|
Post by theevan on Aug 5, 2019 20:45:47 GMT -5
BTW, if I'm civil around here (I slip from time to time), it's not because I don't have opinions, strong ones at times. It's that I never ever think that politics and policy is the most important thing. Most of the time I don't even think it's an important thing.
What's important to me is love, faith, relationship, intimacy, good humor, fellowship.
And music, of course.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Aug 5, 2019 20:58:54 GMT -5
My view is somewhat different having spent time in the Swamp. I believe we are in the end stages of that internal shooting war. I’d be curious to hear where you think the end will end up. We might be discussing two things: the governing elite’s up-top conflict, and the general body politic’s ground-war dislike for the other half.. Or not, I’m not sure I’m following 100 percent. At any rate you and I are good.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Aug 5, 2019 21:17:32 GMT -5
"Oh come on, Don. More than just about anybody you've been unfailingly civil around here.'
Thanks, Evan. Not everyone agrees.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Aug 5, 2019 21:30:20 GMT -5
. . . , Right after the "they ought to go back to their own countries" comment came out, in a discussion here, one of the dependably leftward voices said (and I paraphrase because I'm too lazy to look up the thread for a quote), "I didn't see that as racist. More like an expression of nationalism." That, to my mind, should have altered the direction of the conversation. It didn't. Might have been me. I said Trump isn't a racist. . . . , But I said he is a NARCISSIST. He will heap praise on anyone of any race, color, or ethnicity that agrees (preferable praises) his statements/opinions. And he will pile venomous piles of shit on the head of anyone that criticizes him, no mater what race or ethnicity they come from. (I don't think his siblings like him).
|
|
|
Post by david on Aug 5, 2019 22:34:37 GMT -5
I tend to believe that reducing the availability of high capacity magazines, and the firearms that use them, would help. It would not prevent shootings, but I think it would reduce the likelihood that the disturbed shooter would have the patience or resources to obtain the large capacity guns.
I have had fun using a 25 round banana magazine for my Ruger .22 rifle, but I can get by with the stock 10 round magazine, and perhaps less. That is a really small sacrifice as far as I am concerned.
As to the second amendment, it is difficult for me to balance its purpose, when our nation was being formed, with the dangers that we face now. In my mind, the intent was one or more of the following: 1 allow the citizenry to use arms to oppose the government, 2 to assist the government in repelling foreign attacks, or 3 to protect themselves if the government could not do that.
As to #3, I think that I can defend myself pretty well from 99.9% of any potential civilian attack with a 3 round shotgun. As to #s 1 and 2, I am willing to bank on 10 rounds or less in a rifle or handgun.
I suspect that most of us, now that Doug is no longer here, will agree that private citizens should not have full autos, RPGs, or nukes. The question to me is whether further limiting the killing power that I, as a private citizen can legally have, sans special permit, could help save lives. I think it can.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Aug 5, 2019 23:04:38 GMT -5
david, are you interested in any counterpoints to your comments, stated eloquently, above?
|
|
|
Post by xyrn on Aug 6, 2019 0:42:29 GMT -5
WalMart is not a "gun free zone." Open carry is legal in Texas, and WalMart does not post signs to keep guns out. It's internal WalMart policy that if someone does carry openly in the store, a manager may or may not ask to see their license - totally up to the individual manager. So much for that right wing bumper sticker. But don't worry, I'm sure you have plenty more. As a data point, there was at least one concealed carrier in the mall; an army vet with a license and a handgun. He elected to grab a bunch of kids from the play area and get out of the mall to safety--hardly a poor choice, in all. That man acted exactly as a permitted concealed carrier ought to act. When I carry at the mall (which I generally avoid) IF I hear gunfire my role is NOT to seek out and engage the criminal(s), I and my family will be heading the other way, and my gun will be drawn and at my side and IF I am cornered or come upon a shooter then I might engage. When a shooting occurs it is everyone for themselves (which, if I am with family, includes them) until the SWAT team arrives and eventually engages.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Aug 6, 2019 2:18:59 GMT -5
... That man acted exactly as a permitted concealed carrier ought to act. When I carry at the mall (which I generally avoid) IF I hear gunfire my role is NOT to seek out and engage the criminal(s), I and my family will be heading the other way, and my gun will be drawn and at my side and IF I am cornered or come upon a shooter then I might engage. ... How about if you happened to have your bump stock with you? So there's really nothing to that 'good guy with a gun' cliche?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 6, 2019 5:12:30 GMT -5
... That man acted exactly as a permitted concealed carrier ought to act. When I carry at the mall (which I generally avoid) IF I hear gunfire my role is NOT to seek out and engage the criminal(s), I and my family will be heading the other way, and my gun will be drawn and at my side and IF I am cornered or come upon a shooter then I might engage. ... How about if you happened to have your bump stock with you? So there's really nothing to that 'good guy with a gun' cliche? No. That's been shown many times.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Aug 6, 2019 10:51:16 GMT -5
Something I've noticed over 20 years of discussing, debating, arguing, learning, and conversing on the internet in forums and social media: The longer the list of proofs, the less effective the argument. Now there I agree with you completely. As those (like Don and David) have said in their presentation of such lists -- "...this is not debatable" And, of course, there I'm going to debate. And I'll do my best to be civil because I love you. This may be a topic for a completely different thread. I don't believe I've ever said that something is not debatable. It's debatable if the sun comes up in the east, because technically the sun doesn't come up at all, the earth rotates. I did say that Trump's racist comments answered the question - for me - of whether or not he's racist, and you obviously disagree. So our definitions of what "racist" means obviously differ. You've posted about the "redefinition of racism" but you've never said what *your* definition - or *the* definition - is. What does someone have to do or say that you would find racist? There's a pretty fine line between nationalist and racist. Like Steve King says, “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?" There's an awful lot of hair-splitting to think that that settles the question. Is Reagan saying to Nixon, “To see those monkeys from those African countries, damn them. They're still uncomfortable wearing shoes,” racist? Is Trump saying, "I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day," racist? There's a politician in New Hampshire who says slavery wasn't racist. Of course, here I'm listing proofs, and we agree that doesn't work. When I suggested that if someone doesn't actually use the n-word, then it's not racist, you were - perhaps rightly so - offended and we ended the conversation. But I still don't know where you stand, only where you don't stand. I used to build props for a director who could only say, "That's not what I want," when I put props on stage. He could only say it wasn't right, but couldn't tell me what he envisioned. It was maddening working with the guy. "I'll know it when I see it." Of course, no one wants to be called a racist. It's a horrible nasty ugly thing to be called. It's a horrible nasty ugly thing to be. I know I have unconscious racist responses to things, and it pisses me off when I realize it.
|
|
|
Post by david on Aug 6, 2019 10:55:17 GMT -5
david, are you interested in any counterpoints to your comments, stated eloquently, above? Sure.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Aug 6, 2019 11:18:47 GMT -5
Like a lot of Americans I am sickened by the shootings in El Paso and Dayton. I am sickened that these attacks continue and that our country's leaders have yet to contribute much more than sound bytes in response. After each incident the talking heads on television express the hope that this time things will be different. Yet nothing seems to change. And "we the people" who should be holding our elected representatives accountable for what they do and what they don't do, continue to elect the same ineffectual people while pointing accusing fingers at those who hold political beliefs different than ours.
There is so much to be said about this issue that I don't know where to begin. About the only thing I'm somewhat sure of is that the search for solutions doesn't mean much since we don't yet have a good handle on the causes.
One of the things we've been struggling with at least since 9/11 is how to preserve the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution while at the same time assuring that citizens can count on a reasonable amount of protection from terrorist violence, foreign or domestic. As seems to often be the case, we've found that the government has abused some of the powers it was given in that regard and they've justified that abuse by citing national security.
I'm as loathe as the next guy to give up more of my rights. And I feel justified in my lack of faith in government officials, both elected and appointed, to zealously protect those rights I have left.
What's left to do? Tough question. I am cautiously in favor of a ban on assault style weapons. I am very much in favor of universal background checks and the licensing of firearms. I don't pretend that this is a solution. A weapons ban probably won't stop the shootings. At best it might mean that fewer people will be killed.
I am leery of placing too much responsibility on law enforcement. If I decide to rob a bank, law enforcement can catch me, but they probably can't stop me. If I get in my car and speed and break a bunch of traffic laws, law enforcement can catch me. I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to prevent me from breaking the law.
I'm bothered by the suggestion of "red flag" laws. I heard John Kasich talking about that yesterday. Since the shootings over the weekend I've heard a lot of pundits suggest that many, or even most, of these incidents could be stopped ahead of time because the perpetrators have a tendency to give off signals of what they are about to do. Red flag laws are designed to identify people who might be dangerous before they act out their violent tendencies. I'm skeptical. Is every person who posts some kind of manifesto on the internet dangerous? I don't know and I don't know if anyone else knows either.
News stories abound about violent offenders who have been granted parole because the psychologists say they are no longer a danger, only to go out and repeat their crimes. Can we truly count on the mental health professionals to root out the dangerous ones while safeguarding the rights of those who are not a danger to their fellow citizens? I'm not convinced.
All of this leaves me with as many unanswered questions as I had when I started. Man, this is depressing!
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Aug 6, 2019 11:29:18 GMT -5
Sidhe, do you know of any thorough and credible studies of the causes of our gun violence? Anything you can refer us to? My problem with this whole issue is that I don't think you can tackle a problem without a good idea of what's causing it.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 6, 2019 11:31:41 GMT -5
You've posted about the "redefinition of racism" but you've never said what *your* definition - or *the* definition - is. I just googled "racism" and the very first item that appeared at the top of the page was this: noun noun: racism
1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. 2. 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.To my mind, those are the classic definitions and without one or the other of those things, there is no racism. That is: That one's own race is superior, and that one can attribute characteristics individually due to one's race. I was taught those ideas from as early as I can remember. But there are many reasons for confusion about racism. Some of those reasons I believe are intentional -- for use as a political/moral bludgeon. Some of them are quite accidental or incidental or simply careless. And some of them are because lines can be blurred. When someone on this board made the comment that he appreciated the value of diversity because he believed that problem solving was well-served by including the varied life experiences afforded by different backgrounds -- all of that carefully worded that way -- I agree with him. But if someone says they want diversity because blacks, hispanics, and asians all bring something different to the table, I'm sorry, but that clearly fits definition #2 of racism. I'm still inclined to doubt that it's actually racism because -- and now, this is me, and not the dictionary speaking -- I'm inclined to say that definition #1 is actually classical racism. That is: I think racism has to include notions of superiority/inferiority. And in the example I gave, it isn't superiority/inferiority that is claimed or desired -- it is simply difference. I still think that on some level, since it fits definition #2 it is flawed logic. It is still saying that blacks and asians and hispanics all think differently, and that is illogical and it is, I guess, a benign form of racism -- "benign" because the intention is not to declare superiority. Another place where confusion enters the picture is that there is almost nothing Americans value more than humor. If you study art history (as I think you probably did), humor is even given as an almost distinctly American contribution to the art world. And humor is the way we deal with almost every uncomfortable issue in society. It's how we deal with the elephants in our collective living room. It's how we comfortably let friends off the hooks upon which we gleefully hang our enemies.... ....and racial and ethnic and religious humor are part of that. Always have been. And we're not really even very careful about it. I remember when LJ Booth came and gave a concert here in Goshen. He asked me if I thought folks would be offended by his "Bathtub Jesus" song. Hell, I didn't know. Sometimes we are sensitive about it. Sometimes we're not. Jon Stewart can skewer just about anyone he wishes to without anyone taking him wrong. Rush Limbaugh cannot. Is it style? Maybe. Is it tribalism? Probably. Right now we are collectively locked and loaded with so much outrage that such humor is certainly as risky as it has ever in our lifetime been. But the reality is that race/ethnic/religious humor is deeply embedded in American culture -- so much so that I'm willing to bet there's hardly an American alive today who could publicly stand up to the history of jokes he's told in his lifetime. Anymore, at least. But those jokes are contextually rarely, if ever, racist. They're almost always self-deprecating in their function -- even when we're not telling them on our own race or belief system, we're telling them with a wink that we understand that we don't believe them at their core. Except the ones about dumb Norwegians. Those we believe. To their core. I've already written too much and I realize I haven't even scratched the surface. (btw. David Radtke is not the David to whom I referred in the quote pulled from my post about lists.)
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 6, 2019 11:43:32 GMT -5
My view is somewhat different having spent time in the Swamp. I believe we are in the end stages of that internal shooting war. I’d be curious to hear where you think the end will end up. We might be discussing two things: the governing elite’s up-top conflict, and the general body politic’s ground-war dislike for the other half.. Or not, I’m not sure I’m following 100 percent. At any rate you and I are good. Alright. Just as long as everyone remembers you asked for it. The short version is that Congressional delegation of authority has been going on for decades. It's mostly unrecognized because most of the time there's enough wiggle room in the executive orders, etc. that usurp that authority that many look at it and say, "well, yeah, OK, I sorta get it" and there's never serious push back. Follow Obama's executive order to implement Net Neutrality (since cancelled by Trump, I believe) as an example of the process. After 3 or 4 failed attempts to get a bill through Congress to actually change the law, Obama issued an Executive Order that said the internet met the definition of a "common carrier" in a 1996 statute and therefore was grouped in with phone companies and other stuff not really, but acceptably sorta, like that. Of course, it's damn expensive and resource intensive to fight that, so everyone goes on without it ever being challenged. And besides, it's not like it's physically impossible. That all changed in 2007 with the Supreme Court decision EPA v. Massachusetts. In a stunning abandonment of rational thought, EPA lost (don't get upset for them, it's long been a tactic of theirs to get sued so it's not their fault that they have to do stupid shit) and was forced to regulate CO2 emissions (because there was nothing in the Clean Air Act that specifically said they couldn't). Now it's very important to understand something at this point. CO2 cannot be regulated without destroying economies and and literal genocide. And no, that's physics, not political hyperbole. So the Bush administration wrestled mightily with what to do (issuing an unprecedented ANPRM with individual position papers from every cabinet member), but ultimately decided to punt to the next administration. Obama then did what you'd expect and signed on with zeal. However when it came to implementing the rules he was careless and let it slip until the end of his second term. One of the first things Trump did was cancel everything Obama had done (neat little procedural trick) and restart the process. This time he dialed EPA's free reign to arbitrarily be as strict as possible back several notches. The wailing and gnashing of teeth that you hear from the environmentalists and their republic of hard left states has set the trap and you can guarantee there will be another Supreme Court bite at that apple in the not too distant future. As for the rest of it, The New Yorker seemed to get wind of it a month or two back and reasonably cogently detailed what it means. KavanaughAgain, I see the current turmoil as the end. Mostly because Trump's getting ready to sink the ship. And it needs sinking. At some point we'll probably have to get back to legislating proper. And that requires a modicum of civility and working together. Been heading this way for far too long.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Aug 6, 2019 12:00:58 GMT -5
This is jumping back a few posts, over John's on the root meaning of "racism," but I'll leave it as I composed it and maybe get back to the semantics and etymology later.
So let's get a little meta. Debates are, at heart, about winning--they're competitions, attempts to convince an audience of a proposition, to win a prize or gain a vote or support for a proposal, to get people on one's side. But there are less-competitive modes of discourse--conversations, discussions, exchanges of ideas and supporting evidence and arguments (which can be oppositional or logical/propositional) in which the goal is not so much winning as analyzing and exploring and mapping-out the shape and nature of an issue.
But since we're all primates here, those distinctions get blurred, and analysis can easily descend into shit-throwing.
"The longer the list of proofs, the less effective the argument" might be a useful principle for debaters to keep in mind, it's not so useful for conversations or analyses where what's at stake is not so much convincing the other side as figuring things out, separating causes from effects, defining terms, sorting evidence, vetting sources--all the activities that were once crucial to undergrad general-ed writing courses I used to teach.
Investigating language is central to non-competitive conversation, especially in the naming of names department. (It's also crucial to debate and propaganda, but from a different angle.) "Racist" and "racism" are essentializing labels and rather high-order abstractions to boot, as in "X is a racist" or "Y behavior amounts to racism." The abstraction part is particularly tricky, since "race" is itself a kind of chimera--a social construct rooted in appearances, which get cross-linked to social, economic, and cultural traits that may or may not have anything to do with whatever breeding population the identified group belongs to.
And "X is a racist" is one of those flattening descriptions--note the force of "is." It's more useful (because more precise) to note behaviors, and not just actions but utterances, and not just the words but the ways and the context in which they are spoken. Based on his utterances--his tweets, his off-the-cuff remarks, his formal and rally-mode speeches--it's hard to not to see Trump's unlovely side, and part of that is his willingness to use stereotypes and slurs aimed at various groups, including national, ethnic, and "racial" groups. At the very least, he is willing to play to bigots and nativists, which means that he cares more about appealing to them than he does about offending non-bigots and -nativists. And if he really believes what he says, then he really is a bigot--though racist notions are only part of his nastiness.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Aug 6, 2019 12:13:32 GMT -5
1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. 2. 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. [/i][/quote] "I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day," seems to fit that classical definition, to my mind. Somehow, though, assuming that Jews are superior - not inferior - at counting money and getting bargains doesn't seem to disprove racism. Neither would complimenting black people on their rhythm or their fried chicken recipes. As for humor, that's tricky. We can do offensive humor, because we can understand the wink and nod. But too often people are simply and deliberately offensive, and then say, "Oh it's just a joke. Don't you have a sense of humor?" I can't imagine George Wallace steeping back from the schoolhouse door, saying, "Ha ha. Just kidding." That doesn't get him off the hook. You're a stupid fuckhead and I hope you die. Isn't that funny? Why aren't you laughing? That's where Limbaugh and his apologists seem to land. I know lots of really good racial jokes, so I change them to Ole and Lena jokes. Like you said, nobody cares if you insult Norwegians. They're the kind of immigrants we need more of. The local church was helping a refugee family get settled in town. Sven was going over to help paint their house, and Lars helped dig their garden. Lena said she went over and had sex with them and left them some money. When the others asked her about it, she said she asked Ole how to help the refugees and he said, "Fuck 'em. Give 'em a dollar."
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 6, 2019 13:06:18 GMT -5
(continuing my stream of consciousness)
Jonathan Haidt frames the tug-of-war of rhetoric/debate/apologetics as a presentation of "can" vs. "must". That is, he says that those data points that challenge what we believe in a way that make us uncomfortable in our certainty, we go on a mad dash back to sources that reassure us that we "can" continue to believe as we do. Rarely do we come across the data points so un-debatable, so incontrovertible that we "must" believe.
That's why, as I mentioned earlier in the thread -- lists don't work very well and argument-ending facts simply go ignored.
When somebody says that the Trump vs the Mexican Lawyer must be seen as racism...
....I'm not looking for a way I "can" continue to believe what I want to believe. For that matter, I don't have a reason to defend Trump. It's not Trump I care about. It's the principle that something that is not racism is being called racism that bothers me. It's that by saying "X" is racism, and I believe in "X", then I have just been called a racist. It is that that seduces me to argue for MY, not Trump's honor.
And the conclusion I'm inclined to jump to is that if a person is incapable of seeing that the Trump vs. Mexican Lawyer case is not a case of racism, then I have to wonder if they understand what racism is. And if they think that is racism, I then question the rest of their charge of racism. It isn't that I'm looking for the one weak point in the argument in order for me to rationalize ignoring all their other points. It's that by virtue of their saying something that is -- to my mind -- clearly not racism, I question their ability to judge what exactly is racism.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Aug 6, 2019 13:07:58 GMT -5
... Like you said, nobody cares if you insult Norwegians. They're the kind of immigrants we need more of. Finally, something we can all agree on and build upon. Dave for President!
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 6, 2019 13:13:59 GMT -5
Like you said, nobody cares if you insult Norwegians. They're the kind of immigrants we need more of. This is an interesting bit of humor, relative to the discussion. Because it's rightfully pointing out that one reason ethnic humor can be acceptable is that it is often told in the context of understanding that it's rarely wrong to enjoy humor that comes at the expense of the successful. But it's also true that humor can harmlessly be told at the expense of the whatever-the-opposite-of-successful would be. And it's told in a manner that is culturally self-deprecating. It's told with a roll of the eyes. It's told and accepted because we all accept it's wrong-headedness, and we are now laughing -- not at the apparent target, but at ourselves.
|
|