Originally Posted by B Butler

I do not want to make such discussions impossible. However, often those who fight political correctness wish to practice racism or sexism, or are perceived of as wishing to do so. This might be the flip side vile stereotype... that those who dislike the cultural standards pushed by the political correctness movement just want to go back to the good old days of prejudice and harassment. It is possible to see both sides as having positive motivations, but it is also possible to see both sides as vile.



When you were in your rote by the book Communist mode, I felt much the same about your writings. Oh, you weren't emotionalist. Your tone was intellectual by-the-book. Still, you came across as locked into a tight world view, living by a playbook rather than showing capability of independent thought.

This may be a side effect of possessing strong values. Those who disagree seem to be pod people programmed into a political lockstep of some sort rather than being thinking living human beings. One might see vile stereotypes as a defense mechanism. Opposing value systems can be reduced to a simplistic twisted parody which is easily dismissed. Generally this simplistic parody has little to do with the reality of a living intelligent being, but taking what is being said by someone with opposing values might require one to think through one's own values. The human mind doesn't like to reexamine values. Thus, the vile stereotype of what 'they all think' is a useful way to avoid thinking.

Are you sure you are really listening to Odin, or are you fitting what he says into a stereotype?



Yes, you do have some ability to treat people as people. Thus, I was mildly surprised with your recent post.



Correct. I don't know of such people. Those I know of who care about political correctness care about equality and respect.



Well... no. You can see the world through the lens of your worldview as much as anyone. You will ignore history and facts which conflict with your perspective while embracing those that support your perspective as much as anyone. Mind you, this is very human. I'm not surprised or dismayed by it. This could be said of a lot of folks on this forum, perhaps everyone. A lot of folk fail to grow, fail to learn of reality, because they have too much invested in their current world view.

But I get very suspicious when I see 'all X think alike' arguments where the traits shared are repulsive.

Vile stereotypes have brought the US to a very sad and decrepit state. May the Regeneracy lead to the shunning of all such vileness, at least for a while.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Boomers refusing to allow reform are now trying to ram the hildabeast down our throats. Xers and Millennials will break en masse to vote for trump because we are not going to just sit there and be screwed over to benefit you selfish boomer elite sacks of feces. We are tired of ineptitude running our country while the obviously superior classes and cohorts and disenfranchised and marginalized.

My, my, I sure hope you're back on your meds today!

Look, Virginia is definitely a Blue State today - all 5 of its statewide elected offices (Govenor, Lt. Govenor, Atn Gen, and 2 US Senators) are all Democrats - it's going to Clinton in a landslide within the state.

With Virginia firmly in the Blue Wall that brings the Electoral College to 257 solid Blue votes, with only 13 more needed to win the General.

Clinton could do that with any ONE of either Ohio, Florida, North Carolina or Georgia - she is polling far ahead of Trump in OH and FL (without counting the surge in Hispanic voter registration), ahead in NC (where the bathroom embarrassment is going to further hurt the GOP) and now actually tied in Georgia!

http://www.redstate.com/saragonzales...inton-1-point/

SHOCKER: New Poll Shows Trump Leading Clinton by 1 Point

She could also win without those states by winning AZ and either one of NM, NV, and IA - do you know what's going on in AZ and Hispanic registration?

She could also win without AZ and the other big four, and still win by just taking NM,NV and IA.

This is all only important if the election is close, but right now, it doesn't look close at all - it looks like a landslide for Clinton and with it the GOP lost of the Senate. And while they'll likely keep the House, they'll be dealing with a very clear message from the voters.

With all that comes a Progressive SCOTUS that is going to stop GOP voter suppression and clip, if not overturn, Citizen United. By 2020, the White male over 55 cohort, Trump's angry t-bagger base, is going to 2% less of the electorate than it is this year, 4% less than 2012, 6% less than in 2008 - can you grasp the trend? You guys are done as a national political force. Very noisy, I'm sure, but politically - done.

Maybe you should give some inward thought as to why that will be. Or, maybe move to Greenland?

Originally Posted by Taramarie

and clearly you do not read. I clearly stated i have researched this. But this is to be sure everyone else knows you are full of shit. So, no more bread for you. From now on I know you really are just a silly little troll who is no longer worth messaging. All the best in your recovery.

If you "researched" the topic you'd be able to provide evidence for your position. You have failed to do so. After that I say little reason to not use you as a chew toy much like I do with Eric from time to time.

Kinser and classic-xer are correct in that the boomers on the forum have constantly tried to enforce progressive ideology as orthodoxy.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Kinser and classic-xer are correct in that the boomers on the forum have constantly tried to enforce progressive ideology as orthodoxy.

It is the prophet way, here progressive boomers are convince progressivism IS the answer an NOTHING else can be.

in other places Conservative boomers are the same, you can see it with the #nevertrump folks " he isn't a REAL conservative" etc.

They are supremely convinced of their moral righteousness, that is why they are prophets. Hell, Eric the Green is convinced that the theory some pseudo-cosmic prophecy of the eventual and inevitable ascension to the "dream" of the 60's, and that the crisis will finally bring the age of Aquarius into existence.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I do not want to make such discussions impossible.

Good then you might NOT be a regessive. But then again I've always had the impression that you were a well meaning liberal and not one of the ideological leftists out there. There's a difference.

However, often those who fight political correctness wish to practice racism or sexism, or are perceived of as wishing to do so.

That is the narrative. However, when one starts to study, listen to the PC Warriors they are perfectly fine with racism and sexism so long as it is practiced only against cisgendered straight white men. Given the choice between not having free speech (which is what PC codes cause) and not being called a nigger/faggot ever again and having free speech and being called one or both of those things I'll take the latter thanks.

This might be the flip side vile stereotype... that those who dislike the cultural standards pushed by the political correctness movement just want to go back to the good old days of prejudice and harassment. It is possible to see both sides as having positive motivations, but it is also possible to see both sides as vile.

It is flip and it is a vile stereotype, it is vile mostly because it is untrue. I've yet to really meet anyone on the other side (speaking as someone from the left myself--on the left-right divide) that wants to go back to the "good old days of prejudice and harassment". The fact of the matter is that those "good old days" never ended. They merely changed focus. Instead of hearing "Nigger, nigger, nigger" being spewed by the hateful ones, we hear such things as "Die cis-scum, I bathe in male tears, and only white people are capable of being racist because racism is power plus bigotry."

To be quite honest, the only positive motivations I've seen lately are coming from the cultural libertarian side (of the libertraian-authoritarian divide) in that yes free speech (excluding calls to violent action, slander, libel and reckless endangerment) is absolute. PC may have the original intent of mitigating racism, homophobia (which is actually a poor word choice--but that is for an other thread), transphobia (whatever that means) but it was never going to work. Controlling the language does not enable controlling thought.

When you were in your rote by the book Communist mode, I felt much the same about your writings. Oh, you weren't emotionalist. Your tone was intellectual by-the-book. Still, you came across as locked into a tight world view, living by a playbook rather than showing capability of independent thought.

In my defense if you review most of those posts it is in response to persons who have little understanding of the most basic principles of Marxism-Leninism (which as I've said on the other forum, I'm coming to feel needs to be replaced with a new ideology as the material conditions for M-L are passing away). I do imagine that in the future you're likely to come across posts of mine which you will feel are coming from a tight world view and living by a play book.

This may be a side effect of possessing strong values.

Anyone who has strong values (and by that I mean values for which they are willing to fight for perhaps even die for) is likely to have this side effect from time to time. Part of it is defining the opposition, the rest of it may be of a more base psychological nature.

Those who disagree seem to be pod people programmed into a political lockstep of some sort rather than being thinking living human beings. One might see vile stereotypes as a defense mechanism. Opposing value systems can be reduced to a simplistic twisted parody which is easily dismissed. Generally this simplistic parody has little to do with the reality of a living intelligent being, but taking what is being said by someone with opposing values might require one to think through one's own values. The human mind doesn't like to reexamine values. Thus, the vile stereotype of what 'they all think' is a useful way to avoid thinking.

Are you sure you are really listening to Odin, or are you fitting what he says into a stereotype?

Odin is the master of the one sentence post. It is kind of hard to misconstrue what he is saying when he turns himself into a "vile" (I would actually use the term pathetic) stereotype for me.

Yes, you do have some ability to treat people as people. Thus, I was mildly surprised with your recent post.

Yes the fact that I have the capacity to recognize other humans as humans is pretty shocking. I would have hopped that you were mildly surprised in my recent post elsewhere that I had come to the conclusion that the material basis for Marxism-Leninism either is rapidly passing away or has passed away necessitating a new ideology. Of course an idealist would never change their ideology to match reality, but a materialist has to.

Correct. I don't know of such people. Those I know of who care about political correctness care about equality and respect.

Assuming that these people plan on sticking to their liberal principles rather than saying whatever is expedient to maintain the party-line du jure then they won't be supporting political correctness for very long. If they give up their liberal principles they will turn into the very regressive leftists I've described.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Stalinists love an icebreaker. Like Hitler was. The icebreaker destroys a given capitalist / conventional polity. Into the subsequent destruction wades the Stalinist, who believes he'll raise a new utopia from the ashes.

Actually it is not only that. There is that component of course, it is possible that Trump will F**K up so badly that socialist revolution becomes inevitable; however, it is equally likely that he may not. It is in fact more likely that the result of Trump actually winning the presidency is that the GOP will be reset, that it will become the party of cultural libertarianism and as such change the political dynamic from left vs right to libertarian vs authoritarian.

Lenin wrote of Russia that prior to a socialist revolution being possible a bourgeois democratic revolution was necessary. While it is arguable the US is already a bourgeois democracy, I would recon that a reset of the order is at hand and it may or may not give rise to a socialist (be it dem-soc or otherwise) or give rise to a libertarian order.

As I do not think that those millies who supported Sanders are strong enough to flip the Democratic party, it will end up absorbing the GOP's authoritarians, moving right and becoming the authoritarian party. In such case it only makes sense for me to move to party that serves the libertarians. If I cannot have socialism and must live in a capitalist system I'd prefer to be left alone please.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

If you "researched" the topic you'd be able to provide evidence for your position. You have failed to do so. After that I say little reason to not use you as a chew toy much like I do with Eric from time to time.

Here's a pretty straightforward list -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b03260bf777e83

Here Are 9 Examples Of Donald Trump Being Racist

and another with some duplication -

http://www.alternet.org/trumps-racis...i-black-smears

Trump's Racism Is Nothing New: 4 Times He Got Away With Anti-Black Smears

And here's some more Lee Atwater whitemansplaining to you how it works with the GOP, just in case you haven't notice for the last several decades -

http://theweek.com/articles/590711/d...ign-since-1968

Donald Trump is running the most explicitly racist campaign since 1968

Originally Posted by playwrite

Here's a pretty straightforward list -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b03260bf777e83



and another with some duplication -

http://www.alternet.org/trumps-racis...i-black-smears



And here's some more Lee Atwater whitemansplaining to you how it works with the GOP, just in case you haven't notice for the last several decades -

http://theweek.com/articles/590711/d...ign-since-1968

Nice one but even then he will ignore it and write a novel of his own describing why you are wrong. Which is why i do not bother with him. He is a troll who is not worth the time nor oxygen. As he has admitted to being one I suggest to not even bother with him. He is just a bitter loon with a major chip on his shoulder who thinks his dream of a communist America is real. Therefore a trollish loon.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...And here's some more Lee Atwater whitemansplaining to you how it works with the GOP, just in case you haven't notice for the last several decades...

-I see the proggies are still pushing the long debunked Atwater Myth.

As for Trumps "anti-black racism", how is doubting the Teleprompter-in-Chiefs intellectual bona fides racist?

Originally Posted by Debol1990

It is the prophet way, here progressive boomers are convince progressivism IS the answer an NOTHING else can be.

in other places Conservative boomers are the same, you can see it with the #nevertrump folks " he isn't a REAL conservative" etc.

They are supremely convinced of their moral righteousness, that is why they are prophets. Hell, Eric the Green is convinced that the theory some pseudo-cosmic prophecy of the eventual and inevitable ascension to the "dream" of the 60's, and that the crisis will finally bring the age of Aquarius into existence.

HorseshXt.

Most Progressive Boomers are not buying into Sanders' magic unicorn promises. They want the dream of single payer, breaking up the banks, more income equality, etc. etc, but in no way do they believe that is going to happen just because there's an old guy in the WH that gets red in the face when Paul Ryan and The Turtle McConnell say, FU. The ones buying it are the young; with some time, they'll wise up enough for Progressive Boomers to hand off the task of actually keeping the ball rolling toward those Progressive goal. Bottom line: today's Progressive Boomers are about the most pragmatic cohort of the electorate.

As to the Conservative Boomers, you are correct, they have become increasingly insane. But why should I apologize for them when Conservative Xers along with any Silents and Millies that buy today's conservative memes are at least as insane? But not to worry, as their Boomer brothers-in-insanity pass into oblivion, Conservatism, as it has become, will die out with them as a national political force and take the GOP with it. I hope I live long enough to experience the inevitability.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-I see the proggies are still pushing the long debunked Atwater Myth.

As for Trumps "anti-black racism", how is doubting the Teleprompter-in-Chiefs intellectual bona fides racist?

You're inability to grasp that repeated questioning of the intelligence of the first Black, Harvard-educated, President of the USA is a perfect example of Atwater's success with the trailer folks.

Did you crawl out from under for a last chance to squat on this soon-to-be-close forum or has your expanding waistline got you needing a larger rock and you're in transition? Just curious.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You're inability to grasp that repeated questioning of the intelligence of the first Black, Harvard-educated, President of the USA is a perfect example of Atwater's success with the trailer folks...

-It's no secret that he, unlike guys like Walter Williams, was a minority set-aside. What were the Teleprompter-in-Chief's grades? The last time I checked, he never got around to releasing them. Huh!

On Atwater:

http://historum.com/american-history/40229-southern-segregationists-where-did-they-go.html

All of the 22 Senators from the eleven states were Democrats, and 19 (84%) signed the Manifesto. There were only six Republican Representatives in the entire region, and just two (33%) signed the Manifesto. In contrast, 76 (77%) of the 99 Democratic Representatives from the region were signers. Just five of Texas's 21 Democratic Representatives signed the document, so that in the other ten southern states a full 71 (91%) of 78 Democratic Representatives did sign. Six southern states -- Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Georgia, and South Carolina -- had Congressional delegations that were fully Democratic and signed the Manifesto unanimously.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/ma....t-4.html?_r=0


Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P...
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...really-say.php


The audiotape is of a conversation between Lee Atwater and two men: Professor Alexander Lamis, who first quoted the now-famous paragraph in a book, and a second man named Saul. It is 41 minutes long, with occasional interruptions. The quality is sometimes poor, but it is generally easy to make out. The subject of the interview was contemporary politics in the South, and the main point that Atwater made is that race is no longer a major issue in Southern elections...

So the central point that Atwater made in the interview was the exact opposite of the proposition for which liberals have endlessly quoted him. Lamis, however, wanted to find some role, even if a modest one, for race...

Later in the interview, Atwater (a skilled blues guitarist who recorded with B.B. King) repeated his belief that race is no longer a significant element in Southern politics...

Atwater explained that white blue collar workers are (or were as of 1981) the South’s key swing voters. Until recently, the standard way to win their votes was via the race issue (a technique, by the way, that was pioneered and perfected by Democrats). But no more...

Other observations:


http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2013...istory-lesson/

If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so...

http://freeplanetickettonorthkorea.t...dixiecrat-myth

I contacted Professor Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton for advice. Larry and I worked on a documentary based on a chapter on Ronald Reagan from his best-selling book, A Patriot’s History of the United States.

The idea that “the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans” is not quite true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is accepted as a fact. What happened is that the **next** generation (post 1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft, Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP.
So it was really a passing of the torch as the old segregationists retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly galling aspect to generalizations about “segregationists became GOP” is that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of what would become “New” Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore.

...Race was the way that the Dems did it, not Republicans. Classic case of projection, I guess!

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Nice one but even then he will ignore it and write a novel of his own describing why you are wrong. Which is why i do not bother with him. He is a troll who is not worth the time nor oxygen. As he has admitted to being one I suggest to not even bother with him. He is just a bitter loon with a major chip on his shoulder who thinks his dream of a communist America is real. Therefore a trollish loon.

Look at it as an opportunity to have a window into a rather intelligent soul but with some major internal inconsistencies that reflect an inability to deal with the reality of the world.

Which do you think would be worse - being a Libertarian who cannot point to either a place or time of their nirvana or a Communist who can only point to failures that have left nothing but big mafias today? What would be worse - for Libertarians to point to the annual ritual in Seattle of breaking a few windows as their most robust revolution or for the Communist to have grapple with revolutions that resulted in 10s of millions being murdered?

Those things cause internal cognitive dissonance in both specimens, but the former have a much lighter burden of history to bear. And yet it is the latter that more typically calls for destruction and revolution. Weird, and worth observing.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-It's no secret that he, unlike guys like Walter Williams, was a minority set-aside. What were the Teleprompter-in-Chief's grades? The last time I checked, he never got around to releasing them. Huh!

Ah, so the racists have moved from demanding a birth certificate to now demanding school transcripts. Thanks for the update; it should come in handy if I see a KKK rally going on here in Manhattan.

I can't wait to see how much further you all will go into the sewer when we get a woman President. Misogyny, racism, it's all fun, right?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

On Atwater:

http://historum.com/american-history/40229-southern-segregationists-where-did-they-go.html

All of the 22 Senators from the eleven states were Democrats, and 19 (84%) signed the Manifesto. There were only six Republican Representatives in the entire region, and just two (33%) signed the Manifesto. In contrast, 76 (77%) of the 99 Democratic Representatives from the region were signers. Just five of Texas's 21 Democratic Representatives signed the document, so that in the other ten southern states a full 71 (91%) of 78 Democratic Representatives did sign. Six southern states -- Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Georgia, and South Carolina -- had Congressional delegations that were fully Democratic and signed the Manifesto unanimously.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/ma....t-4.html?_r=0


Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P...
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...really-say.php


The audiotape is of a conversation between Lee Atwater and two men: Professor Alexander Lamis, who first quoted the now-famous paragraph in a book, and a second man named Saul. It is 41 minutes long, with occasional interruptions. The quality is sometimes poor, but it is generally easy to make out. The subject of the interview was contemporary politics in the South, and the main point that Atwater made is that race is no longer a major issue in Southern elections...

So the central point that Atwater made in the interview was the exact opposite of the proposition for which liberals have endlessly quoted him. Lamis, however, wanted to find some role, even if a modest one, for race...

Later in the interview, Atwater (a skilled blues guitarist who recorded with B.B. King) repeated his belief that race is no longer a significant element in Southern politics...

Atwater explained that white blue collar workers are (or were as of 1981) the South’s key swing voters. Until recently, the standard way to win their votes was via the race issue (a technique, by the way, that was pioneered and perfected by Democrats). But no more...

Other observations:


http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2013...istory-lesson/

If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so...

http://freeplanetickettonorthkorea.t...dixiecrat-myth

I contacted Professor Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton for advice. Larry and I worked on a documentary based on a chapter on Ronald Reagan from his best-selling book, A Patriot’s History of the United States.

The idea that “the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans” is not quite true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is accepted as a fact. What happened is that the **next** generation (post 1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft, Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP.
So it was really a passing of the torch as the old segregationists retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly galling aspect to generalizations about “segregationists became GOP” is that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of what would become “New” Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore.

...Race was the way that the Dems did it, not Republicans. Classic case of projection, I guess!

Conservative racists can spin it all they want, but for those that have a brain, they can now go directly to the tape -

http://www.thenation.com/article/exc...hern-strategy/

In Atwater's own words -

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

But again, thanks for showing up and providing the Atwater update - who'd thought that school transcripts would be the new thing with you guys.

Oh, just one more thing -

Obama was smart enough to coolly make Donald Trump look like a fool at the Correspondence Dinner while knowing that the raid he authorized to get Osama Bin Laden was underway.

Your guy let Dickhead Cheney take us into Iraq and we're still dealing with the catastrophe over a decade latter.

I'll take our intelligent leaders over your morons any day of the week.

Originally Posted by playwrite

HorseshXt.

Most Progressive Boomers are not buying into Sanders' magic unicorn promises. They want the dream of single payer, breaking up the banks, more income equality, etc. etc, but in no way do they believe that is going to happen just because there's an old guy in the WH that gets red in the face when Paul Ryan and The Turtle McConnell say, FU. The ones buying it are the young; with some time, they'll wise up enough for Progressive Boomers to hand off the task of actually keeping the ball rolling toward those Progressive goal. Bottom line: today's Progressive Boomers are about the most pragmatic cohort of the electorate.

As to the Conservative Boomers, you are correct, they have become increasingly insane. But why should I apologize for them when Conservative Xers along with any Silents and Millies that buy today's conservative memes are at least as insane? But not to worry, as their Boomer brothers-in-insanity pass into oblivion, Conservatism, as it has become, will die out with them as a national political force and take the GOP with it. I hope I live long enough to experience the inevitability.

There is no evidence conservatism is dying that is just a hope against a hope.

As I have said for a long time the myth of millennial being "liberal" is mostly made up and in fact, they are the less liberal at their current age than boomers were.


Millennials are practically 60-40 when they are still in their 20's with huge undercurrents of libertarianism, and resurgent social conservatism. Just look at the internet, that is where the conservative millennials are because they are currently in institutions (colleges) that will destroy them for not towing the liberal line.

The left has pushed too hard and the backlash (through trump) is enormous. But I guess we will see keep hoping for that future of only liberal progressives forever that the left has been waiting for since 1960

Originally Posted by playwrite

Ah, so the racist have moved from demanding a birth certificate to now demanding school transcripts. Thanks for the update; it should come in handy if I see a KKK rally going on here in Manhattan...

-In Playwrite's head, if you observe that one Black person is a dumbass, that must mean that you think that all Blacks are dumbasses. Well, if Kinser is Black, and PW thinks that Kinser is a deluded dumbass, then that means that PW thinks that all Black people are deluded dumbasses...

Originally Posted by playwrite

... can now go directly to the tape -

http://www.thenation.com/article/exc...hern-strategy/

In Atwater's own words...

-PW obviously didn't go to the tape. Atwatwer said that that was what Dems did; Republicans didn't have to, because they had honest issues to work with:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...really-say.php

"...Later in the interview, Atwater (a skilled blues guitarist who recorded with B.B. King) repeated his belief that race is no longer a significant element in Southern politics:

My generation will be the first generation of southerners that won’t be prejudiced, totally….But what I am saying is that that has really been sublimated by a bunch of other issues.

Atwater explained that white blue collar workers are (or were as of 1981) the South’s key swing voters. Until recently, the standard way to win their votes was via the race issue (a technique, by the way, that was pioneered and perfected by Democrats). But no more:

We’re leading up to my whole strategy in the deep south in 1980, which…the whole focus group in the south was that blue collar worker. Now that’s important when you tie it back to the racist thing, because he is also the guy who is most threatened by the black, and is also the most prone to be, quote, a racist. And until 1980, and a little bit in 1976, the race issue was how you approached that vote. Plus, the most conservative guy on fiscal matters always got his vote, and the toughest son of a bitch on foreign policy matters got his vote. …
Q: But [Reagan’s] not going to lose the south if he goes along with what the blacks want on voting rights, is what you’re saying?
A: That should be a thrust of his. In 1968, the whole southern strategy that Harry and those put together, the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the south. Now they don’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the south is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964. And that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cutting taxes, you know, the whole cluster, and being tough on national defense.

Lamis was obviously not a Reagan voter, and he pushed back against Atwater’s view that the Reagan campaign in the South was free of any racial element...
At this point, Atwater interrupted and gave his famous answer, portions of which have been widely quoted. Let’s parse it:
A: Here’s how I would approach that issue as a statistician, a political scientist–or no, as a psychologist, which I am not, is how abstract you handle the race thing..."

...ah. Nice to see that PW hasn't given up his intellectual dishonesty!

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Yes the fact that I have the capacity to recognize other humans as humans is pretty shocking. I would have hopped that you were mildly surprised in my recent post elsewhere that I had come to the conclusion that the material basis for Marxism-Leninism either is rapidly passing away or has passed away necessitating a new ideology. Of course an idealist would never change their ideology to match reality, but a materialist has to.

I was far more surprised by the new ideology stuff than recognizing humans as humans. As you know, I don't anticipate significant value changes often.

I think bonding into groups -- family, friends, co-workers -- is part of being human. If one shares a culture and/or territory with a bunch of folks, they are real. Very often people one has political discussions on the internet are not real. To various degrees, one treats friends and buddies differently from strangers with incompatible world views. I doubt this is a profound thought?

Originally Posted by playwrite

... I'll take our intelligent leaders over your morons any day of the week.

-Ah, yes. The "intelligent" leader:

http://nypost.com/2016/05/07/meet-th...ic-liars-club/

...The latest clincher is the admission of a top White House aide that much about the Iranian nuclear deal was a fabrication sold to a lazy, gullible press corps. Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes boasts that most reporters were too dumb to know or care they were being misled.

“The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns,” Rhodes told The New York Times. “They literally know nothing.”
He said that much of what passed for independent analysis of Iran in the media was a regurgitation of White House talking points. “We created an echo chamber,” he gloated. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”

Rhodes thus joins the infamous Jonathan Gruber, the administration insider caught conceding that ObamaCare was designed to exploit the “stupidity of the American voter.” If people understood the plain meaning, Gruber said, the law would not have survived...

Unfortunately, both the Iran deal and ObamaCare will outlast Obama’s term and do lasting damage to America, and in the case of Iran, the whole world...


Neither Obamacare nor the Iran Nuke deal will ever blow up in our faces...

...as for Iraq, can anyone imagine teh Teleprompter-in-Chief trying to deal with the Middle east if we hadn't overthrown the Ba'athists? Ugh.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Ah, so the racists have moved from demanding a birth certificate to now demanding school transcripts. Thanks for the update; it should come in handy if I see a KKK rally going on here in Manhattan.

I can't wait to see how much further you all will go into the sewer when we get a woman President. Misogyny, racism, it's all fun, right?



Conservative racists can spin it all they want, but for those that have a brain, they can now go directly to the tape -

http://www.thenation.com/article/exc...hern-strategy/

In Atwater's own words -

But again, thanks for showing up and providing the Atwater update - who'd thought that school transcripts would be the new thing with you guys.

The ultimate - a gay, Muslim (a real one), Republican president. Talk about chumming the water.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I was far more surprised by the new ideology stuff than recognizing humans as humans. As you know, I don't anticipate significant value changes often.

Significant values changes typically don't happen often due to psychological factors, provided that those values are still working. When the values stop working, there are two methods of dealing with that reality. The first one, the healthy one--I'd argue, is to change those values to something that does work; the second, the unhealthy one--I'd argue, is to double down on those held values resulting in a Kafkaeque nightmare in order to maintain those values.

As I said, the material conditions that gave rise to Marxism-Leninism are passing away, or have already passed away. That being the case continuing to hold onto that ideology becomes reactionary as opposed to revolutionary. Therefore, to remain a revolutionary a new ideology is necessary.

I think bonding into groups -- family, friends, co-workers -- is part of being human. If one shares a culture and/or territory with a bunch of folks, they are real. Very often people one has political discussions on the internet are not real. To various degrees, one treats friends and buddies differently from strangers with incompatible world views. I doubt this is a profound thought?

In a private communication with someone, we were discussing my recent use on this forum of the term "cuckservative". This person questioned where I had heard the term and brought up Stefan Molyneux, (I actually heard it first used by Milo Yiannopoulos when I was watching videos of his "Dangerous Faggot Tour") who has an Objectivist background. Objectivists being the philosophical descendants of Ayn Rand.

I explained that in my view Objectivism is inherently flawed because while they go to great lengths to explain how self-serving, perhaps sociopathic behavior can be rational, that humans by and large do not behave in the manner they term as rational due to the human nature to be pack animals. That is to say they form in-groups and out-groups, and that sacrificing oneself for one's in-group is as self-serving as other more traditionally understood as sociopathic behaviors.

That being said, I would agree that building in-groups offline is far easier than to do so online. That is the method of in-group construction that evolved with man from the very first Homo Sapiens and probably was evident in predecessor species. Most of the Great Apes (of which Humans are one) demonstrate troop formation.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Look at it as an opportunity to have a window into a rather intelligent soul but with some major internal inconsistencies that reflect an inability to deal with the reality of the world.

Which do you think would be worse - being a Libertarian who cannot point to either a place or time of their nirvana or a Communist who can only point to failures that have left nothing but big mafias today? What would be worse - for Libertarians to point to the annual ritual in Seattle of breaking a few windows as their most robust revolution or for the Communist to have grapple with revolutions that resulted in 10s of millions being murdered?

Those things cause internal cognitive dissonance in both specimens, but the former have a much lighter burden of history to bear. And yet it is the latter that more typically calls for destruction and revolution. Weird, and worth observing.

Yes, he is intelligent, but he also has admitted he likes to troll. That i have no time for as i have problems in the outside world rather than dealing with that as well.

Originally Posted by Debol1990

There is no evidence conservatism is dying that is just a hope against a hope.

As I have said for a long time the myth of millennial being "liberal" is mostly made up and in fact, they are the less liberal at their current age than boomers were.


Millennials are practically 60-40 when they are still in their 20's with huge undercurrents of libertarianism, and resurgent social conservatism. Just look at the internet, that is where the conservative millennials are because they are currently in institutions (colleges) that will destroy them for not towing the liberal line.

The left has pushed too hard and the backlash (through trump) is enormous. But I guess we will see keep hoping for that future of only liberal progressives forever that the left has been waiting for since 1960

Millennials do not back Trump as much as boomers and Xers do, according to the polls I've seen. Millennials go for Bernie Sanders in great numbers too big to ignore.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Look at it as an opportunity to have a window into a rather intelligent soul but with some major internal inconsistencies that reflect an inability to deal with the reality of the world.

Which do you think would be worse - being a Libertarian who cannot point to either a place or time of their nirvana or a Communist who can only point to failures that have left nothing but big mafias today? What would be worse - for Libertarians to point to the annual ritual in Seattle of breaking a few windows as their most robust revolution or for the Communist to have grapple with revolutions that resulted in 10s of millions being murdered?

Those things cause internal cognitive dissonance in both specimens, but the former have a much lighter burden of history to bear. And yet it is the latter that more typically calls for destruction and revolution. Weird, and worth observing.

A poster who doesn't know the difference between real life libertarians and lw anarchists and their activities that he's referring to and describing in his post doesn't appear to know WTF he's saying about other people as usual. At some point, you should really get your shit straight so you don't come across as being so clueless among your peers.