End of USA republic imminent?

[_RockSlider]

Well, I think it's fair to say that these changes are being made out of "fear of the crowd." Isn't every political decision made primarily on that basis?

If the crowd's moving, it's moving. If, as a business, you care about your customer base, you'll move with them. What's the financial upside in resisting the crowd?

I wish I would have stuck with the influence Bret suggests on academia and the sciences instead of bringing in commercial as well. So what is the harm in educational and science organizations declaring a 'Day of Absence?" What is their motive? Well sure, it's about money and power what else? It's about trying to climb over the heads of those above you in King of the Mountain.

But what of those that have good reasons to hold that a Day of Absence is a bad idea? It seems to me that the stance Weinstein took (color should not dictate) is the same thing that 'all lives matter' states and just exactly what happened to him is what is happening to those who would dare declare all lives matter. That individual is a racist, that individual should be crucified, and indeed they are or well may be.

[_EAllusion]

EAllusion,

How about Left-wing market anarchist?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wi ... _anarchism

- Doc

I'm not an anarchist Doc. With the lone exception of David Friedman, I have a very low opinion of anarchists. I have had more direct interaction with real anarchists (the anarcho-capitalist kind) than anyone here I suspect, and the idea that they'd think of me as one of them is amusing, like when atheists think I'm a religious apologist because I don't think Richard Dawkins' arguments are always good. I don't agree with market anarchism. While my views are relatively pro-free market, I see need for government service in a whole range of areas anarchists do not.

Instead of seeking out a label you think fits, just accept I have the positions I do. That said, I'm a fairly ordinary libertarian. I might place more priority or emphasis on social issues than some other libertarians you are familiar with, but otherwise, there's not much remarkable about me. Libertarianism is generally badly misunderstood by liberals in a way that is almost perfectly analogous to how conservatives can't describe what liberal thinkers actually think to save their lives, so I'm cautious about how and when I use the label, but the label is apt.

On a related now, Bleeding Heart Libertarians is officially closing shop after declaring victory on getting their point of view across:

https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/

I laughed hard.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

What posts from the link would you recommend I read in order to get feel for your politics?

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

But what of those that have good reasons to hold that a Day of Absence is a bad idea? It seems to me that the stance Weinstein took (color should not dictate) is the same thing that 'all lives matter' states and just exactly what happened to him is what is happening to those who would dare declare all lives matter. That individual is a racist, that individual should be crucified, and indeed they are or well may be.

Rock. People who say "All Lives Matter" are doing so as a rebuttal to Black Lives Matter. Implicit in that rebuttal is the idea that people who think black lives matter aren't saying that all lives matter. That, somehow, they are saying that only black lives should matter. This wrong, and it's wrong in such a painfully obvious way that it's hard to interpret the response as anything other than willful ignorance or knowing trolling. When people say the phrase, they almost always are saying it as a way to express disapproval with things we associate with black lives matter's concerns or aims. It's not a generic statement of support for the least offensive statement imaginable. It's a attack. The guy in Utah who pulled out a cross-bow, aimed it at protesters, shouted all lives matter, and then got his ass beat was using the phrase as generally intended. It means something close to, "Screw you BLM people."

So when people express annoyance with expressions of it, they aren't responding to the most innocuous statement ever. They're understanding what it means in context because they get how language works. This isn't to excuse any violence aimed at that crowd, but you seem to be combining this at the fringe with general dislike of people using that as a slogan.

[_RockSlider]

Yes, Rock, I'm a Moaist anarchist, whatever that is, because I attacked your free speech rights and demanded a safe space when I suggested that lawn jockey displapys are, in fact, racist, thereby proving I disagree with depicting images of black people in general. You got me.

You sure are stuck at the facade level of the issue here. I never said or implied that you had attacked my free speech or demanded a safe space? It seems you have not even read what I have been writing nor did you bother to view the excellent video that i mention had really struck me as it showed the mutual exclusion of safe space and free speech.

I was sticking to my consistent observations of the likeness of McCarthyism parallels and how right on the current uses of safe spaces enables the the finger pointing and cry of racist.

The anarchist comment was a cheap shot. Not being one of your peers here, I was out of line to make a sarcastic comment based on some of your peers evaluation of you. I'm ignorant to all of that terminology. Sorry about that.

[_EAllusion]

The concept of 'safe space' verses 'free speech' being mutually exclusive struck me in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRIKJCKWla4

it seems EAllusion would like this forum to be a 'safe space'.

Rock, you specifically contrasted having "safe spaces" with having "free speech" then characterized my posts as wanting this to be a "safe space" while simultaneously comparing me to Joseph McCarthy. I think it's fair to say you implied I attacked your free speech or demanded a safe space.

[_honorentheos]

Mormondiscussions - Litigating whether lawn jockeys are racist.

This...is why you fail.

Said in response to subbie, who is about as representative of the board as you are. And reflective of the tendency turn discussion into a play where you go, "Here's what you said as far as I'm concerned, and here's the established well understood response to that" like the first moves of a chess match...except you tell the other player what move they ACTUALLY made which is why they are already in check.

[_RockSlider]

If Coke were selling bottles of Coke with lawn jockeys on them, consumers would be right to not buy Coke and Coke would be right to knock that off. This dynamic would not be the result of fear of violent revolution. It's an ordinary response by business responding to better demands from its targeted consumers.

I concede your point. It would only make total economic sense for any commercial organization to avoid like the plague anything that they might be accused of racism for. In fact it would seem to be a very wise to preemptively analyze customs, cultures, histories etc. trying our best to avoid offending anyone. In software engineering 'internationalization' of software is a very hard thing, also trying to avoid symbols, words, abbreviation, acronyms that are not offensive in the various locals. In the early 80's Utah was a world leader in computer/software internationalization and I was involved with it from those days till now. I understand the concept. If only it had anything to do with what I was trying to discuss, it would have been nice.

With that out of the way, perhaps you might give response to how you feel about an institution, say a science lab that does DNA research and declares a 'Day of Absence' where if you are not black you are directed to stay away. If a white scientist refuses to honor the black only today rule and shows up, is she a racist? Should she be fired?

I'm trying to engage you on the more sensible part of what you are writing, because the idea of violent mobs of leftists intimidating society into submission are on the verge of a Maoist revolution with critical theory being their ideological north is absolutely nuts.

Thank you for your input. That is what I came here and posted for. Advice and thoughts on a topic of which I am ignorant. I would love to hear from others that mighty agree or disagree with you. Honor seemed to understand the theory and not dismiss it so easily, even though he does not see it happening.

So far gone that it's hard to know where you even started. Honor might thing this needs to be engaged with rational discourse, but rational discourse doesn't ordinarily fix this sort of thing and, maybe this board just attracts people with crazy ideas.

Once again I wonder how much time/thought you actually put into what I have linked, asked about and stated some personal opinions about. This is not my idea, theory, position or agenda. I watched and listened to a man who seems intelligent, experienced and knew what he was talking about. He has a Phd in biology and shared an experience he had after 14 years of teaching biology at Evergreen College. In doing a few hours of googling his story and concepts he spoke of, the things of which he spoke continued to give me reason to listen to and seriously consider what this man was saying.

Wanting opinions of others with whom I respect for the knowledge that exists here to get more perspective on what we are seeing in the real world right now, I came here to obtain some knowledge, not to propose some crazy ideas.

I wonder what your credentials might be as to expertise in the ideas presented here in comparison to Weinsteins? In contrast, what you have shared with me here gives me little reason to consider what you have been saying. But then again, you still have not provided any input on the OP other than to dismiss it as not worth your time. From your response given here I can only assume that you are ignorant of topic.

[_RockSlider]

What posts from the link would you recommend I read in order to get feel for your politics?

- Doc

Doc, like I mentioned to honor, way up thread, I'm ashamed to say that I have not ever followed politics. Many years ago, being a good Mormon, I registered as a Republican and have basically just blindly voted full ticket. In those early days I was so homophobic, misogynistic, new world order conspiracy, end of the world around the corner focused that I am regretful (and angry). In those middle years, having dropped out of high school my junior year, my focus to keep up with peers with masters degrees in a career where the explosion of technology obsoleted everything I knew every 5 years, I did family and work and not much else.

As a child I was raised in Alexandria Va. The population in my schools was close to 50/50 black/white. My grandparents were pretty racist towards blacks, but even more so to Japanese. My parents were not outwardly racist, I was not raised with it other than the grandparent influence (which was limited as they were in Utah). So with all my faults, being a racist was not up there on the list.

In these my later years, I've flipped from what I assume would have been a far right conservative to very liberal in comparison. How I might rate on todays scale I really don't know. I assume I'm just a bit left of center?

Anyway, you may have noted It's never been me to participate in or follow the Spirit Paradise forum. I came here this time for your thoughts on Weinsteins experience and thoughts. Perhaps better late than never might apply as looking at November 2020, there is no one that I can see to vote for, and perhaps the decade after decade of things have tended to remain the same might be in for a big change.

[_RockSlider]

But what of those that have good reasons to hold that a Day of Absence is a bad idea? It seems to me that the stance Weinstein took (color should not dictate) is the same thing that 'all lives matter' states and just exactly what happened to him is what is happening to those who would dare declare all lives matter. That individual is a racist, that individual should be crucified, and indeed they are or well may be.

Rock. People who say "All Lives Matter" are doing so as a rebuttal to Black Lives Matter.

I'm not? Have I used it in that context in this thread? I can see how the term can be like saying cult in a group of Mormons, and so yes I should, and will realize that this is offensive to some and will provide them their safe space when having discussions with people whom I don't know well and where that is called for.

Can you not see in what you have quoted me here that I am trying to make a comparison of the close relationship to a Day of Absence to the statement Black lives matter, in the sense that the pc of both are demanded and the violation of either is a sure sign of a racist?

Am I wrong in my observation that Weinstein in violating the Day of Absence and declaring in his email that 'color should not dictate' is the same statement as all lives matter?