TRUMP - Some people think......... How do you feel?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

There cannot be any type of equivalency between what actually happened and what could have happened - since one happened and one didn't. However, it is valid to point out that all human beings are human beings, capable of doing evil.
The problem, imo, is saying all human beings are capable of evil when the context of the conversation is about supposed racial supremacy.
 
What does that have to do with my comment?


All things and non things ... like science as an observation via the energy of light ... have alts as the thing or essence comes back at Shaw in a gilded syndrome ... some gilds being dark as oligarchs ... or slippery as oils ... unguents?

The Rueben goes on ...

In the west ... without concerns for the alto ... all is a worry ... so cover your hinds ... that are lesser than the Sopranos ... crooks on top?
 
In the context of naming or describing a behaviour - do you believe reverse racism exists in North America? I believe it is not a legitimate concern.

I said I did not think labels were useful. Naming the behaviour is the better way to go. Putting everyone into one category is not useful, and can be harmful.

I still don't see the relevance of the reverse racism question. Are you suggesting that if I question the utility of labels, I am somehow saying reverse racism does not exist?
 
Last edited:
If you look at just about all imperial wars in history, you will find that 'the people' were won over with appeals to racism.
They are built into our news media in which all warlike acts by Muslims (or North Koreans or Afghanis or AFricans) are described as evil. But I have never seen a newspaper report about evil in us.

I may be there are those among us who are not prone to racism. But they are few.
 
I said I did not think labels were useful. Naming the behaviour is the better way to go. Putting everyone into one category is not useful, and can be harmful.

I still don't see the relevance of the reverse racism question. Are you suggesting that if I question the utility of labels, I am somehow saying reverse racism does not exist?
I think in some instances labels help to define a set of behaviours. Racism is a behaviour. Racist is a label for that behaviour.

So, you do believe reverse racism exists. I was taught in SW classes that reverse racism does not exist in a North American/ Western Colonial context because there is no moral equivalency that can be made between oppressed and oppressor. Righteous indignation against the historical oppressor who continues to oppress is distinctly different from racism - is what I learned at school.

That said - I do not support people who express their righteous indignation using violence. To put a label on them draws a distinction between them and those who believe in non-violent resistance. I think people resisting peacefully need to call that out so those people expressing their anger violently don't end up interfering, contributing to interference, with the right to peaceful dissent.
 
Last edited:
(An aside...I am out for coffee and a woman and her two elementary school aged kids walked by. One mentioned something about her teacher or school and the mom started ranting and raving about the school system being brutal, pushing a liberal agenda down their throats. As if they even understand that. That's an anomaly in this part of the country...it's a liberal/ progressive haven for the most part... I'm guessing, at home, she is probably pushing a right wing agenda down their throats.)
 
There is some suggestion, however, that the way that hunter-gatherer societies both functioned and interacted was fundamentally different to some of the principles and interactions of the agrarian nation-state.
Different, but not the blissful utopia at the heart of the "noble savage" myth.

An interesting read is "War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage," by Lawrence Keeley of the University of Illinois. Keeley and others have been denounced by some for having turned the myth of the noble savage into the myth of the savage savage, but I think it's not out of bounds to remember that violence wasn't born with Europeans. There have been more than enough skeletons unearthed in the southwest United States and Central America that show clear signs of violence that we can't hold to the idea that pre-European native civilization was "peaceful."

But, yes, there were differences to our civilization and, of course, differences between tribes. The tribes of the northeast US and eastern Canada tended to be more peaceful and even welcoming to Europeans at first. One theory is that they had a surplus of plenty, so to speak - lots of food, etc., and so fewer needs and less reason to be violent. On the other hand resources were more scarce in the southwest US and south of there, so there was more reason to fight.
 
If you look at just about all imperial wars in history, you will find that 'the people' were won over with appeals to racism.
They are built into our news media in which all warlike acts by Muslims (or North Koreans or Afghanis or AFricans) are described as evil. But I have never seen a newspaper report about evil in us.

I may be there are those among us who are not prone to racism. But they are few.
It's not about race it's about behaviour. Most of us are repulsed by 7th century violence used by extremist oppressors and despots in those countries - in their own countries. Punishing women for being raped, female genital mutilation, cutting off hands for stealing, hanging or crucifixions in public squares - by the way the despots treat their own citizens and the horrible violence committed by extremeists. Domestically, in Canada, we do not live under that level of tyranny. We have our problems but they're not nearly that severe. And in a global world that is intstantaneously connected now - and because Canada is home to people with families still living in those tyrannical places - some of us feel that because of our privelege we have a responsibility to help free people from that. War is not the answer because it perpetuates the cycle of violence - it is evil. But I don't think we should sit back and let our human neighbours suffer that way either - doing nothing isn't an answer - so I don't know what the answer is.
 
Last edited:
Different, but not the blissful utopia at the heart of the "noble savage" myth.

An interesting read is "War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage," by Lawrence Keeley of the University of Illinois. Keeley and others have been denounced by some for having turned the myth of the noble savage into the myth of the savage savage, but I think it's not out of bounds to remember that violence wasn't born with Europeans. There have been more than enough skeletons unearthed in the southwest United States and Central America that show clear signs of violence that we can't hold to the idea that pre-European native civilization was "peaceful."

But, yes, there were differences to our civilization and, of course, differences between tribes. The tribes of the northeast US and eastern Canada tended to be more peaceful and even welcoming to Europeans at first. One theory is that they had a surplus of plenty, so to speak - lots of food, etc., and so fewer needs and less reason to be violent. On the other hand resources were more scarce in the southwest US and south of there, so there was more reason to fight.

Different in underlying stories and values, I'd argue. I might have asked you this before - have you read any Daniel Quinn? His hypothesis is that "locking up the food" is at the heart of the agrarian nation-state value system. What does a guaranteed minimum income do to this underpinning?
 
(An aside...I am out for coffee and a woman and her two elementary school aged kids walked by. One mentioned something about her teacher or school and the mom started ranting and raving about the school system being brutal, pushing a liberal agenda down their throats. As if they even understand that. That's an anomaly in this part of the country...it's a liberal/ progressive haven for the most part... I'm guessing, at home, she is probably pushing a right wing agenda down their throats.)

Actually
You'd be surprised
Of course, you are still new to the concept that Liberal views can be bad...
And that Right Wing is inherently bad...
When you come across someone like the woman, it is an opportunity 4 you to listen.
If one only stays within their own belief, they'll miss out on much true diversity, regardless if they are Black Supremicists or writers for CNN.
LA DI DAH!!!
 
Many Republicans around here initially loved Trump's politically incorrect style, myself included, as an antidote to the standard insincere, packaged political leader who is the pawn of speech writers guided by focus groups. Trump is not a racist, but he is inarticulate, petty, immature, and frankly not very bright when it comes to damage control. Take his recent Charlottesville debacle. He was trying to make an important point, which would never have been made by Obama. Both the Alt-right and the Alt-left feel entitled to violence and property damage to make an impact. But the USA media is so anti-Trump that they prefer to wink at the Alt-left's anarchic violence. That should have been the most important take-away from Charlottesville. Trump needed to begin his initial comments by unequivocally naming and condemning the white supremicists and their anti-Semitic agenda. But instead he offered a vague condemnation of all bigotry and found fault "on all sides." thus demonstrating that he is not ready for prime time. Too bad because I, like most Americans around here, love many aspects of his unique approach, especially to international affairs. If only he would stop tweeting listen to his more sane advisors like Pence and Kelly!
 
Its crazy how fast things r changing
Now we have cultures, belief systems of 1 and such minority actually having an audience before dying a natural death...

We have media reports that use twits and other social media peeps as sourcez

We have news that is abooy "omg so and so said a bad word"

Its crazy!
There are no Safe Spaces here.
The Audience is Everywhere

:love:
 
Hi,

Strange how a crowd gathers to a car wreck. Oh look! How terrible!

The fascination of the mass spectacle. Brought to us live by the corporate propagandists.

The masses are distracted by labels promoting polarization. When what we seek is unification of concrete expression of freedom, in service to the common good for creature and creation. A radical turning aside to embrace an alternative imagination of human meaning and purpose. To live out of that imagination and discover a new social order. Making manifest a metaphorical light, shining at the heart of our deep and deepening darkness.

Resist the dominating power. Be free. Be responsible. Be creative. Be courageous. You in your small corner and I in mine. Each of us stepping out of the dominant discourse to engage an alternative discourse. A discourse rooted in the healing realization of our common human being and a restored relationship with the environment of which we are an integral part. Its health is our health. Its future is our future.

We got here one decision at a time. We will find our way forward along the way of hope one decision at a time.

To be passive is to be complicit.

George


upload_2017-8-18_19-10-59.png
 
Hi,

Strange how a crowd gathers to a car wreck. Oh look! How terrible!

The fascination of the mass spectacle. Brought to us live by the corporate propagandists.

The masses are distracted by labels promoting polarization. When what we seek is unification of concrete expression of freedom, in service to the common good for creature and creation. A radical turning aside to embrace an alternative imagination of human meaning and purpose. To live out of that imagination and discover a new social order. Making manifest a metaphorical light, shining at the heart of our deep and deepening darkness.

Resist the dominating power. Be free. Be responsible. Be creative. Be courageous. You in your small corner and I in mine. Each of us stepping out of the dominant discourse to engage an alternative discourse. A discourse rooted in the healing realization of our common human being and a restored relationship with the environment of which we are an integral part. Its health is our health. Its future is our future.

We got here one decision at a time. We will find our way forward along the way of hope one decision at a time.

To be passive is to be complicit.

George


View attachment 982
Hear hear!
Tune in
Turn on
Drop out
 

Different in underlying stories and values, I'd argue. I might have asked you this before - have you read any Daniel Quinn? His hypothesis is that "locking up the food" is at the heart of the agrarian nation-state value system. What does a guaranteed minimum income do to this underpinning?
I've heard of him, but I haven't read Quinn. I'd be interested in knowing more about his hypothesis, though. I'm assuming that it means not sharing? In any event, I'd need to know more about Quinn's argument to speak about the effect of the introduction of a guaranteed minimum income (which I strongly support, by the way) and its impact would, I suppose, depend on what the guaranteed minimum income was compared to the cost of living. But it would certainly help to alleviate the problem of poverty and of the working poor.
 
Oh, rev, do please read Ishmael (at least) and be a bit prepared to have your cultural mind at least a little blown. Happened to me about a decade ago; haven't fully recovered, lol.

A guaranteed minimum income is the ultimate counteraction to "locking up the food" because then you guarantee a society where people can, without essential stigma, be fed and sheltered.
 
Last edited:
The call to racism almost always works. It's assisted by loaded press reports that attribute all the evil to the 'other side', and never ours. Kim Jong un is usually presented as the evil force in North Korea. In fact, the U.S. has constantly held war exercises on the border with North Korea. They've been doing it for fifty years. That's not training. That's provocation.
The reaction is quite understandable. It's not much of a threat to the U.S. but It's North Korea's only chance to make the U.S. cool it.
Incidentally. North Korea, though a poor country, has done a magnificent job of rebuilding. And, except among its elderly, the literacy rate beats the pants of the U.S. and Canada.
And why has the U.S. been so provocative against North Korea? I fear that's because it wants a war. Look at a map. Look at the North Korea-China border. It's a set-piece for an American invasion of China. It's the old dream of capturing the China market. Remember the salesman's dream of selling oil for the lights of China. The U.S. has wanted to invade China since the late nineteenth century.
 
Actually
You'd be surprised
Of course, you are still new to the concept that Liberal views can be bad...
And that Right Wing is inherently bad...
When you come across someone like the woman, it is an opportunity 4 you to listen.
If one only stays within their own belief, they'll miss out on much true diversity, regardless if they are Black Supremicists or writers for CNN.
LA DI DAH!!!
What I thought was bad was her shouting about that in front of her children. Go clarify the problem with the school/ teacher. Take it up in private. Don't set the kids up to disrespect their teachers and school so they don't learn things they actually need to learn.

I didn't hear what the kid said except "...school...teacher" I don't know what was supposedly being pushed down their throats. And the only reason I heard anything is the woman was angry and raising her voice with the kids. So that's as much as I had the chance to "listen" to.
 
Back
Top