Secessionists and the like.

[Jaeger]

I have a very serious suggestion for any who might be interested in actually pursuing the discussion:

The True Believer by Eric Hoffer

Go read that. It's important.

(I suggested it to Dan a while back and I believe his was response was something along the line of "Man, that blew my fuckin' mind." )

--Jaeger

[DerGolgo]

Do you mean the book or the wikipedia article?

[Jaeger]

Do you mean the book or the wikipedia article?

The book. I provided the link so you'd have an idea of what the hell it is.

Hoffer didn't have a formal education -- he was a stevedore in San Francisco. He just read and thought about stuff. A lot.

For those who didn't click the Wiki link, here's the synopsis of The True Believer:

The book analyzes and attempts to explain the motives of the various types of personalities that give rise to mass movements; why and how mass movements start, progress and end; and the similarities between them, whether religious, political, radical or reactionary. ]As examples, the book often refers to Communism, Fascism, National Socialism, Christianity, Protestantism, and Islam. Hoffer believes that mass movements are interchangeable, that adherents will often flip from one movement to another, and that the motivations for mass movements are interchangeable; that religious, nationalist and social movements, whether radical or reactionary, tend to attract the same type of followers, behave in the same way and use the same tactics, even when their stated goals or values differed.

It's very readable and understandable. Highly recommended.

--Jaeger

[DerGolgo]

Haven't thought about it like that, but sounds entirely reasonable. Well, almost. Recent research suggests that people who think a lot are more likely to be lefty/liberal than those that don't, this was discussed on this forum someplace. Does he go into why people choose a particular movement or form of extremism over another?

Thinking about this and the experiences I had with politically "extreme" movements, I feel the agreement rising within me. Most people at a political get together are there really mostly to be social in some context they can feel good about. Those that rise to the top, the leaders of their peer groups, are either the ones who come for self-affirmation or those who decided they are the true believers and must take the lead, lest everything go to the dogs. Somewhere in between are those who came for self-affirmation and had to tie themselves to their creed so tight, they have forgotten how to change their mind or are positively afraid to do that, lest they be considered "weak" or "not committed enough". Reasonable people, who spend some time considering their opinions and don't just latch on to everything that is the political flavor of the moment, who are ready and willing and able to change their mind when presented with new information are the rarest. They also never end up leading their group. I used to believe in social movements, they can obviously bring change, sometimes even for the better. But the people in movements? Not so much. Just being in some movement or another doesn't indicate whether or not someone is a decent person, or even just a reasonable person, one bit. Only thing membership in a movement can reliable indicate is assholeness, anyone willing to shave their head and get a swastika tatoo can't be fucking decent by definition. But then again, maybe I'm just jaded because I didn't get the self-affirmation I sought or am just trying to build my image by showing how I can change my mind without shattering my ego.

[Jaeger]

Haven't thought about it like that, but sounds entirely reasonable. Well, almost. Recent research suggests that people who think a lot are more likely to be lefty/liberal than those that don't, this was discussed on this forum someplace. Does he go into why people choose a particular movement or form of extremism over another?

In short, yes. To wit:

A rising mass movement attracts and holds a following not by its doctrine and promises but by the refuge it offers from anxieties, barrenness, and meaninglessness of an individual existence. It cures the poignantly frustrated not by conferring on them an absolute truth or by remedying the difficulties and abuses which made their lives miserable, but by freeing them from their ineffectual selves — and it does this by enfolding and absorbing them into a closely knit and exultant corporate whole." — P.44

Thinking about this and the experiences I had with politically "extreme" movements, I feel the agreement rising within me. Most people at a political get together are there really mostly to be social in some context they can feel good about.

Again, Mr. Hoffer:

"The same Russians who cringe and crawl before Stalin’s secret police displayed unsurpassed courage when facing — singly or in a group — the invading Nazis. The reason for the contrasting behavior is not that Stalin’s police are more ruthless than Hitler’s armies, but that when facing Stalin’s police the Russian feels a mere individual while, when facing the Germans, he saw himself a member of a mighty race, possessed of a glorious past and even more glorious future. — P.63"

Somewhere in between are those who came for self-affirmation and had to tie themselves to their creed so tight, they have forgotten how to change their mind or are positively afraid to do that, lest they be considered "weak" or "not committed enough". Reasonable people, who spend some time considering their opinions and don't just latch on to everything that is the political flavor of the moment, who are ready and willing and able to change their mind when presented with new information are the rarest.

And again...

It is the true believer’s ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacle not baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. — P.76

... and so on. You get the idea.

Check it out. Very common book. Apparently Eisenhower gave it out to the members of his cabinet -- pretty far fuckin' cry from "Atlas Shrugged," eh?

Also FYI, I'm pulling these quote from (ironically) here.

--Jaeger

[DerGolgo]

Ah, projection. Members of such closed worldviews habitually project onto their opponents what they refuse to recognize in themselves. Like Nazis accusing the lefties of trying to take away their free speech when it's the brownshirts that swear an oath to shut every dissenting voice once they come to power. Not the leaders, mind, they are often cynical enough to recognize their group's shortcomings, but they plain don't care when they find a bullet they can shoot at the enemy.

Apart from which, I get the feeling that reading this book would be a long string of "I KNEW IT!! THIS TOTALLY AFFIRMS MY EXISTING VIEWS AND OPINIONS!" which, with my current reading troubles, while surely soothing for the soul and perhaps even fun, is really a waste of time more than anything else. But thanks for the heads-up!

[rolly]

The modular nature of these groups agrees with my experience in high school.

[Jaeger]

Apart from which, I get the feeling that reading this book would be a long string of "I KNEW IT!! THIS TOTALLY AFFIRMS MY EXISTING VIEWS AND OPINIONS!" which, with my current reading troubles, while surely soothing for the soul and perhaps even fun, is really a waste of time more than anything else. But thanks for the heads-up!

Well... it's more that he articulates where the lines are in an understandable and non-judgmental way. Moreover, he has some very interesting (and plausible) theories as to WHY.

He's utterly uninterested (at least on the surface) on individual groups, he's interested in finding the common traits of ALL groups, be they cultural, political, religious, social... irrelevant. People join groups because we're "wired" to join groups. (It's also an interesting tool to use to analyze this place, a place where "staunch individualists "come to congregate. Gorsh, maybe we ain't all unique little fuckin' snowflakes, eh?)

If you can read it, do. If not, I suggest an audiobook. For you, in particular, Mr. Golgo, as you have both the time and inclination (your means are a bit wanting, but hey... life sucks. )

Anyway. Nothing is new in the world, and people have been dumb-ass followers for as long as there've been people.

--Jaeger

[calamari kid]

I've been carrying that book around for years. Time to move it to the top of the pile.

[DerGolgo]

Darnit. Audible has four books titled "True Believer", but NONE with the article. And because of bad customer service, today is the day they give me a voucher. Darnit!

[DerGolgo]

You know, thinking about it, I'd like to correct what I said about people who join social movements, specifically about those who do somehow care about the issue, but really only go for the socializing and so they can drag their friends along. I've got the impression that, while they may actually care about the issue, that care itself and the whole joining-the-movement thing is more down to a feeling of impotence when faced with the world and the desire to self-validate by doing something, anything, really.

[kitkat]

Also FYI, I'm pulling these quote from (ironically) here.

--Jaeger

*that* doesn't surprise me in the least. My RW friends just adore *reversing* the intended direction of this vein of 'psychology' towards the left. They see it as all about liberals (particularly); _exactly_ as the left sees it as all about the RW! lol! It's simply fantastic to witness. In actuality, both are right to a specific degree---the right these days may be utterly lost in space but the libs have their moments of utter whackadoodle as well...which is good to keep in mind imho....

[Jaeger]

In actuality, both are right to a specific degree---the right these days may be utterly lost in space but the libs have their moments of utter whackadoodle as well...which is good to keep in mind imho....

Yawp.

Ultimately 99.99% of folks are trying to "do the right thing," it's just that everybody can't agree on what "right" is. Likewise, in virtually all disputes, each side has a perfectly valid and reasonable arguments -- from their point of view. (Some arguments are more "reasonable" than others, sure, but...)

Which, in fact, it sort've Hoffer's point.

Convince someone that whatever you're doing is The Right Thing and they'll follow you. Convince them that you (or your gods, or your technology...) are humanity's only salvation and they'll do anything for you.

--Jaeger

[DerGolgo]

Ultimately 99.99% of folks are trying to "do the right thing," it's just that everybody can't agree on what "right" is. Likewise, in virtually all disputes, each side has a perfectly valid and reasonable arguments -- from their point of view. (Some arguments are more "reasonable" than others, sure, but...)

And here's another problem. We are so conditioned that any form of agreement with the opposite side is equal to utterly giving up any strong position oneself may have had that, once we hear what opinions our perceived opponents are holding or what course of action they suggest, we immediately, automatically assume the opposite. Agreeing with the other side is just such a taboo that our own opinions are effectively made by those we consider our opponents. We default to the opposite of what they want or do. This makes actual dialogue, actually constructive compromise ever more impossible. When compromise is reached, it's seems it's only ever after a long and arduous process, involving much mud flinging and infighting and some sort of greater debacle or other. It's also, often enough it seems, too late. And since neither side is willing to give any ground to the opponents, which seems to be even more important than holding up one's own positions these days, the compromise that is eventually reached tends to be fairly ineffective and, while neither side really gets what it wants, the compromise is surely full of things, each of which someone on either side despises.
At least that's the feeling I'm getting. I've noticed this reflex of taking the contrary position in myself, I've seen it in others. I've been trying for ages to get past it, I think I am. I disagree with what these guys do or want, why should I let them decide what I do or want, right? But I'm not entirely sure I'm past it.

As for the right and the left accusing each other of the same things, this is an extension of this, I think. Your opponents put forward certain ideals, the best thing you could get your hands on to hurt them with is evidence that your opponents are violating their own ideals, are insincere and bigoted. Often enough, what they accuse the other side of tends to be what they themselves do unabashedly. Note people on the politically conservative side. They spend all day going on about tax cuts and financial incentives for "job creators" and cutting the deficit but, at the same time, accuse the lefties of only ever talking about money, as if that was the only thing in the world. You know, regarding welfare, healthcare spending, etc.
At the same time, the lefties will accuse any righties of disrespecting other lifestyles and being suspicious of other religions while they, themselves, cannot bring themselves to respect the cookie cutter suburban two-kids, dog and a mortgage family with the stay-at-home mom, or to accept the true Christian believers without suspecting them of some nefarious plot, discriminations or warped worldview. While that cookie-cutter family may have actually found their happiness and self-realization and those true believers may, actually, be nice people who don't discriminate against others and have a very reasonable worldview (I got my mind changed a lot when I met a devout catholic who's also a socialist rabble-rouser, notorious disrespecter of all authorities, avid smoker of exotic herbs and generally hoopy frood).
At the same time, either side feels the need to reinforce how they are different from their opponents by going a bit overboard with what they are concerned about or demand, which reinforces the rejection by the respective opponents. For years, the conservatives over here have gone on about "parallel societies" arising in immigrant communities, considering the lack of integration of migrants an entirely valid concern, but they then had to go overboard, ensuring a stronger rejection from their opponents, by demanding that a "German lead-culture" must be established.
The lefites, at the same time, are so desperate to show how they are multi-culturally tolerant and accepting in contrast to the conservatives that they just flatly denied that any of those parallel-society accusations may be true, to the point of defending that Muslim immigrants, rather than going to the cops or other authorities when there is a problem are, in some cities, likely to seek the services of a Mullah or Mofti. Quite opposed to the fight for integration of the immigrants.
The need to always one-up the other in how one is opposed to the other side's position leads people to holding pretty ridiculous positions, for no good reason other than it would "help" the opposition if one didn't go further, it would be a sign of weakness and lack of commitment. Those who are the most extreme in this regard without being obviously insane (obvious to their peers, that is, it's all relative), going just as far as is possible in their peer group, tend to end up leading that peer group. Which isn't very good, either.

Many people have not only stopped defining themselves and what they stand for by who they actually are or what they really stand for, but, in the manner described above, by who they are not and what they stand against. Standing against something may well be a noble and honorable position, but if you stand against something just because of who is standing for it, rather than the actual merits of the matter, that stand becomes BS. Of course, pointing this out to anyone concerned will only result in a tirade of accusations that, just by pointing this out, you are a bigot and on the wrong side and don't get it and all of that. I think I may have done this at times, though I can't think of a specific example right now.
I'm trying to do the self-knowledge thing and recognizing if and where I may actually hold on to stuff which isn't right.

But, on the other hand, I might just be going to the extreme here myself to establish how I differ from those I just criticized, and feel driven to this on such a subconscious level that I don't realize it. Darnit, this logic and reason stuff would be okay if it was just fucking hard work, but it's a fucking mindfuck, too, isn't it, it ends up being somewhat nonsensical because you cannot apply it to this situation without invalidating your own arguments at the same time.
But I might just be accusing it of this because I have no other good argument against it and thus need to attack it with what it's supposedly opposed to...argh....

EDIT
As a matter of fact, I think this is one of the big reasons why people choose to join a movement.
"I like these guys, I'll join them, what they are about must be cool, after all, I like 'em." is the one side of that, the other not being "These guys dislike what I dislike so I'll join 'em." but, rather, "I dislike these guys, who's opposed to them so I can join that opposition?". Just look what happens in the larger world of politics. Every now and again, two political groups will join forces. You wonder "what gives, they don't really have any issues they work on in common" or "now, these are some strange bedfellows". But then you look at who their respectively opposing groups are, sometimes within the same end of the larger political spectrum, and it starts making sense. Like individuals looking for a group that may help them oppose someone they dislike, regardless of actual issues, two groups may find that, while they have zero overlap in their issues, they have the same opponents and can better oppose together. Regardless as to whether they actually respect each other's position on their respective issues. Even without any overlap on any issues, members of group A may well be opposed to some positions of group B, but they'll shut up and think of England as long as they feel they can better stick it to group C with group B's support.

[happycommuter]

So I don't see any biological reason why two people who love each other, regardless of their respective skin color, shouldn't make many, many babies (except maybe the global population explosion, but that is a different question).

I don't believe anyone was making a biological argument, except for those supporting cross-pollenization. As for the eugenics argument, one camp is in favor of concentration, the other diversification. These are opposites. And, as you point out, one is systematic and goal-oriented and the other is amazingly haphazard.

...beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That some idiots have a bad idea of judging beauty is...

Wait, what? So you're saying don't judge, I judge! I have my preferences, as do we all, and you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth about whether this should be respected or not.

too wordy to quote, please see above

Humans are biologically animals, but we have the divine spark so we are above all other animals. One of the results of this is that we know how babies are made and we aren't just instinct driven. Choosing to produce a child is something a reasonable person would put considerable thought into, whereas a subhuman would just copulate for momentary pleasure and be shocked at the outcome.
So, in the liberal mind, man has a right to murder a living unborn child if it is an inconvenience, but being selective about who he mates with is comparable to genocide? If we abort a child that may be deaf, that's cool and the right thing, but choosing to not sleep with other races (and knock them up) is inhumane and playing God?

The mixing blunts their words and eventually makes the hate go away.

Going back to the original topic, yes it certainly seems to have worked with mixed-race Obama.

Well, all this shows is that you are, in fact, intolerant.

Bullshit. I am tolerant, I am just not accepting. Many groups claim to want tolerance, which they already have, when they really want acceptance. I thought I'd already covered this. I don't get Harleys. If you ride one, that's fine. I can tolerate that. Ride near me all you wish. I ain't riding one and I'm not telling you that I like your bike. See the difference?

1. Race is not just skin color, but culture. It is common knowledge that, in general, blacks watch totally different television shows than whites,...[emphasis added]

Since you do seem to have a set of preconceptions about people based on their race (like that black people all watch different TV shows, with no qualifier like "Apprently, statistically"), you do appear a little bit racist, too.

Never said it. See above.

...you seem to describe eugenics as a good thing, with the botanist and the dog breeder and all that

Again, personal opinion and widespread policy are totally different. If I choose not to eat bananas, it doesn't really matter. If everybody stops eating bananas, there are major practical ramifications. Have I mentioned forcing people's choices one way or another? Similarly with the bike argument. It's cool to have oddball power cruisers and adventure tourers exist, but it's horrid when only they exist.

Because if, in fact, you do end up in the minority one day, you'd sure want that minority's rights and customs recognized and respected.

I really don't worry, but race-mixing helps me in that scenario as mixed race people clearly do not have a singular unifying culture or even color. They are inherently divided against themselves.

Well, I'll bookmark this and get back to other responses in due time.

[thrasherbill]

You still haven't answered my question.

[DerGolgo]

So I don't see any biological reason why two people who love each other, regardless of their respective skin color, shouldn't make many, many babies (except maybe the global population explosion, but that is a different question).

I don't believe anyone was making a biological argument, except for those supporting cross-pollenization. As for the eugenics argument, one camp is in favor of concentration, the other diversification. These are opposites. And, as you point out, one is systematic and goal-oriented and the other is amazingly haphazard.

YOU were describing mixing races as the "flipside of eugenics". I was pointing out how it's the opposite rather than the flipside and how your description of it as "the flipside" wouldn't fit even if one considered non-racism related eugenics.

...beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That some idiots have a bad idea of judging beauty is...

Wait, what? So you're saying don't judge, I judge! I have my preferences, as do we all, and you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth about whether this should be respected or not.

That is exactly the point. The idiots I was talking about? The people who edit fashion magazines and the like who decree from up high what is attractive and what isn't, judging their subjects not on how they actually look but by how well they fit into current trends. People for whom only the fashionable can be beautiful.

too wordy to quote, please see above

Humans are biologically animals, but we have the divine spark so we are above all other animals. One of the results of this is that we know how babies are made and we aren't just instinct driven. Choosing to produce a child is something a reasonable person would put considerable thought into, whereas a subhuman would just copulate for momentary pleasure and be shocked at the outcome.
So, in the liberal mind, man has a right to murder a living unborn child if it is an inconvenience, but being selective about who he mates with is comparable to genocide? If we abort a child that may be deaf, that's cool and the right thing, but choosing to not sleep with other races (and knock them up) is inhumane and playing God?

First of all, it was you who compared miscegenation to genocide, look it up. I never made any claim that any act of making babies is genocidal in any way. Trying to find fault in my arguments is fine, but accusing me of making your claims, and being wicked for having made them, isn't just lame. It's borderline nuts.
As for me, personally, aborting a living unborn child is not on. But, apart from the fact that it isn't my choice to make for others, a clump of cells, a zygote, is not a living unborn child. As long as it cannot possibly survive without the mother, it's part of the mother's body, and it's her decision alone. Denying safe and legal access to safe abortions results in back-alley abortionists butchering desperate women. Giving the desperate women this safety may open the doors for women who abort out of convenience, as you describe, but whether it's desperation or convenience is only their decision. Only their's, their's alone. And you weren't selective about who you wanted to mate with, you were being selective about who other people may mate with. You made it quite clear that you do not approve of certain couplings of others because of their respective races. You were choosing who other's may make babies with. If you don't want to have kids with a black woman, fine, that is your business. But you've made it your business also whether or not others should do it or not. That's not a matter of personal choice. Your personal choice of who to have kids with ends with your person, you were judging other people's choices in a matter of no concern to you.
ALSO...please elaborate what you mean by "subhumans". You description, of a creature that can not only engage in sexual acts for reasons other than procreation and instincts related to that, but that also has the ability to be surprised, indicating faculties of abstract thought regarding the future and expectations thereof, does make it sound awfully like what the zoologists call "homo sapiens". Please, do elaborate, what is a "subhuman"?

The mixing blunts their words and eventually makes the hate go away.

Going back to the original topic, yes it certainly seems to have worked with mixed-race Obama.

I don't know if you've noticed, but he got elected president. TWICE. In the USA, a country where, fifty years ago, the national guard had to roll out to keep black kids out of white schools. Yep, seems to be working fine.

Well, all this shows is that you are, in fact, intolerant.

Bullshit. I am tolerant, I am just not accepting. Many groups claim to want tolerance, which they already have, when they really want acceptance. I thought I'd already covered this. I don't get Harleys. If you ride one, that's fine. I can tolerate that. Ride near me all you wish. I ain't riding one and I'm not telling you that I like your bike. See the difference?

The difference is what spews from your mouth. Tolerating something means not doing anything about it. You didn't just say you thought black women are unpretty and you wouldn't date one, you said other white guys shouldn't make kids with black women. You were not tolerating what you personally disliked. You were telling the Harley rider he shouldn't ride a Harley, that he shouldn't ride beside you and that he shouldn't ride besides other non-Harley bikes. And you were telling this to other bikers, also. See the difference?
Acceptance would be if you, yourself, got yourself a Harley. Or borrowed one, or just desired owning one.

1. Race is not just skin color, but culture. It is common knowledge that, in general, blacks watch totally different television shows than whites,...[emphasis added]

Since you do seem to have a set of preconceptions about people based on their race (like that black people all watch different TV shows, with no qualifier like "Apprently, statistically"), you do appear a little bit racist, too.

Never said it. See above.

You did use a qualifier, true, I didn't pay due attention to that and I apologize. BUT, the meaning of "in general" which I was taught in school was that it indicates that something is general fact. No indication that this is how you perceive the world, which would have been fair, but something that is NOT an assumption but as factual as gravity. At least that's what it reads like to me as a foreigner. I looked it up on wiktionary, their definition seems to agree with how I had and still do understand this term. It may just be miscommunication, I may have misunderstood your meaning, I'll admit as much. But considering what I and wiktionary agree the term means, you must admit it wasn't far fetched.
I think I should admit that, had you used the qualifier "statistically" without the "apparently", I'd have probably gone the cheap-shot route of demanding to see that statistic, which would have us knee deep in Nielsen ratings right now, so it's probably for the best this route was not taken.

...you seem to describe eugenics as a good thing, with the botanist and the dog breeder and all that

Again, personal opinion and widespread policy are totally different. If I choose not to eat bananas, it doesn't really matter. If everybody stops eating bananas, there are major practical ramifications. Have I mentioned forcing people's choices one way or another? Similarly with the bike argument. It's cool to have oddball power cruisers and adventure tourers exist, but it's horrid when only they exist.

Yes, you didn't mention forcing others to submit to your will. But you didn't rule it out, either. You were NOT talking about what choices you make for yourself and why, but about the choices other people are making, and why they shouldn't. At no point were you describing your views as merely your personal choice, every word you said in this discussion thus far was chosen as though your assumptions were statements of fact and generally applicable. I looked over the thread thus far, and couldn't find your declaration that this is merely your personal taste and that you don't presume to judge the choices of others. Which your choice of words and lack of contrary declaration indicates you were doing.

Because if, in fact, you do end up in the minority one day, you'd sure want that minority's rights and customs recognized and respected.

I really don't worry, but race-mixing helps me in that scenario as mixed race people clearly do not have a singular unifying culture or even color. They are inherently divided against themselves.

That is one way to look at it. OR you could consider they might deal with the people they meet as individuals, rather than relying on preconceptions to guide them through life. They'd not be so much divided as liberated from unifying factors they had no choice in. They can pick for themselves over what to unify with others, and with whom. More work, but more freedom usually is.

Also, please answer thrasherbill's question, inquiring minds want to know.

Further also: If you respond to this, quote by quote and so forth, like I did here and you did above, I would consider it a matter of great courtesy if you'd throw in a break between quotes. Like I did here, unlike you did above. This is not a question of substance or style, really, as using the quote tags will give you a new paragraph anyway, even if you do type it out in one single long line. But taking that apart for the response is a buckload of work and, like I said, hitting the "return" key a few times to separate what different paragraphs you desire to make would be greatly appreciated.

[happycommuter]

Please document the evidence for your belief here, that they are "wrecking their feet".

Yes, I am aware of the debate between those who believe in properly shaped shoes and the barefoot enthusiasts. My belief is anecdotal, as I developed plantar fascia pain soon after being on my feet for a few days wearing crummy Columbia shoes with inadequate support. Again, just my opinion, but plenty of podiatrists agree.

Ah, projection. Members of such closed worldviews habitually project onto their opponents what they refuse to recognize in themselves.

Yes, I've already called you guys out on this, albeit not so explicitly.

I was pointing out how it's the opposite rather than the flipside...The idiots I was talking about? The people who edit fashion magazines...

Whoops, sorry for the semantic disagreement. For me, the flipside of a coin is the opposite side. I could be contrarian and state that an elite fashionista's worldview is equally valid, but I just don't care.

You made it quite clear that you do not approve of certain couplings of others because of their respective races. You were choosing who other's may make babies with.

...if they want my approval. Most people don't really care about that, and they really shouldn't as I actually treat people I don't approve of quite decently. I'm talking to all y'all (well, except for the people that I've blocked: they were intolerable). I have lots of opinions, and they are just my opinions.

ALSO...please elaborate what you mean by "subhumans".

By definition, a creature less than fully human. In this day and age, a being of sexual maturation that is unaware that babies can result from this can hardly be considered fully developed if they live in modern society. Obviously it's a colloquialism, till we have manimals or whatever. You could argue about the developmentally impaired (aka retards) being subhuman, but as they still warrant humane treatment it's all rather pointless.

I don't know if you've noticed, but he got elected president.... Yep, seems to be working fine.

And he's virtually identical to the inbred imbecile before him, elected twice, right down to the polarized approval.

You were telling the Harley rider he shouldn't ride a Harley, that he shouldn't ride beside you and that he shouldn't ride besides other non-Harley bikes. And you were telling this to other bikers, also. See the difference?

I'm used to free speech. Politely voicing an opinion can be done tolerantly. Being in the same room is tacit tolerance. Intolerance is outright rejection, like lactose intolerance. I don't expel people or inconvenience them in any way. Disapproval is so mild. Take a look at myself here. I am clearly tolerated but not approved of. You can say you hate me, but you choose to tolerate it for a reason. Same here. I put up with things that I won't embrace.
And I don't want anyone riding beside me, CHIPS style. I deliberately chose the word around, and you'll note that I allow it, not disallow it.

BUT, the meaning of "in general" which I was taught in school was that it indicates that something is general fact.[/quote.
Yes. It is a fact, at least in my country.

African-Americans generally watch more television than other segments of the population, and their viewing behavior, in terms of the highest-rated television programs, differs from the rest of the population [emphasis added..

Again, the explicit link: http://www.nielsenmedia.com/ethnicmeasu ... dexAA.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I thought everybody knew this stuff. Blacks, in general, won't get your Seinfeld or Friends references and you won't get their Girlfriends references. There are almost no whiteys watching those Madea movies. I speak as an American here. The cultural divide may be less pronounced abroad.

I looked over the thread thus far, and couldn't find ...that you don't presume to judge the choices of others.

I DO judge the choices of others. Who doesn't? All y'all are doing it right now. If that's your charge, I plead guilty. Actions and choices are not a race. Judging something that has been done is not pre-judging, since that's clearly what you're building to.

Also, please answer thrasherbill's question, inquiring minds want to know.

I haven't seen his question. In fact, I don't see anything from him anymore. No apologies to the other people that cease to exist to me as well.

[motorpsycho67]

In the USA, a country where, fifty years ago, the national guard had to roll out to keep black kids out of white schools.

Correction:

The National Guard were called out to allow black kids to attend white schools..... without getting beat up or harrassed.

[Pintgudge]

Der G.

You did ask us to remind you that you didn't really want to continue to feed the troll.

[thrasherbill]

Der G.

You did ask us to remind you that you didn't really want to continue to feed the troll.

I still want to know how he gets oxygen.

[Pintgudge]

Bill, maybe he's a different kind of being that doesn't breath atmosphere, but just takes in whatever is available.

We can all see what is readily available to him, and, better him than anyone else.

[happycommuter]

I looked over the thread thus far, and couldn't find ...that you don't presume to judge the choices of others.

I DO judge the choices of others. Who doesn't? All y'all are doing it right now. If that's your charge, I plead guilty. Actions and choices are not a race. Judging something that has been done is not pre-judging, since that's what you were building to.

Anyway, I wanted to post the pic of me watching the mixed race couple that I rode down to Virginia with many years ago comically trying to lash stuff to their bike with twine and bungees. I can assure you that, even though I found this pair (a bare-armed bald white guy with two hearing aids and a black lady in fatigue pants and a bandana on her head) unusual, my perplexed look was purely based on their obvious lack of preparation. Anyway, I'll mention that this was a ride to a sober event, because that should piss y'all off.

[thrasherbill]

I looked over the thread thus far, and couldn't find ...that you don't presume to judge the choices of others.

I DO judge the choices of others. Who doesn't? All y'all are doing it right now. If that's your charge, I plead guilty. Actions and choices are not a race. Judging something that has been done is not pre-judging, since that's what you were building to.

Anyway, I wanted to post the pic of me watching the mixed race couple that I rode down to Virginia with many years ago comically trying to lash stuff to their bike with twine and bungees. I can assure you that, even though I found this pair (a bare-armed bald white guy with two hearing aids and a black lady in fatigue pants and a bandana on her head) unusual, my perplexed look was purely based on their obvious lack of preparation. Anyway, I'll mention that this was a ride to a sober event, because that should piss y'all off.

Now I get it. His head is so far up his own ass he breathes through his navel.

[DerGolgo]

I don't know if you've noticed, but he got elected president.... Yep, seems to be working fine.

And he's virtually identical to the inbred imbecile before him, elected twice, right down to the polarized approval.

Like I said, it's working. Both ways, it seems.

I looked over the thread thus far, and couldn't find ...that you don't presume to judge the choices of others.

I DO judge the choices of others. Who doesn't? All y'all are doing it right now. If that's your charge, I plead guilty. Actions and choices are not a race. Judging something that has been done is not pre-judging, since that's what you were building to.

My point, which I didn't make properly I'll admit, is that you're not judging other's choices on individual merit. You're not judging the choice of some coupling based on who the people doing the coupling are, and whether they, as individuals, may fit together or not. You're judging that coupling based on what they are, on what ethnicity they belong to. Something they had no choice or influence in.
As much as people do not have to, and shouldn't, listen to you, the fact that you hold this opinion, that people's lives should be governed by how and to whom they were born, rather than what they can make of themselves, is medieval bullshit. The fact that you commonly and usually uphold that an individual must be free to make his or her own choices, as an individual, but making these judgments based not on considerations of the individuals and their individual circumstances, but based on a perceived group identity, some genetic features they inherited from their parents, some cultural stereotypes (which may, in fact, apply to the majority of the people in question - which still doesn't show anything about the individual), that makes you a bigot.
The fact that you demand for yourself the consideration of your choices based on your and your choice's merits, which is one of the reasons we are having this discussion, while denying equal consideration to others makes you a bigot.

You were telling the Harley rider he shouldn't ride a Harley, that he shouldn't ride beside you and that he shouldn't ride besides other non-Harley bikes. And you were telling this to other bikers, also. See the difference?

I'm used to free speech. Politely voicing an opinion can be done tolerantly. Being in the same room is tacit tolerance. Intolerance is outright rejection, like lactose intolerance. I don't expel people or inconvenience them in any way. Disapproval is so mild. Take a look at myself here. I am clearly tolerated but not approved of. You can say you hate me, but you choose to tolerate it for a reason. Same here. I put up with things that I won't embrace.
And I don't want anyone riding beside me, CHIPS style. I deliberately chose the word around, and you'll note that I allow it, not disallow it.

Intolerance does not equal rejection. Medical jargon is weird, cruel and unusual anyway, but apart from that, here's an engineers understanding of tolerance: Something is withing tolerances when you don't need to go correcting it, you leave it alone and it's fine. A shaft may have a specified diameter of 45 mm but ends up at 44.8 mm. If it's withing tolerance, you do nothing about it.
I'm not tolerating your ugly opinions, as you may have noticed, I speak out, I'm doing something. Rejection would be if I blocked or ignored your, or started a movement to have you banned. I'm not doing that. But I'm sure not tolerating your opinions. As you are not tolerating miscegenation. You may not be rejecting it, but the fact that you not only spoke out about it, but carried on finding reasons and arguments to support your position rather than just letting it be shows that you're intolerant of it.

Regarding the horribly mangled mess of tags that involves the Nielsen ratings: Fine. But you should have used "statistically" or better yet, "According to Nielsen" and we wouldn't have had this interlude, your original statement may not be entirely wrong, after all, you offer a citation, but the wording was...inelegant and evidently open to misinterpretation.

Finally, the big one. I consciously tried to blank this out until I could get to it, move everything else out of the way to tackle it on it's lonesome.

ALSO...please elaborate what you mean by "subhumans".

By definition, a creature less than fully human. In this day and age, a being of sexual maturation that is unaware that babies can result from this can hardly be considered fully developed if they live in modern society. Obviously it's a colloquialism, till we have manimals or whatever. You could argue about the developmentally impaired (aka retards) being subhuman, but as they still warrant humane treatment it's all rather pointless.

So someone who doesn't measure up to your standards of rational and responsible behavior is less than human, do I understand this right?
You only respect someone as a full human being when they can measure up to your standards in behavior and mental acuity, is that what you are saying?
Thank you for allowing the developmentally impaired "humane" treatment, golly, this terminology doesn't make you sound like an asshole.
Actually, it does.
They don't "warrant humane treatment", they are HUMAN and must be treated as HUMANS!
Besides which, while you can make any argument you like that some people are unable to take care of their own business, lack the facilities required for entering into contracts and what have you, even though they are technically not considered "impaired", THEY ARE HUMAN!
It doesn't matter how many chromosomes someone has, whether or not they have figured out that they must take responsibility for their actions, whether they realize that actions actually have consequences and have learned to think before they do, all of that is utterly inconsequential. If it's biologically a member of the species, it's a HUMAN.
The term you used, "subhuman", that's exactly the terminology the Nazis used when they herded people into those trucks and into the camps, "Untermensch", it's the literal translation.
It doesn't matter how many reasons and arguments you may bring as to why the people you thus described don't deserve to be recognized as full human beings, the fact that you feel this way makes you not just bigoted, because by someone else's standards you might not be the full human you demand to be, it makes you not just exactly the sort of cunt who, a hundred years ago, fought to bring eugenics into the mainstream, it makes you a fucking asshole.
ANYONE who starts separating people into "proper humans" and "subhumans" is greasing the tracks for the hate and bigotry which result in people who cannot defend themselves being mistreated.
ANYONE who makes such distinctions is not just far, far, far beyond any reasonably personal opinion but way, way, way in the realm of supremacists. It doesn't matter how you got such a stinking opinion, it doesn't matter that you may be entitled to have your own opinions, having this opinion shows that you do not respect the humanity of others, that you presume to judge who deserves to be considered a member of your species and who doesn't. Distinguishing not just who deserves to be considered human but who deserves to be treated human is the next step, and it's only a whisker removed.
I've spent a year taking care of people who you consider only "warrant humane treatment" and let me tell you, THEY ARE NO LESS HUMAN BEINGS THAN YOU ARE! At least two of them were only alive because their parents physically hid them from others who made the distinction you made here.

I actually tried to warn you. When I asked you to elaborate, I was "waving with the fencepost" as we say in Germany to try and get you to consider what you were saying. I pointed out what direction your logic was heading. You could have realized that you made a big fucking shitpile of a bad decision in describing others as "subhuman", you could have realized that, even though your actual opinion, you might not want to step down that path if you want others on this board not to fucking hate you outright. You have shown, repeatedly, that you are NOT a dumb person, so I cannot imagine how you could have made a mistake in picking that term and then making a second mistake in riding with it. Rather, you have shown that, when you consider another person, another HUMAN BEING, you don't necessarily see an actual HUMAN BEING but something less. Which puts you on EXACTLY the footing Nazis, white supremacists and the shitheads who wanted to make eugenics the norm occupy. You don't even see the dichotomy between demanding that human live begins at conception, as your repeated anti-abortion stance pretty firmly establishes, but that, somehow, along the way, human live stops being human, remaining only live. Yes, you may not have advocated killing any "subhumans", BUT you sure pick your cherries as to how you respect what live and where, and this sort of worldview simply lacks what must be iron-clad - that a human being, somehow born and joined the species, is a full human being, doesn't just "deserve" to be but MUST be respected and treated as such.

So fuck you. I'm fucking done with you. I replied to you in the other thread, and here, because you came back to the discussion you had abandoned, in what over the anonymity of the internet looked like an act of cutting and running. I replied to you because you demonstrated that you are, in fact, not the coward this made you look like.
BUT you are exactly the kind of person I have no wish talking to in my spare time. I've stood on street corners and marched through town protesting against people like you, I've kept people like you from subverting the globalization-critical group I was working with, I've signed petitions and voted to fight people like you. Because that must be done.
But I come here to converse with people I like and respect, mostly, about topics and subjects I'm interested in. I come here to enjoy myself. I've thus far given you a piece of my mind because I felt obliged to do so, because I thought you might actually be one of these fairly reasonable, basically good people who just happen to have picked up shitty opinions at some point in their life and never bothered to properly think about them. I conversed with you because I thought you were NOT a troll but serious, if ill-informed and lacking some self-reflection.
But your show thus far, and now this, indicates to me that you are, in fact, beyond any point up to which one may consider you "good people" or "fairly reasonable". You're bad people.
When the "Übermenschen" came to take away the "subhmans", most onlookers fell into one of three categories. Those who shrugged, muttered "none of my business" or "I don't want not trouble" and looked away, those who shook their head, sighed that it's sad it had to come to this, but it must be done, mustn't it, and those who nodded vigorously and maybe even applauded.
Your performance thus far, and now this, this show that you lack the basic decency to respect your fellow human beings as such, this display of how you rank human beings into categories of how much of a human being they are, that you actually categorize some humans as being not only "not-human", but "less-than" human, all this combined convinces me that you surely are not the sort of person who'd merely have shrugged and muttered. Regardless which of the other two groups you may fall into, I have no desire of having any more contact with you. I've tried to help you see the flaws and moral and ethical discrepancies in the world view you have espoused, but I'm now convinced that any such attempt was, is, and most likely will be, in vain. Anyone who can hold an opinion like that, and not only not question it himself but puts it out like it was an opinion on a movie or a meal, matter of fact and without fanfare, is not someone I think I can reach or convince of the error of their ways.

I know I have stated this before, but please be aware that I did declare I'd only want to stick to it if hc didn't come back to this thread.
But now, I mean it. If he starts piling the bile again, I may be tempted to respond, I may even get sucked into another discussion.
PLEASE someone remind me of this thread and that it's pointless.
Until hc demonstrates, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that he is changing his ways, with actual evidence and all that, that he's genuinely turning a new leaf and turning into a new and, if not improved at least not as fucking evil hc, I'm done with him.

EDIT: I'm so fucking angry, I only now noticed I took at least one and a half hours carefully composing this and totally spaced on my empty stomach and parched throat. I'm not trying to be dramatic here, I haven't been this angry about a someone I have personal contact with in fucking ages.

[DerGolgo]

In the USA, a country where, fifty years ago, the national guard had to roll out to keep black kids out of white schools.

Correction:

The National Guard were called out to allow black kids to attend white schools..... without getting beat up or harrassed.

In Little Rock? Yes, after Ike had sent in the 10th Airborne and federalized the national guard. Before that, Governor Wallace called out the national guard to block the black kids from enrolling in the whitey school, didn't he?

[sun rat]

wow! what a de-evolution of a thread. and thanks, pintgudge.

incidentally, happyfascist, you won't get to take my right to vote away. you see, there are more women voters than male voters. so suck it.

[rc26]

Sorry, but I'm going to try to take this thread back to it's roots.

As of 12:00 am today, it's now legal to posses and smoke marijuana in Washington state with certain restrictions. We all know that there are Federal statutes in place that still prohibit it. Personally speaking, I think it's great that the citizens of WA and CO have thrown up the proverbial middle finger at the feds. Are we going to see the feds step in right away? Would they go so far as to Federalize National Guard troops to enforce the Federal statutes? It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Interesting questions are raised here.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/ ... ew06m.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Pintgudge]

I have lived in Washington for 53 of my 56 years.

Smoked as much as I could for 27 years straight. Haven't had a toke for 14 years now because of random drug testing at work, but at the time I quit it was because everyone who sold wanted me to buy crank or crack instead and got really scary-flakey about it when I said, no I only want the bud.

So, even though I wont be smoking 'till I retire, I am very proud to be a Washingtonian.

My state has repealled the prohibition of pot!

[JoJoLesh]

First, I would like to thank RC26 for bringing this back to its intent. (And for not requesting the ritual Oot knife) But maybe our moderator would see the benefit of moving this latest part of the thread to a new one, as the original discussion may be un-salvageable at this point.

I don't know what the fed is going to do, but I would expect bordering states to amp police presence at the borders. State troopers sitting just on their side of the state boundary and looking for any reason to pull over suspicious looking folk.

Under 40, and driving a not so great car? Guess who was weaving in the lane... You were!
Guy with long hair? Expect to hear, "Sir, do you know why I pulled you over?"
On a motorcycle? Hell, you might as well pull right up to the State Po, and save him form having to pull out and run the blue light.
Oh, and Lord help you if you are in a boat near Canadian waters.

At every one of these sort of stops there will be another officer with a K-9 companion, just walking around the vehicle.
I would expect every available drug sniffing dog and handler in the 9 bordering states to be dispatched to the borders.

If someone had not much better to do, was sure that their paperwork was all in order, and just wanted to screw with the leo's; they might get a kick of making repeated border crossings in a brief period of time. Ride over the border, get off at the first exit, have a cup of coffee, ride back to the non-weed state, off at the first exit to use a restroom, and repeat.

I do see the fed getting involved at some point, but I think it will take them some time to first decide what they want to do, then take some more time to implement their plan. They may well go all gang-busters for the first year, then hopefully reevaluate their reaction. That is for the small time users at least.

I assume they will get very vigilant on growers and movers of large amounts. Maybe some of our California people can comment on this as they should have more experance.

{http://safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=2638} Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the United States Supreme Court held that the federal government has the constitutional authority to prohibit marijuana for all purposes. The Court indicated that Congress and the Food and Drug Administration should work to resolve this issue.