Total posts: 1,971
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Well, it’s about time for me to hop off our (not so) merry-go-round discussion. We, or at least I can agree to disagree. Clearly, you have your reasons for your views, and I have my reasons for my views.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Actually, logic escapes it. First of all, the US is not the only country in the world. Whether Donald Trump is president is not the one and only thing every world leader thinks about before they decide what is best for their country and whether they should go for it. This is exactly the kind of arrogance that makes so many people around the world hate us, because so many Americans like yourself literally believe the world revolves around us.
So, now you’re (unintentionally) making a case for the US leaving NATO not being a big deal? Try and stick to a consistent frame of reference and line of reasoning…
Third, Trump’s own hand picked National security advisor (the Prez picks the team and is therefore responsible right?) has already shared his view that Putin didn’t do this before because he was counting on Trump to pull the US out of NATO in a second term. This answer makes so much more sense than the silly idea that Putin didn’t do it then because he was so afraid of Trump. As if a world leader’s calculation for war is based on how tough the other guy talks, or whether he uses all caps on Twitter.
You (conveniently) omit that Trump was also responsible for firing Bolton after just 1.5 years.
My problems with Bolton’s thesis:
1. (First and foremost) Putin has invaded Ukraine with the US in NATO… it’s just a blunt fact now…
2. Bolton gave a totally different reason in another interview— he is grasping, it seems to me
3. Bolton has sour grapes from being openly fired, so him complaining about Trump is hardly compelling or profound
4. I already caught Bolton in a fib in an interview, so his credibility is in question (related to problem #3)
5. Bolton also complains about Biden’s decisions, so if he is to be listened to on Trump, he should also be listened to on Biden, the president you have opined as superior (the purportedly objective MSM also neglects to do this… not that I wonder why)
Yeah, that’s why I watch episodes of Tucker Carlson and Hannity. Spare me your tunnel vision blindness speech.
Your fallacious and feverish retort is noted.
I already acknowledged that Trump did some good things and gave my prescription for how one goes about evaluating a president. Feel free to engage in the conversation instead of pretending my views are the result of some kind of delusion for some kind of reason which I never made any sense out of.
You don’t think our pages long back and forth constitutes engagement? Or *you’re* attempting to engage while *I’m* refusing? THAT must be it! Well, it’s your world, and I just live in it, I guess.
*yawn* Man! I’m getting sleepy all of a sudden…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
And what made this even clearer is the way you continue to duck and dodge when I ask you tell me what you think of Trump cow towing to Putin on the world stage and how you factor that into this discussion.
I didn’t care for it. It helps when you pose the question honestly, by the way. But obviously there is no pleasing you with any answer of mine, as I stated earlier. Thing is, and there’s no escaping this: it *evidently* never prompted Putin to invade another country.
When it comes to his actions you expect me to sort through 52 different links to read up on all of Trump’s policy actions
No, I didn’t expect you to do that. I expected you— or, more realistically, anyone caring to read this forum— to see the conceivable possibility of tunnel vision (ie selection of detail to support a biased outlook) in the MSM reporting on Trump’s administration, regarding Russia in this case.
What I expected you to do was to find a way to dismiss most or all of it, and you didn’t disappoint!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Trump claims he appointed Bolton to be a contrarian voice— perhaps too contrarian, as we know how that relationship ended. There seem to be, to me at least, several flaws in taking Bolton’s word for it on this… the most glaring one being that Putin still invaded Ukraine with the US in NATO!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Me acknowledging and pointing out to you that actions speak louder than words is hardly equivalent to “rhetoric doesn’t count.” I could explain this to you in detail and with real world examples, but (1) I have wasted enough time typing long responses to your strident posts and (2) you really shouldn’t need it explained if you are as logical as you make yourself out to be.
And, for the record, I initially accused you of TDS after I asked “Which politician do you believe has been tough with Russia?” and you responded dodgily, “Pretty much every one except Trump.” That’s pretty “textbook” stuff…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
There is a reason I don’t respond to links, it’s often a monumental waste of time as it was here. But I’ll go ahead and indulge you on this one.
Gee, thanks! I owe you one…
In the future if you have an argument, make it yourself.
Because politics and foreign policy can be fully presented, substantiated, analyzed and deconstructed solely via formal logic and self-evident truths by the layperson?
This is your style in a nutshell:
Either this:
Me: [states an opinion]
You: “I call BS! Provide links or else you’re just making sh!t up.
Or this:
Me: [provides links]
You: “I don’t entertain links as they’re a waste of my time. Make your own argument!
In the future, you will continue to see posters avoid engaging you in earnest— presumably because they lack the fortitude, the intellectual foundation or integrity to do so. They don’t have the guts!! THAT must be it…
Your link lists 52 different policy actions to support the notion that Trump was “tough on Russia”. Out of those 52 actions, about half (24) were either a WH Statement, press release, announcement, declaration, or alert. Since rhetoric doesn’t count, neither do any of those.
Words don’t count? When did I ever say that? I suppose it’s no coincidence you assume that as true when it works for you, whereas you have posited the opposite until now.
Out of the remaining actions, there was still a mix. Other actions listed here included multiple indictments issued by the Department of Justice, which the US President is not even supposed to have any involvement in, but most remarkable was that it included sanctions resulting from the Mueller probe which Trump adamantly opposed, rallied against for years, and even tried to stop himself. Yes, your link is giving Trump credit for this.
The AG is appointed by the president— that’s part of my earlier point re: it’s a team effort, not always a one man show. The prez picks the team.
And then there’s the list of snoozers, including a ban on Kaspersky anti virus software on federal computers, sanctioning a Russian bank because it evaded a US sanction on Venezuela, or an executive order directing federal gov agencies to investigate the 2018 mid term elections for Russian interference. (I mean seriously, they needed to be told this?)This isn’t to say Trump did nothing good. The toughest action listed here was the strike in Syria, but that hardly qualifies as Trump being tough on Russia. The only reason it made the list is because Russian mercenaries were among the casualties, which hardly qualifies.The best example on this list of Trump expelling 60 Russian diplomats after the poisoning in Europe. I give him credit for stepping up on that one. But at the same time, this is hardly remarkable given that the US was just one of 18 countries who did the same thing, which brings me to my point… your entire argument that Trump was tough on Russia is that at times, Trump did his job.If I order a steak medium and the waiter brings me a steak cooked medium, that doesn’t mean the waiter deserves a raise. It doesn’t mean the waiter is the star of my restaurant. And it for damn sure doesn’t excuse all of the times the waiter fucked up someone else’s order.
Man, you have a genuine talent for discounting contrary facts. It’s truly something to behold. So, a president should not be credited for *acting* on results from a report unless the investigation behind it had his full blessing. And if a president is “merely” doing his job, he really shouldn’t be credited for doing it well… because it’s much like a server getting your food order right… right?
I get the idea that you believe these things have nothing to do with foreign relations with Russia, that these things play out in a vacuum:
- energy policy
- policy in Syria and Afghanistan
- admonishing NATO countries to pay their share of defense costs
- the Iran nuclear deal
- bombing Soleimani
- tariffs on China
I could go on here, but let me just go back to where this conversation began… I did not jump into this thread to claim that Trump was so much worse than any other president with regards to Russia, even though that is still my view. I jumped into this thread in response to those claiming that the absence of Trump’s strength against Putin is why Putin decided to invade Ukraine. That’s an absurd claim, and if you want to substantiate it you need to do more than hand waive away everything Trump has done in front of our eyes and instead post a link to “actions” Trump took against Russia.
Ah, ok. So now, you demand a link— after I supplied 2, and you claimed you don’t entertain links except when “indulging” me. Please…
And BTW, since you are still insistent on this stupid TDS narrative, how about giving me a real direct answer to the Biden hypothetical that you ignored in my last post? Something more than “if Biden did something good, I’d say good job”…
I don’t know where you get the idea that I automatically approve of everything Trump said or did. GP tried explaining this, too. I don’t check what letter is next to a politician’s name before I determine what they did is good or bad. Seems you do, though.
Anyway, you already answered your own question for me to your own satisfaction, remember? It seems clear to me, at least, that my answer *couldn’t possibly* satisfy you as much as your assumed answer. You have shown yourself to be completely unreceptive. So… where’s the pleasure or point in me answering a question asked in hostility??
Created:
Posted in:
Excerpted:
“The following is the text of the U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership signed by U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba in Washington, D.C. on November 10, 2021.
…
Section II: Security and Countering Russian Aggression
The United States and Ukraine share a vital national interest in a strong, independent, and democratic Ukraine. Bolstering Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against threats to its territorial integrity and deepening Ukraine’s integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions are concurrent priorities.
The United States recognizes Ukraine’s unique contribution to nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament and reaffirms its commitments under the “Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons” (the Budapest Memorandum) of December 5, 1994.
Guided by the April 3, 2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration of the NATO North Atlantic Council and as reaffirmed in the June 14, 2021 Brussels Summit Communique of the NATO North Atlantic Council, the United States supports Ukraine’s right to decide its own future foreign policy course free from outside interference, including with respect to Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO.”
Putin has been pretty clear that he isn’t a fan of Russia bordering a member nation of NATO.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I gave you multiple examples of Trump’s interactions and handling of Russia and/or Putin. Your one example of Trump being tough on Russia was him complaining about an oil deal Germany did with them. Please tell me with a straight face that this example is comparable to the examples I listed.
Oh, brother. And again I must point you back to the beginning of our discussion to the nonpartisan article I linked in post 343 which provides a great deal of context in contrast to your TDS inspired bloviating. Do you need me to paste the whole timeline here, or should I expect you to (falsely) accuse me of “Gish galloping”?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You keep telling me what I have to say is nothing new, well here’s a crazy thought… respond to it. Please explain the logic of “Trump might have been against it but I still give him credit because it happened while he was in office”. I’d really love to hear it.
There’s another thing you do: act as though I haven’t responded when I have.
You said yourself that a president isn’t a dictator. Correct. What happens under a president’s admin is a team effort, and involves the checks and balances of the entire governmental apparatus. This is probably why the electorate seems to prefer that the executive and legislative belong to opposing parties. A president chooses his cabinet members, his advisors, chief of staff, etc. I assume you’re familiar with “the buck stops here.” A president is ultimately responsible for what occurs on his watch. Given bad advice? Well, he chose the advisor and chose to follow the bad advice. Didn’t follow good advice? Self explanatory. Congressional blockade? The president needed to be more persuasive. Opposition party party holds congress? Perhaps the midterms went poorly because the electorate didn’t like where the president was taking things.
Reluctantly agreed to good advice? You seem to have a problem with that when it involves Trump. And it’s no wonder…
So you’re all about results not rhetoric, but your example is Trump whining and complaining about an oil deal Germany made with Russia? Is this supposed to be what refutes everything I’ve said here?
Man, the way you frame and dismiss important points. I get it— loud and clear— if Trump did something right, it was minor; if it was wrong, it was major. I can simply assume this as axiomatic with Trump detractors.
The question is, what would you have thought if it were Biden doing these things instead of Trump?
Again, this is you acting as if I haven’t responded already. This compels me to quote myself:
“If Biden were to achieve good results, I’d nod in approval because I am open-minded like that. But I would also be very surprised— just as I was when Trump did better than I ever expected.”
We both know you would have lost your mind and grabbed your torch and pitchfork along with the rest of the GOP demanding Biden be impeached for being a traitor to the US.
Ah, yes. Very productive discussion you’re having there… with yourself. What you envision actually happened with the Afghanistan withdrawal, except that actually WAS Biden. If only it were a hypothetical…
But you know… TDS.
Indeed. Your posts exemplify it— especially the snarky tone.
I was just curious to ask you about this… why does the fact that the MSM reported on these things matter to the point that you act as if they have some kind of monopoly of ownership on this? Why when for example, a US President stands in front of the world and takes his adversary’s word over the unanimous conclusions of his own intelligence agencies, does my pointing out that this was bad somehow make me a purveyor of “MSM talking points”? I’d really love an answer to this.
Because you don’t deviate one iota from the MSM narrative regarding Trump, and you act as if that narrative irrefutably overrides the validity of any support or agreement with Trump’s presidency. All bad; no good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Do you understand how this works?
I understand that you like to give the appearance of addressing and debunking what I posit without really doing so. You stick to a few of the MSM favorite complaints and act as though you have effectively negated the nonpartisan article I posited in post #343 whereas you have merely dismissed it instead. Nothing new there…
I understand that you believe Trump’s words speak louder than his administration’s actions and policies. We disagree on that prioritization.
I understand that you believe Trump’s words speak louder than his administration’s actions and policies. We disagree on that prioritization.
This is where logic and basic critical thinking comes in. If someone tells you you’re wonderful to your face, and says you’re an asshole behind your back, which one do you believe?
Again, I judge leaders more by actions and results rather than their poorly chosen words. If Trump uses buddy buddy rhetoric with Putin while exhorting a major NATO member not to be so resource dependent on Russia, guess which takes precedence for me?
And if it were Biden doing all of these things you would not be calling it “unorthodox”.
If Biden were to do what Trump did, I would shake my head at the hypocrisy of doing the very things one formerly criticized adamantly. If he copied ideas of Trump’s without giving due credit, I’d shake my head at that, too. If Biden were to achieve good results, I’d nod in approval because I am open-minded like that. But I would also be very surprised— just as I was when Trump did better than I ever expected.
If, heaven forbid, a Russian missile were headed toward your residence, your final words would be “Well, Trump couldn’t have prevented this, either!”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If you really need the name of a politician in order to have a conversation about this then insert Biden.
There ya go! Now you have a stake in a discussion about presidential leadership and doctrine rather than merely sniping from the sidelines. This is progress from your “I don’t give a rat’s ass about Biden!” claim.
Listing things that happened during the Trump administration is not the same thing as listing things that happened because of Trump. In almost every case, the actions taken by the administration were taken over Trump’s (often public) disapproval.
In other words, ignore what his administration actually DID; listen to the things this buffoon SAID! And when he said the proper things, those instances were allegedly few and should be discounted entirely, just as the MSM did. Also, when Trump’s Secretary of State says or does the proper thing, those instances somehow don’t count, either.
This is you simply batting away facts that don’t fit the narrative.
The sanctions were passed with a veto proof majority and were not even imposed until he was pressured after it was revealed that he hadn’t yet moved on them. The military aid to Ukraine was passed by congress and withheld by Trump until he could get dirt on Biden, which he had to abandon after it was about to go public. Time after time Trump was the obstacle to the US being tough on Russia, not the reason.
So, you fault Trump for being “pressured” into making a good decision? It’s a pity that our current president wasn’t so pressured on some of his decisions…
As for obstacles to NATO, Germany has been largely guilty of that one, which is why Trump was exhorting them to up their game. For this, Trump was lambasted for “criticizing a major US ally!” *gasp*
And then there are all of the other examples of Trump inexplicably taking Putin’s side on issues no US President would have ever taken; allowing Russia back into the G8, working with Russia to “investigate” interference in the 2016 election, pulling the US out of NATO, blaming the former US President for Russia’s decision to invade and annex Crimea, etc.
Yes, he certainly has an unorthodox style, no doubt. I might call his foreign policy “The Capone Doctrine.” That is: “I keep my friends close… but I keep my enemies even closer!”
Created:
Posted in:
5) Be caught bluffing about an ultimatum
6) Give the green light to a NATO country’s dependence on Russian oil
7) Enact energy policy that raises oil prices leading to more dependence on foreign resources
8) Preside over a military blunder
9) Exhibit low regard for national sovereignty and border security
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No, it is not a red herring, as the topic is “Russia and Ukraine,” not, as you seem to believe, “Russia and Trump.”
I was actually looking for context on what you consider good US foreign policy regarding Russia so as to have some point of reference. If you had offered the name of a politician you don’t otherwise support, at least that would mean you have the honesty to admit what he was good at. If you offered the name of a politician few others would support, again, at least that would mean you have the gumption to put it out there for examination. Or someone whom historians laud for his foreign policy. You posited none of these. If you cannot offer up a particular foreign policy doctrine on Russia which was arguably superior to Trump’s, then that is telling.
Put some skin in the game instead of merely indulging your TDS.
I was actually looking for context on what you consider good US foreign policy regarding Russia so as to have some point of reference. If you had offered the name of a politician you don’t otherwise support, at least that would mean you have the honesty to admit what he was good at. If you offered the name of a politician few others would support, again, at least that would mean you have the gumption to put it out there for examination. Or someone whom historians laud for his foreign policy. You posited none of these. If you cannot offer up a particular foreign policy doctrine on Russia which was arguably superior to Trump’s, then that is telling.
Put some skin in the game instead of merely indulging your TDS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
There’s a saying: “Trump supporters take Trump seriously but not literally. Trump detractors take Trump literally but not seriously.”
Which US politician do you uphold as having been tough on Russia, then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
John Bolton claims the evidence points to Russia not thinking their military was ready to invade yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Oh, I thought the entire Bolton (blech!) interview would be featured. Alas, it’s just another “Here’s someone prominent saying things we like” sort of article…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Well, I never was a big admirer of Mr. Bolton… or his music!
Seriously though, I’ll entertain that interview if you’d supply the link. Here’s this:
“Nord Stream 2: Trump approves sanctions on Russia gas pipeline”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
“The Trump administration’s policy actions often seemed at odds with the President’s rhetoric. To set the record on policy actions, rather than rhetoric, Alina Polyakova and Filippos Letsas tracked the administration’s concrete actions on Russia from 2017 to 2019.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So where's all that oil you need going to come from?
It would come from not canceling the Keystone pipeline and lifting prohibitions on oil exploration. The US used to be a net oil exporter.
And how would not buying oil have stopped the Russians in their tracks?
Russia makes a lot of money from selling oil. Some of the countries buying their oil are part of NATO. That’s a problem.
Russians have got all the armour and fuel that they need to keep their tracks going.
Thanks to foreign dependence on their exports.
It's the U.S. that needs the oil....Because as you say, you are not energy independent.
It’s not only the US. It’s many countries— even the UK!
And Green energy is just not a relevant issue.
This is just head in the sand ignorance. The pursuit of green energy, while well intended, has resulted in nations deemphasizing other sources of energy. The focus on renewables has ironically led to more dependence on foreign fossil fuels, such as Russia. It’s a variation on “not in my back yard” thinking…
Created:
Posted in:
Hopefully this at the very least serves as an object lesson that there’s much more to presiding over a world superpower than promising to address climate change and social justice. That is, if the Afghanistan withdrawal did not already teach this…
Created:
Posted in:
UPDATE:
It appears that this docuseries is about as well-received as a fart in an elevator, and rightly so.
This means there is some hope for our society!
Created:
Posted in:
It’s hardly nonsense. You are *equating* awful actions with a certain identity group— as is this docuseries. And there’s a word for that.
There exist pockets of hardcore white supremacists who, I’ve been led to believe but could be wrong, would love nothing more than a full on race war in this country. My question is: if anti-racists also wanted a race war, what would they be doing differently, if anything? Not a rhetorical question— I’d actually like to hear possible answers!
Thankfully, there is a middle path to be explored— one with much less virtue signaling, anti-white attitudes, militancy, and more in a spirit of unity. I suggest listening to what Professor John McWhorter has to say for starters…
So, is there ANY part of this trailer that rubs you the wrong way?
Thankfully, there is a middle path to be explored— one with much less virtue signaling, anti-white attitudes, militancy, and more in a spirit of unity. I suggest listening to what Professor John McWhorter has to say for starters…
So, is there ANY part of this trailer that rubs you the wrong way?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
In response to this:
Casting (black) people in a negative light for awful actions isn't discriminating a group on the basis of identity or immutable characteristics.
“You stand by the above characterization, then?”
You responded:
Yep, because the problem would be actions not skin color.
The problem is that you are essentially ascribing “awful actions” specifically and uniquely to a particular identity group. Black people, in the above case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Casting (black) people in a negative light for awful actions isn't discriminating a group on the basis of identity or immutable characteristics.
You stand by the above characterization then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Casting (white) people in a negative light for awful actions isn't discriminating a group on the basis of identity or immutable characteristics.
Ah, yes it is. See: “guilt by association”… or guilt by group identity, in other words
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
It appears to interview people with similar views, which bolsters the misconception that POC are monolithic…
Created:
Posted in:
New, on SHOWTIME, the docuseries “everything’s gonna be all white”:
A deep dive into America’s tainted past through the voices and experiences of people of color.
What do you guys make of this? Productive and insightful, or unproductive and heavy-handed, or somewhere in between? Whatever the case may be, rest assured, this view is NOT being taught to children in school! [sarcasm]
I see it as unproductive because it appears to undermine its own point— that it’s wrong to discriminate against a group on basis of identity and immutable characteristics, all while casting white people in a negative light. It also appears to posit the notion that identity groups are monolithic in ideology, worldview, culture, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
It appears that there was never much data backing up the efficacy and necessity of lockdowns and masking young children. Cases in point— such hasty and unscientific measures— in the name of “following the science”— reduce people’s trust in science and cause societal damage that will manifest for some time to come…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Wow… eventually a movie will be made paying tribute to those who took it upon themselves to get Americans out— sort of like “Argo” I’m thinking…
Created:
Posted in:
I actually thought W was the worst president in my memory. That is until our botched withdrawal from Afghanistan put Biden in the number one spot, with no signs of that status improving in the next 3 years…
Created:
Posted in:
“We learned our lesson from Vietnam… don’t go into Vietnam!”
-Dana Carvey as George HW Bush prior to Gulf War I
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I can just quote you… back to yourself on that matter:
Our back and forth dialogue is all documented through this site,
I might go have a lie down now… getting a bit sleepy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Indeed. Yet, for whatever reason, it didn’t stop you from trying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
It’s easy to discern when you are lying in regards to me and what I’ve said in order to save face in an argument. Much harder to discern when you are lying about things only you would know. Besides, I wouldn’t be asking you the question if I were automatically going to disbelieve your answer!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No, I’ve been talking about what she did say all along. Your outright lying smacks of desperation, and it’s no wonder. About time to put a fork in this, methinks…
whether or not someone is white isn’t a matter of opinion it’s a matter of fact
Just out of curiosity, do you describe yourself as a “race realist”?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Ms. Goldberg failed to say “it’s about ethnic hatred” didn’t she? Why do you think that is? That is a monumental omission on her part, hence why her adamant claim of what it ISN’T is problematic.
What do you not understand about this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
perhaps she should’ve offered a more specific term rather than the vague one she used since getting the narrative right is the goal, maybe she would’ve gotten less heat if she called it for EXACTLY what it is, antisemitism.
Antisemitism is a subset of racism:
It’s a head scratcher why you and Ms. Goldberg are so invested in denying this…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
A poster other than yourself asked a question, and I began my answer with:
“I probably cannot speak for why others see Goldberg’s words as problematic, but I can say why I do:”
In other words, I’m not pontificating here. I’m not telling others what to think, as Goldberg is. Again, my post was not directed towards you. So you are out of line accusing me of pontificating and speaking out of turn.
Back to Whoopi:
Saying it’s about “man’s inhumanity to man” isn’t at all informative. Genocide, rape, murder, torture, etc all fall under that large umbrella. In other words… DUH! At the same time, she attempts to subtract insight from the discussion, saying what it ISN’T about.
To what point? To what benefit?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I agree that Goldberg doesn’t have a substantive point. She’s actually not adding any meaningful info to the discussion (“man’s inhumanity” well, duh!) while also subtracting info (what it ISN’T about).
However, the insightful, informative paragraph you quote first isn’t Tarik but FLRW.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If “strident” troubles you too much, substitute “overconfident.” Point being, she doesn’t have the knowledge of the subject to pontificate as confidently as she did.
In this case, “race” is just a catch-all for ethnicity and group identity. The point is the same— Jews were hated, scapegoated, and genocided based upon group identity.
If you feel the need to convince me otherwise, feel free to make Ms. Goldberg’s case to me for her.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If you have seen the clip, why do you need me to recite what she said “EXACTLY”?
The Jews in Germany were indeed separated… from non Jewish whites. It was hatred based upon identity. Regarding that, there is no misconception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I probably cannot speak for why others see Goldberg’s words as problematic, but I can say why I do:
1. Goldberg was very authoritative and strident in her words— on a subject she is in no position to be authoritative about, even by your own admission
2. Goldberg brings up racism fairly frequently. So, when she carves out an exception to racism here, it strikes me as disingenuous and self-serving— as if Jews don’t deserve the same identity based victimization sympathy as people of color such as herself do
3. I’m pretty certain Goldberg is pro: more stringent penalties for “hate crimes.” Here, it seems like she is saying that the Nazis were certainly guilty of crimes, just that it didn’t rise to the level of hate crimes— hatred based upon immutable or identity based characteristics.
Created:
I’m far more scandalized by the poor quality of CNN’s purported “objective journalism” and punditry than I am by Zucker’s consensual, workplace romance…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It's just another caricature of the left.
Agreed. AOC is basically a living caricature of the left.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Regarding edible substances in this case, yes— high fructose corn syrup.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I said they (generally speaking) are *made from* natural ingredients— wheat, milk, etc.
I specify human intervention because I have found that is the intent of the meaning behind the adjective “natural”— that is its descriptive property. If, as you seem to say, everything in the universe is natural, then the word “natural” never really had any need or purpose for entering language in the first place. You render it meaningless and lacking any descriptive property. You may as well just say “it’s a real thing” instead of “it’s natural.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I specifically said *human* intervention, so your first example does not apply.
Bread and cheese are foods made (and invented) by humans from natural ingredients.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As far as the word “natural” having utility and consistency of meaning in this context, I favor the human intervention interpretation. Basically put, “Did we humans have something to do with that, or did we not?” If yes, then it is not natural but artificial, synthetic, etc. If no, then it is deemed “natural.” Take uranium and plutonium, for example. It is meaningfully descriptive to say that one is naturally occurring and the other is not.
BUT… big picture wise, yes, I agree that we are a part of nature, too. It strikes me as self-hating and naively simplistic when some have the knee jerk reaction that natural must be good, and not natural must be bad. For that though, I blame the revolution in chemistry where just about any substance could be concocted to perform a predetermined function but without thought towards the unintended consequences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I agree with your rebuttal in post 14, but if a global economic shutdown barely made a dent in climate change, I’m left wondering what will…
Created: