South Carolina Flag Debate

[Horatio Parker]

We're very aware of class in the US.

Well... not aware enough to do much about it. It seems to be a pretty dead issue politically. Nothing ever happens. That´s how it looks from over this side of the Atlantic anyway.

You're right, it is. There's an undercurrent, but it's pretty much isolated.

 

[laughing dog]

As I have reminded posters - racism is not synonymous with slavery. One can be a racist (as the majority were in the North) but still oppose chattel slavery and its denial of liberty.

But how does one support slavery of a particular race without being a racist? (Hint: that is the relevant question, not the reverse that you pose).

 

[Smoker]

I wonder what would happen if someone replaced all the targets at a gun range down there with confederate flags....

That probably wouldn't work. We usually just shoot at pictures of Osama Bin Laden or something that might explode.

 

[RavenSky]

Oh, and FReeper TangibleDisgust is disgusted that the GOP will never elect another quality candidate and will instead vote for a woman, jew, atheist, homosexual, latino or albino.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3303410/posts?page=32#32

i can tell you this much... the GOP is deathly afraid of nominating another white christian man. the next couple of election cycles, they will be vying with the democRATS to be the first to nominate a women, a jew, an atheist, a homsexual, a latino, an albino, etc.

it’s no longer about the quality of the individual first, but which “first” they can become. the GOP has bought into the “equality of outcome” balderdash hook, line, and sinker.

the GOP is truly “democRAT Lite” now. i’m still registered as a republican, but i loathe the elites that run the party. maybe even more so than those in the democRAT party because the traitors in your ranks your ranks always do worse damage than the enemy across the field of battle.

i will never vote for another Bush. fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me. fool me three times... nope, notgonnadooit.

This person seriously capitalizes "RATS" in the word "Democrats" every single time he types it? What a fucking ding-a-ling.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Da fuck? At least half of those posts have to be parodies.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

As I have reminded posters - racism is not synonymous with slavery.

No, but slavery in the South was inextricably based on white supremacism (a codified form of racism), to the point that it was impossible to support slavery without also supporting white supremacy.

But I'll be a good sport this time:
"Look, there is the flag of those Slavers - go get em boys"

 

[Crazy Eddie]

We're very aware of class in the US.

Well... not aware enough to do much about it. It seems to be a pretty dead issue politically. Nothing ever happens. That´s how it looks from over this side of the Atlantic anyway.

That's because the people who run the government and the media all belong to the same class. The system works just fine for them, so why would they want to change anything about it?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Well... not aware enough to do much about it. It seems to be a pretty dead issue politically. Nothing ever happens. That´s how it looks from over this side of the Atlantic anyway.

That's because the people who run the government and the media all belong to the same class. The system works just fine for them, so why would they want to change anything about it?

I´m going to say I agree, because I don´t know USA well enough. But that´s the kind of thing I´m talking about. In Sweden, in the public discourse, class issues and structuralism and all of that is hammered home just as much as the importance of democracy and free speech. They may not agree with it, but everybody in Sweden are taught that if you are financially dependent on someone or something, that is going to mess with your mind. Similar things are re-enforced in the public discourse on every level of society. That whole type of discussions and values seem missing from the American debate.

But I think saying "run the media" is a bit silly in the post-Internet age. Media companies no longer can control content the way they used to. Media outlets have attention because they say and write what people want to hear and read. People get the news they deserve today. Facebook isn´t awash with pictures of cute cats due to some media conspiracy to control our minds and put us to sleep. We´re doing it all on our own.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That's because the people who run the government and the media all belong to the same class. The system works just fine for them, so why would they want to change anything about it?

I´m going to say I agree, because I don´t know USA well enough. But that´s the kind of thing I´m talking about. In Sweden, in the public discourse, class issues and structuralism and all of that is hammered home just as much as the importance of democracy and free speech. They may not agree with it, but everybody in Sweden are taught that if you are financially dependent on someone or something, that is going to mess with your mind. Similar things are re-enforced in the public discourse on every level of society. That whole type of discussions and values seem missing from the American debate.

Again, that's because the political and economic system are both run as colossal pyramid schemes that maximally benefit the people sitting at the top of it. The top ranks of the existing power structure do not actually believe in responsible statesmanship and are, in fact, a loose affiliation of sociopaths who rose to positions of power mainly by exploiting political and financial loopholes and playing unrelated special interests against each other. Once in power, they invariably close the political/economic loopholes that originally allowed them to seize power in the first place while creating totally new ones that allow them to remain in power.

The result is a country that has not only legalized bribery in all but name, but has now made bribery MANDATORY as part of the electoral process. in Chicago, for example, there is an "endowment" required to run for City Council in the neighborhood of about $50,000." There are scandals, year after year, decade after decade, where those "endowments" get shuffled into the city's financial system and them vanish without a trace. It's not hard to figure out what happened to the money, in fact several state senators have been caught effectively laundering that money through the campaign finance system for their own personal gain. But nobody ever seems to get prosecuted for this... unless they really piss someone off.

So again, it's not that WE are apathetic to issues of class and structure. It's that WE don't really have a voice, and the only people who do are assholes.

But I think saying "run the media" is a bit silly in the post-Internet age.

Which is why discourse on class and structure is relatively easy to find among bloggers and independent sources like Democracy Now and Daily Kos. None of which will ever be confused with "mainstream political debate" in America because the "mainstream" in this country has a LOT of money flowing through it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But I think saying "run the media" is a bit silly in the post-Internet age.

Which is why discourse on class and structure is relatively easy to find among bloggers and independent sources like Democracy Now and Daily Kos. None of which will ever be confused with "mainstream political debate" in America because the "mainstream" in this country has a LOT of money flowing through it.

You can buy attention. But you can´t buy persuasive power. The amount of money flowing through big media is not the whole explanation. It can´t be.

 

[Nexus]

Here's an example of political correctness run amuck. Apple is removing video games about the civil war since the rebels use the confederate flag.

link

 

[laughing dog]

Here's an example of political correctness run amuck. Apple is removing video games about the civil war since the rebels use the confederate flag.

link

That is an extreme over-reaction and really dumb.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Which is why discourse on class and structure is relatively easy to find among bloggers and independent sources like Democracy Now and Daily Kos. None of which will ever be confused with "mainstream political debate" in America because the "mainstream" in this country has a LOT of money flowing through it.

You can buy attention. But you can´t buy persuasive power. The amount of money flowing through big media is not the whole explanation. It can´t be.

Trouble is, you can also buy the APPEARANCE of persuasive power. Just plant story after story in news reports about, say, Americans still being skeptical of climate change or about how most Americans believe we live in a trans-racial society. People have an unfortunate tendency to question their own convictions when they are lead to believe their convictions are unpopular.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's an example of political correctness run amuck. Apple is removing video games about the civil war since the rebels use the confederate flag.

link

Yeah, that's nuts. Just because a symbol would be offensive to use now doesn't make it improper to use in an appropriate historical context.

 

[bilby]

Here's an example of political correctness run amuck. Apple is removing video games about the civil war since the rebels use the confederate flag.

link

Yeah, that's nuts. Just because a symbol would be offensive to use now doesn't make it improper to use in an appropriate historical context.

I am looking forward to the re-release of Schindler's List, in which the Jews are, for no apparent reason, rounded up and sent to camps by troops who wear neither swastikas nor SS badges.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You can buy attention. But you can´t buy persuasive power. The amount of money flowing through big media is not the whole explanation. It can´t be.

Trouble is, you can also buy the APPEARANCE of persuasive power. Just plant story after story in news reports about, say, Americans still being skeptical of climate change or about how most Americans believe we live in a trans-racial society. People have an unfortunate tendency to question their own convictions when they are lead to believe their convictions are unpopular.

I have no idea what you mean by that? Americans don´t just look like they reject climate change. About 50% of them actually do. They actually find the arguments against climate change persuasive.

 

[bilby]

Trouble is, you can also buy the APPEARANCE of persuasive power. Just plant story after story in news reports about, say, Americans still being skeptical of climate change or about how most Americans believe we live in a trans-racial society. People have an unfortunate tendency to question their own convictions when they are lead to believe their convictions are unpopular.

I have no idea what you mean by that? Americans don´t just look like they reject climate change. About 50% of them actually do. They actually find the arguments against climate change persuasive.

"It's just a scam to keep you from your rightful place as one of the wealthy elite" is a very persuasive argument. Baseless, but very persuasive nonetheless.

After all, as every American knows, all it takes to succeed is hard work; so if, after working hard, you are still poor, clearly someone is ripping you off.

 

[Deepak]

Trouble is, you can also buy the APPEARANCE of persuasive power. Just plant story after story in news reports about, say, Americans still being skeptical of climate change or about how most Americans believe we live in a trans-racial society. People have an unfortunate tendency to question their own convictions when they are lead to believe their convictions are unpopular.

I have no idea what you mean by that? Americans don´t just look like they reject climate change. About 50% of them actually do. They actually find the arguments against climate change persuasive.

I would actually argue that this isn't actually true. Most people, on both sides, are not actually aware of the specific arguments supporting their side. They merely latch onto whatever case has been presented to match their existing beliefs and appeals to them emotionally.

The 24 hour news channels are full of 10 minute 'debates' on a variety of topics which amount to very superficial mentions of two apparently contradictory positions then a jump to the next superficially covered topic.

To this day I hear people mention the Climategate 'scandal' when there was no scandal and the source documents are all on Wikileaks.

This could be considered people finding an argument persuasive in the same way that a San Fransiscan likes the 49ers because they find arguments that they're the best NFL team persuasive.

When it's down to brass tacks - only a small minority of that 50% would be able to make a cogent, if arguable, case for their position.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I have no idea what you mean by that? Americans don´t just look like they reject climate change. About 50% of them actually do. They actually find the arguments against climate change persuasive.

I would actually argue that this isn't actually true. Most people, on both sides, are not actually aware of the specific arguments supporting their side. They merely latch onto whatever case has been presented to match their existing beliefs and appeals to them emotionally.

Just because you don´t aprove of those people´s method of being persuaded, doesn´t mean it isn´t pursuation. You don´t get to decide how other people inform themselves. It´s not illegal to be an idiot. If they cared more they would inform themselves. But they don´t care more, because they are pursuaded.

The 24 hour news channels are full of 10 minute 'debates' on a variety of topics which amount to very superficial mentions of two apparently contradictory positions then a jump to the next superficially covered topic.

Again, nothing nefarious. Just idiocy of the public. The issue here is whether we´re being brain-washed by some elite pulling the strings, or if people are dum

To this day I hear people mention the Climategate 'scandal' when there was no scandal and the source documents are all on Wikileaks.

Because they believed it. People they look up to as authorities on this issue has said so, and that convinces them they are true. It´s still not just the appearance of persuation. It really is persuation.

This could be considered people finding an argument persuasive in the same way that a San Fransiscan likes the 49ers because they find arguments that they're the best NFL team persuasive.

When it's down to brass tacks - only a small minority of that 50% would be able to make a cogent, if arguable, case for their position.

So? I hold lots of opinions based on insufficient information, simply because the right person said it. I am a science nerd and have read plenty of science. I even read the IPCC report. I have read plenty of science related to climate warming. I believe global warming actually happens. I´m a believer. I still don´t understand how they work it out, or how it´s all connected. All I really know is that the maths is hard and smart people says so. I personally couldn´t give a coherrent argument for anthropic global warming. I don´t know anybody who could. I have a few friends active in Greenpeace. All I´ve ever heard them say on global warming is really dumb shit. It´s not like there´s a smart side and a dumb side here. Idiocy is the norm all over. Being pursuaded for or against global warming, IMHO, will probably, mostly, be due to emotional argumentation. My impression.

 

[Deepak]

When did I say it isn't persuasion? The post was touching on whether they find the arguments persuasive versus other forms of persuasion.

To wit: Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired...