Missouri Democrat Senator Hopes for Trump Assassination

[miguel]

This is just going to continue to escalate. Both sides need to recognize they have a problem, and they need to stop giving this sort of tacit support to the fascists in their own tribes. The left is completely in denial about that, and many of them look at the antifa fascists as heroes. That just feeds the enrollment for these hate groups.

I brought this up today with some people. Both sides have beaucoup ****ups on their side with zero investment in life/society making really bad decisions in a very public way lately. With the MSM and corporate America denying the fact ****ery exists on both sides, otherwise fair minded people are going to start taking sides, instead of believing both sides are ****ed, and that is going to make what they think is bad now, much, much worse the longer this goes. Then after **** tons of people are [fill in the blank with the terrible thing of your choice] the ****s on both sides will be all "Boo hoo, we never thought it would go this far..." just like some low-level stooges at Nuremberg.

Let me propose the analogy of the disappearing pie...

If I am in my office, minding my own business, and somebody walks in and says, "You took my pie out of the break room fridge and ate it, you pie stealer!" then punches me in the arm, I'm going to be all defensive and ****, "No I didn't!" etc. and may actually feel bad they think I am a thief. I probably wouldn't do anything to them, because I like my job and don't want to be fired for dropping the **** bag who punched me. (pretend they are the son of the HR lady and company President...)

If they do it every week, month after month, I am really going to start getting pissed, but still won't do anything because my wife just had a baby and I NEED this job! (let's say I am in a small town and less good looking and competent than I really am. It know it is hard, but try to imagine it, you can do it...) There are truly pie stealers in this world, but I know I am not one. I will take the moral high ground and not stoop to his level! [aka the INGO paradox]

At some point, I may not punch said **** bag, a false accuser, back, but I damn sure am headed to that break room at 10:45 a.m. on the dot and eating his ****ing pie. The one proclaimed guilty might as well embrace and/or benefit from the alleged wrongdoing -- despite believing in the inherent wrongness of pie stealing -- than just sit there and take it like a punching bag.

How is this relevant, you ask? (I am sure some leftist douche bag will ask. I have a sixth sense for that kind of thing...)

Joe Six Pack, whose great grandpappy got off a boat in 1909, who doesn't have any social or life experience/context for trannys, open borders, why the weathered old statue of a long-dead guy in the park pisses so many people off (he used to have picnics in that park and play with his dog there when he was younger, maybe even got his first kiss behind it after prom...) is now being called a [fill in pinko label de jour, or two] and has no idea why? He has never done anything to anyone except maybe not call that girl from the park back.

Eventually he will resent his accuser enough to take action. We don't want anyone on either side feeling that way, but the MSM and MIC don't feel that way. They couldn't give a **** about anything or anyone other than their power, their righteousness and the all-****ing-mighty dollar they make being a part of the system.

All of us need to leave that ****ing pie in the fridge and not hit someone who didn't take your ****ing pie. Or **** may get jiggy, which benefits nobody.

You think the first guy who fired a shot at Ft. Sumter thought 600K people would die as a result of that shot? Probably not. Neither can we predict the scope of ****ery the **** bags on both sides of this fabricated outrage may unleash on all of us.

PRAY FOR AND ACT FOR PEACE!

edit: See this for another angle on things: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...-explains-how-know-youre-mass-hysteria-bubble

 

[jamil]

Bad comparison. Frankly, the left doesn't have an equivalent to white supremacists, with their long and bloody history here in the US and worldwide. I question the decision making ability of any person who attends an advertised WS rally on their "side" but doesn't share their views. I don't care how near and dear their position may be to me, the fact that WS had anything to do with the rally means I stay far away. I do think that some here don't find WS as repugnant as I do based on the terminology used to describe them...and that makes me sad.

I'm going to be very candid here. I think you could have said that so it sounds a lot less like virtue signaling. Seriously, you say you're sad because you think I (or maybe it's someone else) don't think WN are sufficiently repugnant. Why, how much more virtuous of you. Maybe we should compete to see who can find it the most repugnant. But of course, that would be silly of me to assume the worst of you. Instead I should give you the benefit of the doubt that what it sounded like you're saying, is not what you intended. Maybe you could find your way to try not to assume the worst of others. Maybe you wouldn't need to be sad.

But anyway, no, the left doesn't have an exact equivalent to white supremacists in terms of history, or scale. For my point, that doesn't matter. BLM is a sufficient enough example to make the point. It is a black supremacist organization. As evidence of that fact listen to them. If those same words were said by white people, except in a white context, you'd rightly call those people racists. It's no less racist when those words come from minority races.

I'm not going to say all members and supporters join/support/associate because they're all racists, because that wouldn't sufficiently describe all the reasons some black people, who aren't necessarily black supremacists, would join a group like that, or support them, or associate with them. And the same works for whites, why some white people, who aren't necessarily white supremacists, would join/support/associate with them.

It seems reasonable to me to think that when people perceive that they're being oppressed, whether they actually are or aren't, they're susceptible to the influence of people who promote a sense of being empowered. And I think some people join those things because of tribalism as much as actual racism. Maybe it's more about us/them than it is about actual race. And I'll accept the possibility that people might not think through their associations with these people. I put less blame on them for where they are as the people who are brainwashing them.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm going to be very candid here. I think you could have said that so it sounds a lot less like virtue signaling. Seriously, you say you're sad because you think I (or maybe it's someone else) don't think WN are sufficiently repugnant. Why, how much more virtuous of you. Maybe we should compete to see who can find it the most repugnant. But of course, that would be silly of me to assume the worst of you. Instead I should give you the benefit of the doubt that what it sounded like you're saying, is not what you intended. Maybe you could find your way to try not to assume the worst of others. Maybe you wouldn't need to be sad.

But anyway, no, the left doesn't have an exact equivalent to white supremacists in terms of history, or scale. For my point, that doesn't matter. BLM is a sufficient enough example to make the point. It is a black supremacist organization. As evidence of that fact listen to them. If those same words were said by white people, except in a white context, you'd rightly call those people racists. It's no less racist when those words come from minority races.

I'm not going to say all members and supporters join/support/associate because they're all racists, because that wouldn't sufficiently describe all the reasons some black people, who aren't necessarily black supremacists, would join a group like that, or support them, or associate with them. And the same works for whites, why some white people, who aren't necessarily white supremacists, would join/support/associate with them.

It seems reasonable to me to think that when people perceive that they're being oppressed, whether they actually are or aren't, they're susceptible to the influence of people who promote a sense of being empowered. And I think some people join those things because of tribalism as much as actual racism. Maybe it's more about us/them than it is about actual race. And I'll accept the possibility that people might not think through their associations with these people. I put less blame on them for where they are as the people who are brainwashing them.

That a bunch of baloney, and you know it.... unless you're calling all the white people that support BLM race traitors. ...because any black person who supported the KKK/Nazis would not only be enemies to their race, but to humanity on a whole. So go ahead Jamil, call them race traitors. Then, I'll be confident you believe that BLM is black supremacist group.

 

[Dddrees]

I'm going to be very candid here. I think you could have said that so it sounds a lot less like virtue signaling. Seriously, you say you're sad because you think I (or maybe it's someone else) don't think WN are sufficiently repugnant. Why, how much more virtuous of you. Maybe we should compete to see who can find it the most repugnant. But of course, that would be silly of me to assume the worst of you. Instead I should give you the benefit of the doubt that what it sounded like you're saying, is not what you intended. Maybe you could find your way to try not to assume the worst of others. Maybe you wouldn't need to be sad.

But anyway, no, the left doesn't have an exact equivalent to white supremacists in terms of history, or scale. For my point, that doesn't matter. BLM is a sufficient enough example to make the point. It is a black supremacist organization. As evidence of that fact listen to them. If those same words were said by white people, except in a white context, you'd rightly call those people racists. It's no less racist when those words come from minority races.

I'm not going to say all members and supporters join/support/associate because they're all racists, because that wouldn't sufficiently describe all the reasons some black people, who aren't necessarily black supremacists, would join a group like that, or support them, or associate with them. And the same works for whites, why some white people, who aren't necessarily white supremacists, would join/support/associate with them.

It seems reasonable to me to think that when people perceive that they're being oppressed, whether they actually are or aren't, they're susceptible to the influence of people who promote a sense of being empowered. And I think some people join those things because of tribalism as much as actual racism. Maybe it's more about us/them than it is about actual race. And I'll accept the possibility that people might not think through their associations with these people. I put less blame on them for where they are as the people who are brainwashing them.

The divide here seems so great and palpable here. So hard even to understand why each of us can possibly see things so differently. So completely opposite of the other side. So vehemently right that the other side can't possibly be thinking it through. It just amazes me how wide this gap is in the first place. Keep in mind it's not that I wish you harm, I just see things differently. I know I'm guilty of that as well. Kind of taking it as a personal attack rather than seeing that it's just a difference of thought or belief and not that it's a personal attack. All I can say is that I'm sorry for my part in doing so.

No answers, just Wow. How do you possibly move forward from here? Do you really want to revisit some kind of Civil War? I for one do not.

Besides as long as the weather holds I plan on going to the range today and using some of that ammo that was delivered to my house yesterday. 5000 rds of 22 I got for a deal off of the internet. You should have seen that delivery guy. I said man that box looks heavy. He agreed, and then I took it from him and I then really got to find out how heavy it really was. LOL

Anyway the plan was this should last me through the rest of the year. Now I'm thinking if it doesn't that wouldn't be so bad either. More range time more fun.


Enjoy your weeekend all, I think Sunday is even suppose to be better weather wise than today.

 

[Expat]

But anyway, no, the left doesn't have an exact equivalent to white supremacists in terms of history, or scale. For my point, that doesn't matter. BLM is a sufficient enough example to make the point. It is a black supremacist organization. As evidence of that fact listen to them. If those same words were said by white people, except in a white context, you'd rightly call those people racists. It's no less racist when those words come from minority races.
.

Margaret Sanger and the Eugenics movement. How many blacks have Planned Parenthood killed vs. the Klan in the last 50 years. Read what she actually said. It is intentional.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Margaret Sanger and the Eugenics movement. How many blacks have Planned Parenthood killed vs. the Klan in the last 50 years. Read what she actually said. It is intentional.

Intellectually dishonest post is dishonest. I have yet to hear of the black person who had an abortion dragged into Planned Parenthood to have the operation performed.
But hey let's say you're right. Can I count this as "Exhibit A" concerning White Privilege? -i.e. a govt sanctioned program created to kill off black people. I'd say that's a pretty significant perk for White people.

 

[rhino]

The Poles...reminding the world that Fascists and Communists are equally ****ty.

That is awesome! And the Poles are in a position to know from experience. We need an American version of that banner.

Yes. Antifa upholds the values of those murders, just like today's Nazis do theirs. You're making it easier and easier to wonder if you're rationalizing away the deeds of an organization every bit as dangerous as Nazis.

Nazi was a political party. CPSU was too. So the **** what? Two sides of the same coin. They both murdered millions of people. There is no way a non-ideologue can rationalize that one is any more favorable or less aberrant than the other. They're BOTH fascists. Stop favoring the fascists in your tribe.

Antifa is still relatively new on our side of the ocean. As you mentioned more than once, currently their numbers are mostly extreme feminists and beta males who finally have discovered a socialist-statist umbrella that welcomes, encourages, and emboldens them. Give them time. At some point as they continue to escalate and realize how far they can go, they will be sufficiently dangerous (at least in groups) so that even those who rate them as a lesser evil won't have that luxury anymore. They're a pack of useful fools who will be used for much worse than we've seen.

Another huge thing is that they have money and power behind and encouraging them that dwarfs anything the KKK or the like could dream of having.

And to clarify why the MSM is in a lather over what Trump said:

I think you are missing the point. Killing tens of millions of people for the right reason is regretful but understandable.

Well, of course! Especially when the murderers get to decide what the right reasons are.

Indeed, Antifa, formerly known as Black Bloc, are destructive anti-government anarchists. As a group, they are relatively small in numbers and are primarily property crime focused (bad enough, don't get me wrong) and battery. White supremacists have been FAR more deadly when it comes to their belief systems and quite frankly sit higher on my list of violent groups than Antifas. Much higher. Was the poor girl that was killed in VA an Antifa? Looking at the video, I didn't see anyone in that crowd wearing the garb where the car drove. Maybe I missed them.

Give antifa time here in the US. They're going to surprise you. The money and power using them will make that happen.

No, the MSM has already announced that you had to be a card-carrying Nazi to oppose the removal of the statues. Once that proclamation went out all the followers get in lock step.

Anything else would be UN-possible because of reasons.

 

[jamil]

That a bunch of baloney, and you know it.... unless you're calling all the white people that support BLM race traitors. ...because any black person who supported the KKK/Nazis would not only be enemies to their race, but to humanity on a whole. So go ahead Jamil, call them race traitors. Then, I'll be confident you believe that BLM is black supremacist group.

You and I went around and around on this in the BLM thread. YOU, of all people should understand what I'm saying. I consider their leaders racist because they say racist things. They demand reparations for enslavement they did not endure, from white people who did not enslave them. THAT'S RACIST. But they get a pass from society because it's okay. It's okay because of the "white power hierarchy". Critical race theory is tightly woven into the leadership of BLM. THAT'S RACIST! And it's unfortunate.

But you missed my point so badly that you made it for me, because you took the time to be offended by me saying BLM is racist. But no. I don't consider all the rank and file BLM supporters racist. I think they're attracted to an organization that makes them feel empowered. They want a voice to protest the wrongs real and perceived. That's not racist. They've been taken advantage of. But because you're so set in your own biases, you impose your beliefs on me and require me to be morally accountable to your beliefs.

It is morally unnecessary for me to believe all the people that you believe are racist, are actually racists. And it is especially morally unnecessary for me to live up to the standards of your world view, applying your minimum level of repugnance, across the your minimum domain of guilt. Your world view is no more morally superior than mine is. You should apply your standards to you. When you try to apply your standards to me, things go sideways because you refuse to acknowledge we have different world views, in which we are true to our own standards, making us both morally consistent. If you don't understand why I think the way I think, you certainly shouldn't impose the less than moral motives you're implying.

You need to accept that and tell your friends to accept it too. And try not to think I'm saying more than I'm saying. All your (collectively 'your') moral grandstanding is driving even more people to the right extreme. And as I said before, the conservatives have a problem too, they need to stop the tacit support for the alt-right because that just drives the left into supporting groups like BAMN and Antifa. Expanding the fringes is the opposite of what we both want. I don't want the truly repugnant fringes to continue growing. I think that's a moral statement we can both agree on. If you don't want to agree on that, fine. But stop judging me against your beliefs. I'm not going to make moral judgements against you.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You and I went around and around on this in the BLM thread. YOU, of all people should understand what I'm saying. I consider their leaders racist because they say racist things. They demand reparations for enslavement they did not endure, from white people who did not enslave them. THAT'S RACIST. But they get a pass from society because it's okay. It's okay because of the "white power hierarchy". Critical race theory is tightly woven into the leadership of BLM. THAT'S RACIST! And it's unfortunate.

But you missed my point so badly that you made it for me, because you took the time to be offended by me saying BLM is racist. But no. I don't consider all the rank and file BLM supporters racist. I think they're attracted to an organization that makes them feel empowered. They want a voice to protest the wrongs real and perceived. That's not racist. They've been taken advantage of. But because you're so set in your own biases, you impose your beliefs on me and require me to be morally accountable to your beliefs.

It is morally unnecessary for me to believe all the people that you believe are racist, are actually racists. And it is especially morally unnecessary for me to live up to the standards of your world view, applying your minimum level of repugnance, across the your minimum domain of guilt. Your world view is no more morally superior than mine is. You should apply your standards to you. When you try to apply your standards to me, things go sideways because you refuse to acknowledge we have different world views, in which we are true to our own standards, making us both morally consistent. If you don't understand why I think the way I think, you certainly shouldn't impose the less than moral motives you're implying.

You need to accept that and tell your friends to accept it too. And try not to think I'm saying more than I'm saying. All your (collectively 'your') moral grandstanding is driving even more people to the right extreme. And as I said before, the conservatives have a problem too, they need to stop the tacit support for the alt-right because that just drives the left into supporting groups like BAMN and Antifa. Expanding the fringes is the opposite of what we both want. I don't want the truly repugnant fringes to continue growing. I think that's a moral statement we can both agree on. If you don't want to agree on that, fine. But stop judging me against your beliefs. I'm not going to make moral judgements against you.

That's misguided, and I oppose it, but it's not racist. And where does BLM ask for reparations? I've never seen them protest for that.

 

[Brad69]

I had the unfortunate experience of being in St Louis and KC this week.
It appears the state legislature is ready to expel her under their constitution it just requires a simple vote.
She does have much support locally in the St.Louis death city.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I had the unfortunate experience of being in St Louis and KC this week.
It appears the state legislature is ready to expel her under their constitution it just requires a simple vote.
She does have much support locally in the St.Louis death city.

Good. She should be gone. A legislator supporting violence shouldn't be in a position to make decisions for other people.

 

[foszoe]

rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun

• prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
  "a program to combat racism"

• synonyms:

  racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, casteism"Aborigines are the main victims of racism in Australia"

  • the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
    noun: racism

​For BLM to be racist, they bolded phrase should hold true.

 

[jamil]

The divide here seems so great and palpable here. So hard even to understand why each of us can possibly see things so differently. So completely opposite of the other side. So vehemently right that the other side can't possibly be thinking it through. It just amazes me how wide this gap is in the first place. Keep in mind it's not that I wish you harm, I just see things differently. I know I'm guilty of that as well. Kind of taking it as a personal attack rather than seeing that it's just a difference of thought or belief and not that it's a personal attack. All I can say is that I'm sorry for my part in doing so.

This is a point I've been addressing for a long time. We can't project our own world views on others and apply to them the moral standards derived from those world view. In other words, don't assume I'm immoral just because you don't understand where I'm coming from. This is one of the reasons the right and left are so divided now. I'm not your enemy unless you treat me like an enemy.

My life experiences/environment, my personality, my beliefs, put me in a different ideological space from where you are. I spend a lot of time thinking about stuff. I like to think about what is actually true and what is only perception. Being human it's hard to make the distinction, but I try. I like to think about why people think what they think. It helps me understand what I think and why. I like talking about ideas more than I like talking about people. I can conceptually separate people from ideas and this causes others problems. For example not being sufficiently horrified by a person because that person believes something horrible. I can be horrified by the belief without being horrified by the person. I want to understand why the person believes that way. And it seems some people don't like that.

No answers, just Wow. How do you possibly move forward from here? Do you really want to revisit some kind of Civil War? I for one do not.

I have a solution. This is going to be long, but the tl;dr version is really the same message as above, which distills down to, stop making things more relevant than they are. Stop imposing subjective morals derived from your little corner of existence onto people whose corner of existence is in a different ideological space. This really applies to all sides. Stop making things more relevant than they are. Stop imposing your morals on others. Stop tacitly excusing the violence your side does to others.

Charles Barkley understands this and recently talked about it. Stop caring about statues and flags. Care about building a future for yourselves. Those statues have been around for generations without affecting people's lives, and now all of a sudden, it's like the most important thing to people. I'm paraphrasing, but what he said is the truth people need to hear. The statues will go away organically when and if they need to go away. What's happening now is not organic. If everyone stopped worrying about things that aren't important and just spent their time building their own futures, all the rest would fade away. We'd have a lot less poverty, strife, suffering, social unrest, etc.

Social wars happen when people care too much about making everyone socially homogeneous. The left thinks it is so diversity-tolerant, but they're actually no better than the right. Progressives strive for what appears to me to be a fake diversity with artificially diverse groups. Concocting 58 genders, and then being accepting of those genders they've fabricated, IS NOT REAL DIVERSITY!

What large societies struggle with is true diversity. Being a true diversity advocate means not just "tolerating", but literally not caring that someone else is different physically or spiritually or intellectually or ideologically. What has started this cultural war is the inevitable enmity between the traditional world views of individualism, the values of personal responsibility and achievement, and, the postmodern ideas that have sort of led to this need for identitarianism, which started with the left.

As the progressives have occupied more and more positions of power, they're trying to displace the traditional values of individualism by social force, with the postmodern ideas of identitarian collectivism. There's gonna be a very big clash if that continues. People should not have the power to force people to change their thinking. Mob-shaming, doxxing, "punch a nazi", all that stuff has caused the awakening of the people who still value the principles of liberty which are rooted in individualism. And they're going to fight back. And some are even going to join groups which believe some pretty horrible things.

To fix that. We need to accept that we think differently about social issues. And we need to stop caring so damn much that we're different. The far left has gone absolutely bat **** crazy obsessing with enforcing homogeneity with their beliefs that it's very difficult to believe they even know what diversity is. They want to stop any speech which disagrees with them. And I'm going to tell you right now. They better stop that **** or it will cause that civil war you're worried about. And the results of that, no matter which side wins, will be more tyranny, not less. One end or the other, either way, authoritarians will take control out of the chaos. History has proven that pattern over and over.

If we have a society that doesn't give a **** that other people think differently, then the good ideas and the bad ideas will sort themselves out organically. And the only social rules we need for a truly diverse, heterogeneous culture like that is one: you don't have a right to cause intentional suffering. Fiercely protect that rule and it doesn't matter what people think or what they look like. It doesn't matter if people decide to self-sort regionally into smaller homogeneous communities or not--we can't deny tribal human nature, after all. If we're not intentionally harming each other, we peacefully coexist.

Live and let live is the only peaceful answer to your question.

Besides as long as the weather holds I plan on going to the range today and using some of that ammo that was delivered to my house yesterday. 5000 rds of 22 I got for a deal off of the internet. You should have seen that delivery guy. I said man that box looks heavy. He agreed, and then I took it from him and I then really got to find out how heavy it really was. LOL

Anyway the plan was this should last me through the rest of the year. Now I'm thinking if it doesn't that wouldn't be so bad either. More range time more fun.


Enjoy your weeekend all, I think Sunday is even suppose to be better weather wise than today.

Enjoy the range.

 

[jamil]

That's misguided, and I oppose it, but it's not racist. And where does BLM ask for reparations? I've never seen them protest for that.

I posted it in the BLM thread. There are plenty of videos of rallies on youtube if you want to spend the time deciding if what I'm saying is true or not. It's not just misguided. It's racist. Use the same test I suggested in another post. Read through all their rhetoric. Change the context from black to white and decide if you'd think a white person would be racist for saying the same thing in that reverse context. I can't do that for you. You have to do it for yourself.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I posted it in the BLM thread. There are plenty of videos of rallies on youtube if you want to spend the time deciding if what I'm saying is true or not. It's not just misguided. It's racist. Use the same test I suggested in another post. Read through all their rhetoric. Change the context from black to white and decide if you'd think a white person would be racist for saying the same thing in that reverse context. I can't do that for you. You have to do it for yourself.

Ok, the BLM thread is massive, you really want me to wade through that to find the answer, when I can assume you can direct me to it faster? I've done my due diligence, and checked the "official" BLM website, and couldn't find reference to it... maybe it's there, and I simply can't locate it. Hence why I'm asking you to direct me to such.

 

[Dddrees]

This is a point I've been addressing for a long time. We can't project our own world views on others and apply to them the moral standards derived from those world view. In other words, don't assume I'm immoral just because you don't understand where I'm coming from. This is one of the reasons the right and left are so divided now. I'm not your enemy unless you treat me like an enemy.

My life experiences/environment, my personality, my beliefs, put me in a different ideological space from where you are. I spend a lot of time thinking about stuff. I like to think about what is actually true and what is only perception. Being human it's hard to make the distinction, but I try. I like to think about why people think what they think. It helps me understand what I think and why. I like talking about ideas more than I like talking about people. I can conceptually separate people from ideas and this causes others problems. For example not being sufficiently horrified by a person because that person believes something horrible. I can be horrified by the belief without being horrified by the person. I want to understand why the person believes that way. And it seems some people don't like that.



I have a solution. This is going to be long, but the tl;dr version is really the same message as above, which distills down to, stop making things more relevant than they are. Stop imposing subjective morals derived from your little corner of existence onto people whose corner of existence is in a different ideological space. This really applies to all sides. Stop making things more relevant than they are. Stop imposing your morals on others. Stop tacitly excusing the violence your side does to others.

Charles Barkley understands this and recently talked about it. Stop caring about statues and flags. Care about building a future for yourselves. Those statues have been around for generations without affecting people's lives, and now all of a sudden, it's like the most important thing to people. I'm paraphrasing, but what he said is the truth people need to hear. The statues will go away organically when and if they need to go away. What's happening now is not organic. If everyone stopped worrying about things that aren't important and just spent their time building their own futures, all the rest would fade away. We'd have a lot less poverty, strife, suffering, social unrest, etc.

Social wars happen when people care too much about making everyone socially homogeneous. The left thinks it is so diversity-tolerant, but they're actually no better than the right. Progressives strive for what appears to me to be a fake diversity with artificially diverse groups. Concocting 58 genders, and then being accepting of those genders they've fabricated, IS NOT REAL DIVERSITY!

What large societies struggle with is true diversity. Being a true diversity advocate means not just "tolerating", but literally not caring that someone else is different physically or spiritually or intellectually or ideologically. What has started this cultural war is the inevitable enmity between the traditional world views of individualism, the values of personal responsibility and achievement, and, the postmodern ideas that have sort of led to this need for identitarianism, which started with the left.

As the progressives have occupied more and more positions of power, they're trying to displace the traditional values of individualism by social force, with the postmodern ideas of identitarian collectivism. There's gonna be a very big clash if that continues. People should not have the power to force people to change their thinking. Mob-shaming, doxxing, "punch a nazi", all that stuff has caused the awakening of the people who still value the principles of liberty which are rooted in individualism. And they're going to fight back. And some are even going to join groups which believe some pretty horrible things.

To fix that. We need to accept that we think differently about social issues. And we need to stop caring so damn much that we're different. The far left has gone absolutely bat **** crazy obsessing with enforcing homogeneity with their beliefs that it's very difficult to believe they even know what diversity is. They want to stop any speech which disagrees with them. And I'm going to tell you right now. They better stop that **** or it will cause that civil war you're worried about. And the results of that, no matter which side wins, will be more tyranny, not less. One end or the other, either way, authoritarians will take control out of the chaos. History has proven that pattern over and over.

If we have a society that doesn't give a **** that other people think differently, then the good ideas and the bad ideas will sort themselves out organically. And the only social rules we need for a truly diverse, heterogeneous culture like that is one: you don't have a right to cause intentional suffering. Fiercely protect that rule and it doesn't matter what people think or what they look like. It doesn't matter if people decide to self-sort regionally into smaller homogeneous communities or not--we can't deny tribal human nature, after all. If we're not intentionally harming each other, we peacefully coexist.

Live and let live is the only peaceful answer to your question.



Enjoy the range.

it just seems to me that Trump flys in the face of that live and let live philosophy. I mean there where other factors why he was elected but the Alt Right who he seems to be catering to and by the way brought directly into his administration don't actually exemplify that. Besides being elected to clear the swamp, stem the tide of liberalism, it also seems there was a desire to stem the tide of acceptance and diversity. That message seemed to come across rather strongly, at least to me anyway,


Thank you I did very much. My groups still need some work but I'm made some progress as center mass is more center. It felt good the guy next to me didn't do much better. Here I thought I was the only one. LOL

 

[jamil]

rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun

• prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
  "a program to combat racism"

• synonyms:

  racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, casteism"Aborigines are the main victims of racism in Australia"

  • the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
    noun: racism

​For BLM to be racist, they bolded phrase should hold true.

I think that definition isn't complete. It's insufficiently broad, because the emphasis on "superiority" is too strong. What I mean by that, the "superior" part should be implied by the prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism. You really can't typically do those three things without some sense that those people are somehow less important than you because of their race. Discrimination implies "superior", in other words. It's unnecessary to have that last part in the definition.

I think if race is important to you such that it makes you behave differently because of someone's race, you're probably a racist. At least a little. And if we're really honest. I think nearly everyone is at least a little racist. It doesn't mean we're all ready to join the KKK, or the New Black Panthers. It's a spectrum. It's not a binary. You may think my definition is too broad, but I tend to think we should not care any more about race than we do about other human diverse features that we don't care about now.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think that definition isn't complete. It's insufficiently broad, because the emphasis on "superiority" is too strong. What I mean by that, the "superior" part should be implied by the prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism. You really can't typically do those three things without some sense that those people are somehow less important than you because of their race. Discrimination implies "superior", in other words. It's unnecessary to have that last part in the definition.

I think if race is important to you such that it makes you behave differently because of someone's race, you're probably a racist. At least a little. And if we're really honest. I think nearly everyone is at least a little racist. It doesn't mean we're all ready to join the KKK, or the New Black Panthers. It's a spectrum. It's not a binary. You may think my definition is too broad, but I tend to think we should not care any more about race than we do about other human diverse features that we don't care about now.

I'm still waiting on the BLM reparations demand from white people, because honestly, I'm curious how (if the govt is paying) one distinuishes between black, asian, and hispanic taxpayer money... and white money. That's what makes it racist, right, that only white people have to pay?

 

[Birds Away]

it just seems to me that Trump flys in the face of that live and let live philosophy. I mean there where other factors why he was elected but the Alt Right who he seems to be catering to and by the way brought directly into his administration don't actually exemplify that. Besides being elected to clear the swamp, stem the tide of liberalism, it also seems there was a desire to stem the tide of acceptance and diversity. That message seemed to come across rather strongly, at least to me anyway,


Thank you I did very much. My groups still need some work but I'm made some progress as center mass is more center. It felt good the guy next to me didn't do much better. Here I thought I was the only one. LOL

Who invented the term Alt Right and what does it actually mean? The implication is that it is racist at its core. Where does that come from? Until about a year ago I had never heard that term. I am still unclear as to what it actually means. I know the MSM uses it as a buzzword for evil. What is this definition based upon and who, exactly, are they talking about?

 

[jamil]

it just seems to me that Trump flys in the face of that live and let live philosophy. I mean there where other factors why he was elected but the Alt Right who he seems to be catering to and by the way brought directly into his administration don't actually exemplify that. Besides being elected to clear the swamp, stem the tide of liberalism, it also seems there was a desire to stem the tide of acceptance and diversity. That message seemed to come across rather strongly, at least to me anyway,


Thank you I did very much. My groups still need some work but I'm made some progress as center mass is more center. It felt good the guy next to me didn't do much better. Here I thought I was the only one. LOL

I'm not saying that one side doesn't live by live and let live. I'm saying that neither side does--that's why they taking sides. I'm saying stop that. Stop caring about things that don't really matter, and we won't create the circumstances which brings about the election of a guy like Donald Trump. Or Hillary Clinton for that matter. Or Bernie Sanders. If we didn't give a **** about what's not really important we wouldn't want to impose those things that aren't important on other people. And then we wouldn't have to vote for people that want to impose those things.