyone should stop using it.

 

[T.Lex]

I personally don't use it. There are a couple contexts where I probably have "earned" it, but I still wouldn't. I don't think. (Look, if someone calls me out on Jay-Z rhymes, I might be forced to.)

But, I do agree that the evolution of the word is tending toward immateriality. I *think* that's a good thing, although I'd prefer for it to not be used at all.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

FINALLY, an issue I care passionately about!

Mint ruins chocolate. And teas.

 

[JettaKnight]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

A chocolate mint stout is a wonderful treat at Christmastime.

 

[rob63]

You will laugh til you cry......Germany had 80 years of Hitler jokes built up and put every one in this film...

Just finished watching it; absolutely rolling on the floor when they reenacted the scene from Downfall!

 

[jamil]

FINALLY, an issue I care passionately about!

Mint ruins chocolate. And teas.

Mint tea is good. And I suppose on occasion if you want chocolate flavored mint, that's fine. But there's no such thing as mint flavored chocolate.

 

[jamil]

Just finished watching it; absolutely rolling on the floor when they reenacted the scene from Downfall!

Oh geez. I guess I'm just gonna have to break down and watch the video then.

 

[Kutnupe14]

FINALLY, an issue I care passionately about!

Mint ruins chocolate. And teas.

Agreed. Chocolate and caramels.

 

[indiucky]

Agreed. Chocolate and caramels.

It's time for you to watch "Look Who's Back" Kut...It's time.....

 

[jamil]

Shall we use... let's say... "proles."


Ayn, is that you?

But more seriously, I don't disagree. But, it isn't the raw numbers of a divide that Marx forecast, it was the growing fissure. At some point, there will be no more class compromise because the wealthy won't or can't.

Marx was full of ****. There's a growing divide for a number of reasons, but Marx was wrong about capitalism and "class oppression" being the cause. And there'd be a divide under communism too. You can't make humans classless. You can't make humans equal. They're just not. The only class wars in a free society is the ones the Marxists have concocted because the revolution they expected never came, and if it does ever come, it's for way more complicated reasons than because of the wealthy oppressing the poor.

That will likely mark the tipping point. When the proles have more economic/political "weight" than the wealthy.

Holy ****! T.Lex is a ****ing marxist! You really believe that ****?

If there's a tipping point, it's artificial. It's not organic.

I am not convinced that my kids will be progressively better off than we are.

If they're not, it's because the market system that made my dad's lot better than his dad, and mine better than my dad, has been under an by whistful progressives for the past several decades. If you want your kids to be better off than you, be appropriately tough on them, strenngthen their characters, teach them to strive to constantly be honest, to be good people, to be honest, and hope like hell they're smart. Smarter people are harder to replace with automation. Of course, if it's too late and we go the socialist route, never mind. Not much is going to matter. Life will suck equally for everyone that's not in the ruling class.

Indeed, that's why most modern communists have it wrong. The communism selling point is marketing for authoritarians. It isn't really organic.

I will qualify that: the desire is organic. Subsistence farmers want better for their kids. If they think the communist guy is going to do that, they'll vote for/march for/fight for the communist. But, once the leader is installed, they tend to hoard the power and cool stuff for themselves and their cadres.

I think you need to do some further critical reading on Marxism and communism. You are really sounding like the principles of Marxism are actually correct, and that we just haven't figured out how to implement Communism properly.

Communists got it wrong for a lot more reasons than that. They're wrong about almost everything. And the biggest reason they have it wrong is because they have human nature utterly wrong.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It's time for you to watch "Look Who's Back" Kut...It's time.....

I gotta get a Netflix acct. I have Amazon, Hulu, and HBO Now, but no NF.

 

[indiucky]

I gotta get a Netflix acct. I have Amazon, Hulu, and HBO Now, but no NF.

You'll love it....