Q for Hanover: Bannon
As a Jewish US citizen, how do you feel about the appointment of Steve Bannon?
Going on an interview of his on Mother Jones, for instance, he states Breitbart is the mouthpiece of the alt-right and that's pretty anti-Semitic. That doesn't necessarily mean he shares those views but makes it rather likely. Considering widely held opinion of him, he indeed is anti-Semitic but I can't accurately judge whether he is.
Going on an interview of his on Mother Jones, for instance, he states Breitbart is the mouthpiece of the alt-right and that's pretty anti-Semitic. That doesn't necessarily mean he shares those views but makes it rather likely. Considering widely held opinion of him, he indeed is anti-Semitic but I can't accurately judge whether he is.
Comments (255)
Five seconds on Google turned this up:
https://www.romper.com/p/5-steve-bannon-quotes-that-explain-why-trumps-chief-strategist-pick-is-concerning-22563
Although I only skimmed that article linked by Baden, I can't say I see too much wrong with his sentiment of some women on the left.
Where are the actual Bannon quotes there that are at all racist, sexist, etc.?
You asked for a source of views expressed by Bannon that people are troubled by. You got one. Those are some of his views. They trouble some people. Don't expect a running commentary on it. Read it and figure it out yourself.
What I was looking for was anything he said that was racist or sexist, etc.
If that's it re what people are upset with, it just underscores what morons those folks are.
You may deny that he was courting white supremacists with that language.. I think you might be right. However David Duke seems to have taken it that way.
Don't get all huffy with me though.. 'cause I reeeeaaallly don't give a fuck.
Maybe it's the case that white nationalists talk to each other in code in public, and maybe one of the code words they use is "law and order," but that doesn't imply that someone is a white nationalist when they use a phrase like "law and order."
And what--did you think this was a white nationalist television program?--Law & Order
True. You have to look at who's saying it and in what context. They're taking advantage of the fact that the vast majority of us are complete morons.
Ooh, what a tough guy.
Quoting Steven Bannon
“That’s one of the unintended consequences of the women’s liberation movement––that, in fact, the women that would lead this country would be feminine, they would be pro-family, they would have husbands, they would love their children. They wouldn’t be a bunch of dykes that came from the 7 Sisters schools.”
“They’re either a victim of race. They’re victim of their sexual preference. They’re a victim of gender. All about victimhood and the United States is the great oppressor, not the great liberator.”
But one has to read carefully. This quote is by his wife during (apparently) a divorce proceeding:
“...the biggest problem he had with Archer [School for Girls] is the number of Jews that attend. He said that he doesn’t like Jews and that he doesn’t like the way they raise their kids to be ‘whiney brats’ and that he didn't want the girls going to school with Jews."
One has to sift: here is a quote from the "Bustle" site:
“Hollywood does not understand Middle America, and it certainly does not understand and, in fact, despises, the core values of the country,” Bannon said in a 2010 radio interview. Pushing that divide between "real" America and Hollywood is so perturbing because it's hard not to view it as a dog-whistle to anti-Semites. Hollywood is so often code for "Jewish" and the subject of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories as under Jewish or Zionist control that Bannon's framing of Hollywood as the enmy is irksome.
First we have a quote: "Hollywood does not understand Middle America" and then the exegesis:
It seems like there has been a surge and a special usage of "dog whistle" just in the last few years. It's a handy term because "dog-whistle" is itself code. So we have coded allusions to coded allusions. One can get away with a lot that way--on both sides of the political spectrum.
Being a business executive, of course, doesn't tell us much about his politics, but it explains why there isn't more of a scat trail behind him: He wasn't a "personality". You might loathe the New York Times, but you probably won't find a lot of editorial comments from Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., the publisher of the Times. However, Sulzberger and Bannon couldn't change places at Breitbart and the Times without affecting the product.
Geez, if you think I'm young I'm guessing you're maybe in your 70s?
Quoting Steven Bannon
How is that at all racist? (I'm just doing one at a time. If you don't feel that one is racist, we can move on.)
That's assuming his summary was a fair assessment. Alt-right is a movement not a set of principles. It's made up of racists, xenophobes, mysogynists etc. (just look at the publications on Breitbart) and therefore alt-right becomes racist etc. For Bannon to pretend this causality is reversed and that people are attracted to some set of ephemeral principles is a simple sleight of hand. It's a smart move, you never get caught saying anything outright unacceptable, you just facilitate others to do it for you.
So in that light, highly likely he has issues with for instance Jews.
So you're going to declare that he's racist whether he's actually said anything racist? Guilt by association in your view (and per your assessment of what "alt-right" refers to, etc.)?
Exactly. And Trump is putting people in place who will do it for him. Nothing new in that -- presidents put people in place who will initiate and execute certain kinds of policy.
We don't have to go looking for extensive quotes to think Bannon will act in a general way. Proof will or won't follow in due course.
Try again and first read what I wrote. Also, you're confused as to what guilt by association entails or at least applying it incorrectly if I had said what you think I said, which I didn't.
As if I didn't read what you wrote. You could try to be more patronizing in your next reply to me, though. Maybe you'd succeed.
What part of what I wrote don't you agree with? You weren't saying that he's racist?
Here's a definition of guilt by association: "guilt ascribed to someone not because of any evidence but because of their association with an offender."
Do you think that definition is confused? Because that's what I was referring to.
I didn't use the word "damming". That would be me making a judgement. I provided a link to.views of his that people were troubled by. I haven't made any claims beyond that as yet.
I am in my 70s. How old are you?
Don't take it personally. The feeling that young people (say, under 30) aren't quite the proficient digitalists that media claim they are didn't start with you. People learn to use the Internet and other resources by using the Internet and other resources regularly.
My apologies, by the way. I Googled Bannon and I didn't find as much as I thought I would either. Hence, the post explaining why maybe he hadn't left much of a quote trail.
Explain.
That you felt the need to express your apathy in the way you did betrays that you are apathetic to the degree that you implied. The truly apathetic person wouldn't respond like that and probably not even respond at all.
Fair enough.
I don't know you very well, but I note that you don't ask questions very often. It's just.. dictate dictate dictate. Maybe as if no one around you knows anything you need to ask about.. or maybe it's a touch of solipsism?
This is something I'm not apathetic about... why are you like that? For my part.. it was just cracking me up.. the image of a person who goes around telling everybody that they're boring. I'm still laughing about it actually.
Drain the swamp? How about, stock it with crocodiles, jackals, weasels, and flesh-eating bacteria?
How about we do a Thorongil interview?
And for whatever reason, most of the world finds it prudent that Israel be a sovereign state based almost solely upon its ethnic cultural identity. However, nobody gives two cents toward the Kurds, Abkhazians, or lest we forget, the Romani who were unfortunate enough not to get a nice little country within a country, as Israel did. Truly, Israel only serves to highlight the fact that nation states should not be ethnic or culturally based, else the world community has no legs to stand on if they want to keep particular ethnic cultures from becoming sovereign states themselves.
Perhaps if Israel keeps up its slow cultural genocide of Palestinians that the world community will then respond like it did 70 years ago when Jews and Armenians were en masse murdered and thusly rewarded two different nation states out of nothing - that the world community will award Palestine with a fully autonomous sovereign state. Either that, or we stick with the model most seem to prefer where we cherry pick, liking small republics semi-autonomously cooperating underneath a more culturally diverse nation, like we see in Iraq, Georgia, Turkey, etc.
You're just kicking the can down the road a bit further. What human rights abuses? As for border policing, this is surely very necessary, considering the sheer number of terrorist groups and even nation states nearby who would love to destroy Israel and annihilate the Jewish people.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Complete nonsense. It's the only safe, prosperous, democratic polity with an educated, scientifically literate citizenry in the entire Middle East. Its military is a necessary bulwark against rogue states like Iran. It also has some of the best archaeologists, classically trained musicians, and scientists in the world.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
This is not an argument against Israel as a state. I'm in favor of the Kurds and so on to be granted their own states (which they partially do in northern Iraq).
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I could not disagree more and in fact find this view to be quite dangerous. The more ethnically, religiously, and culturally homogeneous a nation state is, the less crime, violence, etc there is in it. We see in Europe the complete and utter failure of multiculturalism, as even its most ardent proponents now admit. Iraq has been a colossal failure from the beginning. Simply put, you cannot expect people from different ethnic and opposing religious and cultural backgrounds to get along, which is to recognize that human beings are flawed creatures predisposed to tribalism. It can be overcome, yes, and I would count the US as possibly the only exception in this regard, but the US overcame it to the extent that it has through economic growth and a strong belief in its founding documents, which not all nations can boast of.
Secondly, Western culture is superior to many other cultures, so if fewer nations adopt Western values, or the West itself decides to reject them, as is increasingly the case, then civilization, prosperity, the rule of law, and human rights will have taken significant blows. Culture matters, and it matters much, much more than people think. The light of past civilizations was not put out so much by military defeat as by cultural devolution and decay.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
If that's what you think it's doing, then I submit that this is a good thing. Israeli culture is superior to Palestinian culture. Notice that this does not mean Israelis are superior to Palestinians.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Israel owes it's creation to at least 3 major factors:
The first is that a vision of a modern state of Israel had been circulating in Jewish circles for decades before WWII.
The second is that the Holocaust was so awful, something compensatory had to be done.
The third thing is that while the territory was lived in by Palestinians, it's status was soft -- that is, it was part of the deceased Ottoman Empire, which had come under British and French control. Palestine wasn't an independent nation.
Now that it is exists as a power in the region, many nations think it prudent that it stay that way.
A solution to the displaced Palestinians should certainly have been deployed at the time of Israel's creation. Their status was allowed to remain indefinite. The original residents of the refugee camps now have grandchildren in the "camps". Israel clearly plans to occupy all the West Bank eventually, and has chosen for an independent Palestine a death by a thousand tiny cuts, rather than just getting it over with all at once.
Israel isn't going to go away. The Palestinians are going to go away. The US (and others) like having Israel where and what it is. That doesn't leave many options for future progress...
A good point. Most people also seem to forget that Palestinians are Arabs. Their displacement isn't the same as, say, the displacement of the Kurds from their ethnic homelands. There are plenty of Arab states all around Israel for them to go to, but these same Arab states like the Palestinians where they are, simply because they provide good propaganda against Israel.
Quoting Thorongil
Quoting Thorongil
Quoting Thorongil
Quoting Thorongil
Pssst. No so loud, Thorongil. The thought police are going to be on your case for uttering such heresies as "Israeli culture is superior to Palestinian culture". You'll be in the stocks by morning with a sign around your neck "racist, sexist, xenophobic, islamophobic, homophobic, elitist, imperialist, cultural hegemonist, genocidal oppressor", and worse, possibly.
And to actually write "Western culture is superior to many other cultures" -- that's just going to send the PC Brain Washers into a frenzy.
You might want to decamp to Breitbart for a week or two, till the furor dies down.
Quoting Thorongil
Take a gander at how Israel treats refugees and migrants, especially from African countries. It's a complete breakdown of Israel's supposedly "democratic" justice system.
Quoting Thorongil
Israel is the only one? Hit up google maps, perhaps a country or three will remind you how silly your claim reads.
Quoting Thorongil
Rogue states like Iran? What does that even mean? The only part of the Israeli military that concerns itself with Iran directly is information and investigation. If by Israel's "military bulwark" you mean "we have nukes, sit down" then sure, I guess. You must, of course, admit this intimidation is one reason why Iran has become so worrisome for those in the West (who have nuclear weapons), because Iran wants them too.
Quoting Thorongil
Oh noes! :o
Quoting Thorongil
One could argue an outlier like North Korea embodies a purely homogeneous ethnic, (non)religious, and cultural nation state, yet I wouldn't see very many people say that NK is working as intended.
Quoting Thorongil
I think you make the mistake of thinking that the more homogeneous a community is, there lessens then the possibility for division within said community. I don't think that follows very well.
Quoting Thorongil
This seems a tad vague. I wouldn't see the US as overcoming its divisions particularly well, now or in the past. The country's predominately white European Christian heritage with a respect for traditional American colonial values didn't matter all that much in 1861. One could even stretch my point back to the American War for Independence, although I only just thought of this, so I won't venture any further.
Quoting Thorongil
If it's a Western value to tear down instead of build up, then perhaps this is why the West is so in love with Israel.
As I perhaps too thinly alluded to just above, your comment here strikes me as being a bit obtuse. Even if I agreed with you that Palestinian culture is indeed inferior to Israeli culture ( I do), what then should the world's intentions be with regard to helping mature the deficiencies in Palestinian culture? Slowly shove them deeper into the desert, thus making them even madder, just as Israel is doing right now? Say such things as you just did in boastful demeanor to the faces of common Palestinians, or any Arab in general? I just don't see this sort of rhetoric as being particularly helpful or productive in bringing about "civilization, prosperity, the rule of law, and human rights" when both tone and the reality of current politics is one of snubbed noses and pointed guns.
I suppose to clarify my first assertion here in this thread - I'm as anti-Israel as I am anti-Palestine. In the Middle-east, I think it's in the US's best interests to be more neutral. This isn't to say less active, but that our dealings with countries in the Levant shouldn't be so cookie cutter, because at present, our approach is often inconsistent and hypocritical, thus failing the values we like to think we espouse.
Alright, you next! :)
Quoting Bitter Crank
Well, with regard to Palestine, when the West made Israel a fully sovereign state, and not Palestine, can you be at all surprised when "Arabs" are even more distraught by this blatant unfairness? I mean, Israel has a figurative dick in its geography that's been slowing ramming itself into previously and currently inhabited Palestinian communities, so I'm at a loss why anyone would indeed be shocked that, on a practical level, people are taking offense to Israel's aggressiveness.
Quoting Bitter Crank
If? >:O
Quoting Bitter Crank
This must be Trump's logic.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Israel won its existence? Dubious framing of terms right there.
Other countries in the region can say the same, yet somehow Israel is held to be vastly different.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Neither should necessarily go away. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'll just sit here and wait on Iraq's development. I want to see how a country like Iraq can cope with so many ethnic cultural minorities now that it has a burgeoning democratic government and a military that's logistically coherent and tactically smart. I have a feeling it will end poorly, but who knows. If the goal is to get a United States' like division and strife, then it's better that we support Palestine and Israel so that both can work together.
Quoting Thorongil
You have to think of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a more practical, day-to-day way sometimes. Quite basically, Israel's introduction into the region, then and now, has fragmented communities that were already there to begin with, simply because they're "Arab." And I don't think it's very prudent or compassionate to expect people to pack up and move simply because there are some Arabs "over there." Yet again, there's this talk of Western values and the protection of rights, but fuck you if you get in the West's way - that's when your rights can go stick themselves head first in the sand. You will move, because Israel is here to stay, I guess, and because Israel's culture is superior, therefore it can dictate people's lives - where they live and how they live. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be partial to this sentiment, because it's hypocritical and divisive, and doesn't, in my eyes, serve the West's intentions best. If "we" can't serve as an example of our own values, then we dun fucked up from the get-go. And although we're not severely fucking up, we're still failing on a great many things, such things I find us to be coy over and unwilling to call bullshit on, to reference Benkei from another thread. This frankness extends to Palestine and anyone else's actions, or lack thereof, as well. Nobody gets a free pass for being unwilling to move forward.
Yep. I don't suck Israel's cock, so this must mean I'm a brain washed PC nutjob.
It really is shocking how many people, no matter who they are, embrace the compartmentalized way of understanding people and their ideas. "Oop, this person says this one thing which these fuckheads over here also seem to say - ha, this means he's a fuckhead, too!" To quote Mongrel...how boring.
Anyhoo, there goes my evening free time spent :-d
The second sentence should read "the Palestinians are NOT going to go away."
The point I was making is that the creation of Israel (first by Zionist settlers early on, then by British and UN action later) was the beginning of Palestinian's dislocation. Nothing can top that, from the Palestinian point of view.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Nothing to do with Trump. Israel has controlled suicide and conventional terrorist bombing and other kinds of attacks by securing its big ugly concrete border. Yes, it is a heavy burden on Palestinians who do or want to work in Israel--the daily security gate checks, and so on. But it also enables Israelis and Palestinian citizens of Israel to live together amicably
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Sure it did. It was attacked from the getgo by Arabs who wanted Israel to disappear. Like Israel or loathe it, it has won its existence.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Arab countries (like Syria before its civil war), Egypt, Iran (which is Persian) or Turkey (which isn't Arab either) all have cultural, scientific, government, military, commercial elites; Israel has a bigger elite per capita. That's the main difference.
Regarding multiculturalism: Take the former Yugoslavia, made up of Croats, Gypsies, Serbs, Slovenes, Bosnians, Montenegrins, Christians, Moslems, Atheists, Communists, fascists, and more. How did they all live together if multiculturalism doesn't work?
Because Tito's communist regime would not tolerate inter-ethnic squabbling. One would end up in very deep doo doo with the Party if you made ethnic or religious political trouble. Before Tito there were other controllers: the Ottomans and the Hapsburgs. After Tito's regime came to an end around the end of the 1980s, with the post-communist up-heavals all over Europe, all sides deserted multiculturalism with a vengeance.
I would guess that most multicultural regimes have been enforced, rather than embraced by enlightened peasants who just naturally love every conflicting customs they come across.
The US is enforcing multiculturalism now as it has in the past. It uses a variety of strategies to keep a lid on conflicts. The strategies of inter-ethnic control sometimes become issues in themselves, as segregation of blacks did. In the 19th century the immigration gates were opened and all sorts of people came in until WWI. Open borders is enforced multiculturalism.
The State Department decides which populations overseas are going to be granted entry. It might be Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Indians, Somalians, West Africans... whoever. They arrive, usually with the discretely contracted help of local service providers (Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, etc.) No one is asked if they want the latest batch, they just arrive, and the local population is, in effect, told to get used to it.
Some people opt for extremely mixed multicultural settings. Most people don't.
Yes, I will be patronising because for some reason old people like you think they don't need to pay attention. I've never said he was a racist (I said it's likely he has a problem with Jews) but even if I had it wasn't going to be because of guilt by association but because he actively manages a media outlet that he set out to create to give voices to racists, mysogynists and anti-Semites. Those are his own actions after all. Surely we can all agree that if Hitler had never been vocal about his hatred of Jews (but Goebbels was), the existence of concentration camps might have been a clue! THEREFORE (in capitals in hopes you'll be paying attention), Bannon running Breitbart is a pretty good indication even if not conclusive on its own.
It's only natural that a Westerner will claim Western culture is superior because the values by which this is measured are Western. Since we're not sharing the same paradigm with other cultures (to the extent these are monolithic structures, which they aren't), the statement is therefore inane. On the basis of US culture, US is superior to Europe. On the basis of Dutch culture, US culture ranks somewhere slightly above a dictatorship. New Yorkers probably feel superior to hillbillies. That really doesn't get us anywhere and that's the reason to just facepalm whenever somebody claims superiority based on culture. :-*
For the rest, pretty much agree with Meister Eckhart.
~ Thorongil
Israel is the only one? Hit up google maps, perhaps a country or three will remind you how silly your claim reads.[/quote]
Adjoining countries are Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt.
But aside from Turkey, I don't think any are truly democratic (and Turkey is looking shaky); Iran has elections, but it is a theocracy; Egypt.....well we saw what happened there; I think I read somewhere that there are more Arab representatives in Israel's parliament than in any other parliament in the region (although I could be mistaken).
Which is both saying that he's racist--the comment speculating what his opinion of Jews would be is pretty explicit about that, and it's positing guilt by association, because you're taking the comments of associates of his to count as evidence of his own views.
I would easily allow the content that's on Breitbart if I were running Breitbart, too. For one, I'm a free speech absolutist, I have a problem with people being offended by speech rather than a problem with offensive speech, and the sort of content in question is part of what has made Breitbart as successful as it has been.
You might figure that I'm racist, sexist, etc. because of that. You'd be wrong.
Do you have dyslexia?
True. When the US government starts building concentration camps, we'll take out the president and whoever else we need to. If we don't do that... if we just go ahead and have a Holocaust, trust me.. it won't be because of Trump, Bannon, or whoever else. It will be because we lost our minds.
And there won't be anything you can do about it.. so why worry?
See, we knew you could be more patronizing, haha.
Clinton's America
Trump's America
What exactly is the relevant difference between managing and promoting an organization noted as a platform for racist, (as well as sexist, and xenophobic) material--and "being" a racist?
Just the "small" difference that in the one case you're a racist and in the other you're not (at least not necessarily; we'd need explicit statements that you are).
Being a racist means having beliefs about inherent properties of races where you feel that those properties amount to or result in that race, as a whole, being inferior or superior to other races, and it typically involves discrimination based on that belief.
Managing and promoting an organization with members who have those views (and this is assuming that's a reasonable characterization of Breitbart), doesn't imply that you have those views.
I know it's close enough for a lot of people who can't be bother to think about things with any clarity, but that's why it's ridiculous. Is that what we should be encouraging as philosophers?
Lots of folks are all too happy to make all sorts of ridiculous conflations, yes. People are all too ready to apply "racist," "sexist," etc. to all sorts of ridiculous things. There's a witch hunt mentality to a lot of it.
Quoting Brainglitch
I'm not sure what "political" adds there, really. What's the difference between a political difference re whether someone is a racist and just a simple difference re whether someone is a racist?
Yeah, you responded before I edited to convey what I was actually trying to say.
The distinction between a racist and a paid, professional who knowingly enabled racism and gave no evidence of disapproval is a distinction without a difference in some people's pragmatic political judgment. To armchair logic choppers, it makes a big difference.
Would you hire a paid professional who knowingly ran a site that regularly featured child porn (and gave no evidence of disapproval) for a babysitter?
Imagining that I'd have the opinion on child porn that you're expecting me to have, that fact wouldn't disqualify them.
What I should have asked, more analogously to the Bannon situation, is do you think it would be prudent to hire the child porn enabler who never expressed disapproval to, say, run a day care center?
LOL--why would it make a difference if it were a day care center? Anyway, the analogy from the start has a number of problems, but let's pretend that it doesn't. However, I have to ask what a "child porn enabler" would amount to in order to be able to answer. Are we pretending for one that child porn isn't illegal in this scenario?
The Bannon issue is a pragmatic political judgment, and as I noted, the distinction between whether he is a racist or just worked to enable racists is a distinction without a difference. People don't want somebody who made money enabling racists any more than they want a racist in such an influential position. Besides we have no reason to believe that he is not a racist, and much reason to infer that he is, including testimony from his wife.
Okay, but you brought it up.
Quoting Brainglitch
Which is nonsense, but okay, so you're not just arguing that many people are intellectually lazy, you're saying that you are, too.
Though, somewhat compromised about certain aspects of that reality thingy.
To insist pedantically that the paramount issue is the technical invalidity of the conclusion that Bannon is a racist is to ignore the evidence consistent with the conclusion, and to be blind to the political context in which the distinction without a difference is a pragmatic value judgment, not a matter of being intellectually lazy. Given the evidence, it is not intellectually lazy to judge that Bannon's either being a racist or actively enabling racists renders him unfit for such high national office.
Such as?
Quoting Brainglitch
What the heck does that phrase refer to?
And this isn't a matter of value judgment. It's a matter of whether someone believes particular things or not.
Quoting Brainglitch
Why would that be the case? Aren't you in favor of freedom of speech when it's controversial?
My general view is that few are pure of thought and that racism, xenophobia, and even sexism fill everyone's lovely hearts. I find the desperate search for the disqualification of human beings from various roles disgusting and hypocritical. That is not to say that I'd fully accept an open Jew hater, but it is to say I'm not willing to engage in a witch hunt largely designed to prove the given narrative that Trump is actually a Klansman who interacts with neo Nazis.
Prove to me Bannon hates me and I'll hate him back, but suggest to me he hates Jews and I won't care. The truth is that at some level we all hate each other, but I'm content accepting what appears at and just below the surface and not in distilling out every difference we have so that we can justify hating one another.
And the subtext here might give you an understanding of why Trump supporters are able to support him and why the media so failed in garnering the hate for him they so wanted to drum up.
Fair enough. What constitutes as proof? If seems that some believe only actual racist remarks count as proof for racism. When is somebody an anti-Semite?
Otherwise critique of Bannon being a racist is that people say his a bully and that his ex-wife said that " he doesn't like the way they raise their kids to be 'whiny brats' and that he didn't want the girls going to school with Jews". Bannon has denied this. (See 5 Points On What You Need To Know About Steve Bannon, Trump's Top WH Adviser)
Is the Georgetown graduate, Harvard Business School MBA, naval officer and Goldman Sachs guy (yes, Goldman Sachs) truly a white supremacist? I doubt it. But what he is, is a guy on a crusade. Who sees the nation as divided and who basically divides (himself) the nation.
There are some speeches available from the guy, and I think the following from 2011 tells very well his views and Worldview well, especially when the speech is given far before the current elections and well before the United States turned into Trumpland. First he (quite correctly) describes the Financial Crisis and the outrageous way it was handled. He also describes his documentaries: how clueless the "OWS"-youngster were (because of the educational system), how Sarah Palin came from humble roots and challenged the local (Alaskan) elite, how the Tea Party is made of ordinary people and how socialism in America works for the poor, but also for the very rich. That the US is a divided country comes very well in the end.
If one has 24 minutes to spend (waste?), I think it tells well just what kind of guy Bannon is.
At least I'll say that he isn't the typical right-wing demagogue that only can reurgitate the same stupid talking points that they all do. And knows far more about the World than Trump (which isn't actually something spectacular).
If he said, for example, what his wife claims he said about Jews, I would say that's "racist," but the problem with it is that it's hearsay, and in the context of someone probably wanting to paint the other person in a bad light.
I'm not "alarmed" by them, either. As I've mentioned a number of times, I'm a free speech/free expression absolutist, and I think it's important for free speech that speech is "aired" that is controversial, that many people are uncomfortable with.
What about the sexist and homophobic quote which came straight from the horses mouth? And the quote about victimhood seems to have an undercurrent of discrimination, like he's trying to turn the tables and undermine legitimate grievances. And he chose to single out race, sexual preference, and gender, rather than anything else...
You mean the quote that begins with "Are there racist people involved in the alt-right? Absolutely." There's nothing racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. about that quote.
Re "They wouldn’t be a bunch of dykes that came from the 7 Sisters schools" he's denigrating a certain personality type. He's not saying anything about women in general, or homosexual women in general.
Re "They’re either a victim of race. They’re victim of their sexual preference. They’re a victim of gender. All about victimhood and the United States is the great oppressor, not the great liberator.” He's talking about the victim mentality that a lot of people have, fostered by the PC and SJW movements. Again, that's not about race, gender, etc. It's about a particular mentality in an ideological context.
No, I mean:
“That’s one of the unintended consequences of the women’s liberation movement––that, in fact, the women that would lead this country would be feminine, they would be pro-family, they would have husbands, they would love their children. They wouldn’t be a bunch of dykes that came from the 7 Sisters schools.”
That is sexist and homophobic, and you can stick your apologetics where the sun doesn't shine.
Quoting Terrapin Station
That one isn't as clearcut, but you have to read between the lines, consider what his motives might have been and what might have influenced him, and take into account his other comments.
I addressed that one, too. It's neither. Again, it's denigrating a particular personality type, and in contradistinction to a particular other set of (traditionally "conservative") values. Re it being about a personality type, well, and ideology, there's a reason he mentioned the "7 sisters schools."
Re the victim thing, the motives are the utter ridiculousness of the PC/SJW movements.
The term wasn't applied to everyone of a particular gender or sexual preference. It was applied to a particular a particular personality/ideological stance--hence, the "7 sisters schools" reference, which otherwise would make no sense. Your comments are typical of SJWists' inability to understand simple expression.
Doesn't matter. If I say that the black people that would lead this country wouldn't be a bunch niggers who support the Black Lives Matter movement, then that would strongly suggest that I am a racist. And if you disagree, then that would strongly suggest something else about you, but I have moderated my original comment.
For one, simply using a term like "nigger" is not at all indicative that one is a racist. That's one of the idiocies of the SJW movement. That kind of stupidity is how we've gotten into this mess in the first place. It's how we end up with nonsense like LeBron having a problem with the word "posse" a couple days ago.
Sure, all the decent folks are the idiots, and those who make sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., remarks are the clever ones, and they have you as their white knight.
Quoting Terrapin Station
I agree. That's why I also pointed out the manner in which he used the term "dyke" which is analogous to the term "nigger" in my example.
That is a brilliant response. (Y)
SJWists are by no means "decent folks" in my opinion.
Quoting Sapientia
Glad you agree, but there's nothing in your example that entails racism.
Which cultural features do you regard as inferior and which superior?
And what 'inferior' features does Palestinian culture have that justifies eliminating it?
It's the difference between allowing someone to say a view in one's house and saying that view oneself. Should all private property be dictatorial states?
You were the one to bring up "SJWists", not me. I don't use that silly terminology. I was simply talking about decent folk.
And I have good reason to distrust your opinion.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Yes, there is, but going back and forth like this wouldn't be productive, so perhaps we should end this discussion.
SJWism is what makes such things "racist" etc.
Quoting Sapientia
I don't mind doing it, but if you don't want to continue it, you don't have to respond.
Okay.
Aren't there other forums out there for that?
Racism is what makes things racist. I don't care about your views on what you call "SJWism".
That we agree on. And when we find it, we can point it out maybe. In this case, we haven't found it.
No, but some of us have found comments which strongly indicate it. Others are in denial.
Okay.
Aren't there other forums out there for that?
You could say that to almost absolutely anyone on absolutely any forum. Why me in particular?
Yes, based on SJW-fueled idiocy.
Oh, come now. There's no need to call opinions idiotic just because you disagree with them.
Mind taking a look at my comments and basing your view on facts like a rational person?
No disagreement there. But I think there's a need to call them idiotic when they're idiotic.
So, you don't disagree with the views but you think they're idiotic. How does that make any sense?
What I quoted from you was this:
"There's no need to call opinions idiotic just because you disagree with them."
I do not disagree with that statement within quotation marks.
I have already done so. Out of a current total of 42 comments, many of them involve you defending your stance regarding racism. But I'm not willing to count them all.
Since you came back three days ago, eight out of twelve comments have been related to racism or related to talking about racism.
Maybe not eight, actually. Maybe I was thinking about eight out of ten cats, which is a reference you might not get without looking it up unless you're British.
Fuck Breitbart, though.
These refugees have chosen Israel for a reason, presumably, and it wasn't because they felt they would be living in worse conditions compared to where they came from. It's hard to have high standards, because it can be difficult to live up to them. However, it is better to live in a society in which the expectation is that they will be lived up to and where the failure to do so produces shame and political opposition than one in which such standards are rejected, as one sees in the neighboring countries these migrants didn't choose to come to.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Yep.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Yes, Iran is a rogue state. And no, the Israeli military is not sitting on its hands. It has been actively bombing Iranian nuclear sites for decades. Israel has nukes for reasons of self-defense. Iran wants to procure them for reasons of destroying Israel, as its leaders have unequivocally and consistently admitted. That is no small difference.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
It's not culturally homogeneous, though. The state has attempted to impose a certain culture onto its citizens by force, the result of which is not culture at all, but the obliteration of it, since culture is something that develops naturally and freely by the interaction of humans. That being said, my position is willing to accommodate exceptions, as I'm making deliberately general claims.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Well, if it's a mistake, then you need to show why it's a mistake, instead of merely declaring it to be as you have done here.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I was making a comparative claim. Point me to another multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and multicultural society that is as populous, safe, prosperous, and free as the US. Historically speaking, the US is quite unique in overcoming the challenges associated with such a society. This is undeniable and part of what goes under the umbrella of American exceptionalism.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
To build up a society, one must first be confident that the beneficiaries of said building will actually appreciate and reciprocate it. That cannot be said of Palestinians, whose airwaves and political factions are filled with ethnic hatreds, religious bigotry, and injunctions to violence.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I would encourage them to live in the plenitude of countries around Israel whose populations are comprised of their fellow Arab Muslims. Failing that, I would shut down their schools, reopen ones that aren't training future terrorists and their sympathizers, destroy Hamas and make them illegal, and enforce international rights laws.
This is true. Although I'd argue simple geography plays a big part as well. With respect to African migrants, African countries don't much want them - say the Somalians - nor does Egypt, as a more Middle-eastern country. This leaves Israel, who is thought to be a democratic state, and at the very least one that has a functioning government.
Just because it's hard to have high standards doesn't excuse a government from actively embracing low standards when it works politically to the government's advantage. The fact remains that migrants pick Israel first, sure, but then leave as fast as they can, if they can, because it becomes immediately apparent how poor Israel will in fact treat them. South Africa is also a good example of this - being a supposedly stalwart and strong democratic institution that, nonetheless, has zero patience for both migrants and refugees, preferring to throw them into concentration camps, just as the Israeli government does.
Quoting Thorongil
Does the Israeli government not impose certain cultural mores that all must obey, regardless of whether one is still Jewish?
Quoting Thorongil
I'm not convinced that the more alike a group of people is that divisiveness ceases to be particularly important. Unless you're looking at a monastery, I can't see your original point as being very conclusive or encompassing as a position.
Quoting Thorongil
China would be one, actually, although only comparably, not exactly. Australia is more in line, especially given the fact that cities dominate its population centers. That all the minorities get along fairly well is impressive. Perhaps Spain could be included, but I'm less inclined to use them as a direct example.
Quoting Thorongil
Are Palestinians mad, to the extent that they are now, simply "because"? There are very clear reasons that will tell anyone why there are conflicts between Palestinians and Israelis in the current era. And to your first point, most migrants want to help benefit and build up Israeli society through working and stimulating the economy. It is not these peoples' agendas to throw down Jewish culture. Groups like Hamas do, which is why Israel bombs them. But Israel also bomb innocents and bystanders simply because they're not Israeli, which is not the right thing to do.
To put it more simply, if the typical migrant or refugee wants only to disparage and destroy, then why are they moving from countries like Libya or Somalia where nothing but destruction is occurring? Like with the Palestinians on the borders of Israel, most just want to stay in their homes, as their families have done so for centuries. I'm still not seeing how telling these people to fuck off and move because there is similar culture "over there" solves the fundamentally basic problem of another government forcibly uprooting people when they're doing little wrong. This problem reminds me of the US and its dealings with Native Americans. One excuse given, by both the populace at large and the government, for forcing Indians to move from their homes to someplace else, is because "there are Indians over here, too!" This failed, as it fails in Israel nowadays, to take into proper account the more intricate cultural differences people have, even if they're "Indian" or "Arab" or even "Jewish", for not even all Jews are in agreement on a great many issues. But do I really have to clarify that..?
Ask Tibetans or Uighurs how well multiculturalism works in China. Australia? Australia has been quite choosy about who is admitted as immigrants. How about the various boat people who end up on very small island "concentration camps", rather than being allowed to set foot on Aussie soil?
Cities dominate population centers all over the world. Actually, that's what a city is.
You might have mentioned Russia, which is quite multicultural -- thanks to czarist expansionism in centuries past.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Egypt is an African country, as is Somalia.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I'd be surprised if most African immigrants have much interest in building up and stimulating the economy of an explicitly JEWISH state. They might have absolutely nothing against Jews, but let's face it, Africans are not Jews, and Israel hasn't hung up a "multicultural state" shingle over it's door. Israel has enough difficulty coping with the demands of Jews who range from secular atheists to the militantly ultra orthodox.
I would guess, just off hand, that most immigrants -- especially economic immigrants -- want to make money for themselves so they can live in the manner they want to live.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
That seems remarkable unconvincing and lame, even for American genocidalistas. I hadn't heard that rationale before. I think it was much more likely the rationale was plainer: We want your land, you are going to move, and that's that."
The tears at this point may qualify as mass delusion and hysteria, or maybe it's just weaponized crying. Whether Trump is actually racist etc. doesn't matter, as evidenced by the fact that there are literally genocidal ethnostates (real ones, not imagined ones) in existence at this very moment that no one cares about and even applauds whenever convenient. What matters is that people say that he is racist etc.
The revolving door is moving in several ways right now, and the Democrats have apparently decided 'I guess we're the Cold War panic party now,' and nobody seems to have noticed. It's like a Eurasia-Eastasia switch sort of thing, I guess. There is a flicker of intelligence behind a Trump's eyes in that he has some awareness he's playing a game, which his detractors may be too socially retarded to realize – they think they have principles.
One deficiency in Hanover's statement is that we don't know most people (like, 99.9%) well enough to actually hate them. They are abstractions, so it is easy to say we love or hate them, because... well, they are not up-close and personal; not real. In actuality, we don't know enough about most people to work up so much as a low grade snit toward these abstractions, let alone a red hot hatred.
One might add that a merciful and loving God has seen fit to arrange the world so that we DO NOT know each other too well, thus increasing the likelihood of Peace On Earth, Good Will among Abstractions.
I don't think most of us want to make room for strangers. We would just as soon they remain abstractions, rather than forcing upon us the horrid, warm smelly details of their particularity. So, we say to the strangers in our midst, "Keep moving, buddy. Don't stop here."
Is there something wrong with us, then? No. I think this is a 'normal' attitude.
The many waves of immigrants to the United States have generally been met with chilly acceptance (which is a tight-lipped narrowed eye acknowledgment that they got off the boat and are now walking around on OUR streets). The first generation often made little progress, beyond surviving. It was their children who made progress, and maybe by the 3rd generation, became integrated and American.
That's the normal, time-consuming progression of events. The skids do not need to be greased by militant advocacy demanding acceptance IMMEDIATELY, or tyrant SJWs guilt tripping everyone for being sexist, racist, homophobic, islamophobic, etc-phobic--what ever is convenient to guilt trip people for at the moment.
What Trump will run into, though, that he's never had to deal with previously, is that he needs Congress to do what he wants, and can't fire then when they don't give it. They have their own game, and their own political survival via re-election trumps Trump. Government is like business in some ways, but is an entirely different animal in others.
Is Trump a German Idealist?
I think the German Idealism video is about, 'I can say whatever I want and it doesn't matter' – the crowd made it fit the discourse by thinking he was talking about Nazism anyway. Reality literally doesn't matter.
I don't think democracy means the people realize their will immediately in the house/senate/president, but I think the idea is they force the elected body to make compromises. It never works all that well, but it's like that Churchill quote, it's better than the alternative. It's obvious that the people often act against their own interests, and shouldn't be able to instantly materialize their ephemeral passions as policy; but it's also obvious that a governing body of enlightened rulers will grow corrupt, callous and decadent if they have no one else to answer to. Democracy is a forced tension between the two groups, I guess.
It could be, but the fact that he started out with the Atlantis stuff makes me think otherwise. My first guess was, college student studying philosophy who on the spot ranted about something he knows about. He didn't really pick up on the responses interpreting it as Nazism and run with it.
Quoting csalisbury
Probably because it's funny and he can say whatever he wants – which is the point. In a democracy it doesn't matter what you say, because everything is equally disconnected from reality. Asking if Trump is a German idealist is no more or less silly than asking if he's whatever else he's supposed to be.
Quoting csalisbury
I think your mistake is assuming that there is some sort of systematic connection between the reasons that people vote or say things and what happens. Again, my point is that democracy is pure circus – it's not something that gets interrupted by circus when we're not vigilant, or whatever. People don't for or against anyone's interest, they vote based on IRL memes. Trump embraces the circus, at least to a degree that others don't.
Democracy is literally about 'representation.' It sets aside the doxa to give it authority in a principled way. Nothing a voter thinks or does connects in any traceable causal way to what results from those thoughts and decisions, so you're free to think or say or do whatever you want and blame someone else for saying the opposite.
As for other systems, I don't know. I think to propose a system from out of nowhere that would be better would be a leftist way of looking at things, which I reject. The closest I could come would be that I'm suspicious of the distinction between government and family, and think the family is probably the only institution that works in any interesting capacity, in that it creates a situation where self-interest and altruism effortlessly align, and culture that binds members together forms spontaneously, along with love. A democracy has none of these things, and is generally poisonous to the family, which is now dying.
Local reps wouldn't try to get pork into bills if voting had nothing to do with results. You have to deliver at some level. The whole point, imo, is that everyone tends toward corruption so you have to force government to cater to people. And they do, they cater. Because they're up for re-election. I have no starry-eyed belief that this system works well, or that elected officials cater beyond the bare minimum. I just think it makes a certain antagonism (ppl vs government) internal to the system and I think that's nice, and works better than any other system.
I agree, too, about family - family and close friends are the only thing I care deeply about - but globalization is a fait accompli & I don't know how you would remove those forces antithetical to family without a forceful, planned intervention (as you say, that would be that leftist way of treating things.)
Christianity did a big ideological number on the family long ago and it's grown from there. Can't dial things back.
- ??? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????????
- Lmfao. Thule society. Vrill society was a lot cooler?
- This guy is a legend?
- how2shitpostirl?
- me irl?
-----
I stand by my first interpretation. It's 100% about shitposting and trolling. Also this vid has 208 views, the poster has posted 4 vids and the guy in the clip mentions the alt-right at the end- so we can assume you found this through some alt-right something. It wouldn't have come up in any search.
Here's a vid posted by the guy with the most-liked comment on the german idealism vid:
What's shitty about this video isn't that it's offensive (it's trying so hard it can't be) it's that it's two guys (one's the dominant 'edgy' one, one's the timid foil trying to play along, you can feel their entire lopsided friendship dynamic ) who can't differentiate easy edgy-humor from irl events. It's all the same shit to them. It's all an opportunity to seem beyond-it-all. (tho you know they'd flip at Dad if he stopped footing the bills, you can hear that too or I can)
& Maybe they're just in high school, and I get it, I tried to be edgy too, in similar (tho I hope more clever) ways. You have to break your zeitgeist's idols at some point, if you're ever going to become your own person. But taking this same type of thing past high school, well into your twenties or thirties? That's what the alt-right sometimes feels like to me. And then it's just like: 'C'mon, that's all you've got? That's how you're going to define and express yourself?' kek :'-(
Mercy, mercy, Mary.
I suppose I do have a thing about Social Justice Warriors. I used to be an earlier version. I was up on all this stuff, and not cynically. Like a lot of things, it got carried away with itself. It became too self-righteous; too judgmental; too dictatorial; too unreflective. It became unhealthy. It shallowed out. It narrows down to nothing.
Three Dog Night had a hit with this song from Hair: of which...
Of course, each generation has its causes célèbre, its favoring bleeding victims. And I get that every generation tends to run their vaunted ideals into the ground through over use. There's a proverb, "Never trust a young man who isn't a socialist, and never trust an old man who is." I don't entirely agree with this piece of wisdom, having been a young socialist and an old one both, but there is some truth to it. The truth is that youthful and stringent idealism should mature, ferment into a more sophisticated apprehension of reality. There's a good chance that the old socialist has run Marx into the ground.
The thing to which people object in all of the discourse about isms and phobias is that it retains the raw flavor of youth who have JUST DISCOVERED that bad things happen to good people, (or worse, good things happen to bad people), that life is unfair, that individuals contain a host of contradictory values (and are still good people), etc. etc. etc.
The trouble is the mature arguments of the "SJWs" are descriptive of social relations, which people like yourself steadfastly deny. There something else going on than just being disgruntled at youthful idealism. To use are recent exchanges as an example, you would not accept the descriptive argument about the racism (the genocide and dispossession of the Native Americans for mainly economic purposes) of the US towards the Native Americans. You dismissed it with appeals to that "it was just capitalism" or "other people did or would do the same thing (indeed, you sounded just like Hanover does in this thread).
For most people objecting to the isms and phobias, it the same. Their arguments are made with direct denial of the descriptive points about society and people, rather than on the basis of some "SJWs" being abusive or lacking pragmatism. You don't, for example, stand-up and say: "The US was undoubtedly racist against the Native Americans. Europeans destroyed and exploited many indigenous people and cultures... but that doesn't means we have to go around abusing racists, sexists, etc.,etc. and getting lost in the world of magical utopias." Rather you treat these descriptions of societies as if they were just virtue signalling, as if it were about saying white people we inferior to everyone else or being seen to be supporting oppressed groups.
You treat out understanding of society as if it must be sanitised of description of oppression.
But the ideal never changes. It's just that we always end up falling short of it.
I was really happy when the SCOTUS opened the way for gay marriage. Some things about Trump disgust me. Those feelings are proximity-to-the-ideal detectors. The youthful are more likely to be burned alive by those feelings because they were just born and they still have a little bit of eternity to them... poetically speaking.
Nice, yeah.
Quoting csalisbury
If it were possible, it would happen by voting with your dollars. Media campaigns and social gaffes can now affect the profits of large corporations in volatile ways if anyone involved with that corporation doesn't toe some doxic line. Stop buying trash, stop watching shitty Marvel and Disney movies, cancel your HBO subscription, throw away all of your garbage newspapers, log off of FaceBook, and learn about your traditional music, cooking, and spirituality. Go to church. Read a book. Individuals have to take an interest in culture, and demonstrate that they're no longer interested in its destruction.
I guess maybe I've been 'sold on' the idea that people are inevitably going to be more passionate and simple-minded in their ideals during their teens-mid 20s, but, idk, it seems to bear out empirically, doesn't it?
What a joke! No.
Spirituality? Church? Don't make me laugh.
Cooking? That's a chore. I'll order a takeaway.
How about [i]you[/I] stop going to [i]shitty[/I] church and listening to [i]garbage[/I] traditional music and reading [i]trash[/I]. Throw it all away. Watch a Marvel movie or read the news.
Such snobbery, such hyperbole. The destruction of culture? Pfft.
It looks like there's little evidence Bannon hates Jews. The problem with the left yelling racist is that they're now the boy who cried wolf.
What I'd need to jump on the hang Bannon bandwagon is some real evidence that Bannon has real plans to push forth anti-Jewish policy. In truth, the liberal agenda is far less kind to Israel, and I see that as a real threat to Jews, far more than the evangelicals who fully support Israel but who believe I'm going to straight to hell. All this trying to decipher what goes on in the hearts of politicians isn't real interesting to me. I'm well aware they care only for themselves anyway. My concern is pragmatic. I trust they're all scoundrels regardless of stripe. You don't need to prove that to me.
Liberals are unkind to Israel? No. Netanyahu is unkind to his own culture by presenting its ass to the world. Israel actually did victimize Palestinians in the 20th Century. To behave as if Israel is now the victim is a betrayal of those Palestinian victims and it's blatantly absurd.
I'd go further, removing such forces is impossible without a myth that drives everything else down. "Family" is itself a social myth that drives doxa. The structures of social power become parasitic on family. While family is no doubt an altruistic force, in the social context it turns into the myth that drives the politucal machine. A defence not of family members, but of a political force or organisation.
TGW misunderstands what voting is about. Like many, he thinks it's goal is to have someone who advocates for one's own interests. This is a bit a a red herring. To many people, it doesn't really matter who is in power. Their life goes on regardless of which part is in power, without being affected too much. The impact of elections is on the few who are actually impacted by differences in value and policy.
Most of us don't vote for our own interests, but with respect to the internets of [i]others[/I]. An election is all about the myth we value, about the team we grant power to, the group of people we say have the right to impact on the lives of a minority of others in some way. That's what politics is all about. It's what happens when human communities grow large enough that people don't already have an interest in acting.
Cooking isn't a chore, it's a cultural art with a rich history that blends culture, personal creativity, and sensuality.
In my view Bannon is a symptom of the change in the public discourse. It is more offensive than before.
Actually, it was all quite easy to forecast if Trump would win: The protests, the lewd remarks and open bigotry, and then the shock of the "lewd remarks and open bigotry" in the media, the tension and division. It would happen. When Trump called Mexicans rapists, then it was off. And if he would really win, everything above could be totally anticipated.
The reason is that when a populist breaks the boundaries of "proper" political discourse, it is viewed by his supporters as "straight talk", talk about the actual reality etc. And hence the earlier norms are assaulted as being just "Politically Correct". PC is not correct otherwise, then it would called more of common sense good manners. And sometimes there is a point to critisize the way things are talked about, yet many times there isn't.
Part of the people feel that the discourse is dominated by (leftist) political correctness, by far more educated and more well of people than them, who seem to have a condescending attitude towards them "ordinary people", the countryside folk, the hillbillies, rednecks, blue collar workers and all the stereoypes, They finally see that this is their chance to spill their guts. And some of them then feel free to talk their mind. If the now President elect called Mexican rapists, guess then ordinary people can call them too. And this of course has an instant backlash. Suddenly the whole atmosphere is like from a bygone era, as if all the progress that has earlier happened has been swept away and the society is hostile, racist and non-permissive.
Why I say this is that I've seen a similar thing in my country, which was close enough. When a totally new and truly ideologically populist party, the True Finns, broke the decades old equilibrium of the ruling parties, it created a similar situation with it's anti-immigration rhetoric (quite similar to Trump). There weren't protests here in my country, but similar uneasiness of these racist hillbilly (here called juntti) bigots coming to decide about things in the Parliament. And a far more hostile public discourse than before.
But in the end, the True Finns have been, to much dissappointment of their supporters, a very responsible party while now in power and basically a team player with the other parties once the biggest migrant crisis hit the country since WW2. And this may be the thing with a Bannon. Assuming that he will be there as an advisor to Trump in the future, we really have to see just what kind of administration the Trump White House will be.
At least it surely isn't going to be boring.
To some it's an art, to others it's a chore. You and your cultural snobbery don't get to dictate what it is or isn't to anyone.
I find it amusing how you (or perhaps it was your cohort) mockingly bring up the PC police, when you're acting like the head of the culture police. All we need now is the head of the virtue police, otherwise known as Agustino.
Did I ever say I got to? Why are you so defensive?
Whether or not you consider it a chore has no bearing on its value as an art. How bizarre to object that one person cannot decide what something is, on grounds that you have another opinion of it. But then, what makes an individual an authority on any subject, and why should individual reactions be the litmus for what is and isn't an art?
Your tone was dictatorial. [i]Do this, stop that, throw that away... I think of it as an art, so it's an art, and not a chore...[/I]
Quoting The Great Whatever
Because I don't like your attitude, nor what you said, nor the way that you said it. Because I found it objectionable. And because some of what you've said is indirectly about me.
Quoting The Great Whatever
Whether or not you value it as an art has no bearing on it being a chore.
Quoting The Great Whatever
Do you really think that I'm the only person for which it is more of a chore than an art? It's neither one nor the other in any absolute sense. I wouldn't say that cooking is an art, I'd say that there is cooking and then there is the art of cooking.
No it wasn't – I'm sorry if you read it that way. In the context of the post, those were clearly suggestions for someone like-minded, of what I thought were good ideas. If you think they're not, okay, you disagree with me, but I don't see why that is grounds for outrage. I think you're wrong, but last I checked, I'm allowed to think that without there being an outrage over it, as if I personally offended you.
Quoting Sapientia
Considering I wasn't addressing you or talking about you, I don't know why you'd think that.
Quoting Sapientia
But you haven't explained why an individual's opinion on what it is should matter to me.
Chore or bore, artful or martyrdom, every body has to eat. There are, basically, 3 ways of feeding yourself:
Get it raw and cook it; get it pre-cooked and reheat it; or let somebody else do it for you. Gardens, stores, and restaurants pretty much answer our needs.
I used to like to cook, but like most things, if one doesn't do it regularly, one loses skills. When I have the recipe in front of me, things come out OK. But I just don't like cooking much, anymore -- especially foods that require a lot of attention: measuring, mixing, seasoning, cooking in several steps, stuff that is touchy about too much or not enough heat, all that.
One forgets things. For a decade or so, the pancakes I made were not especially good. Then the New York Times had an article on pancakes, and it mentioned cultured buttermilk. Right, the missing link! It makes all the difference in the world. But then the last time I forgot to add melted butter to the batter and that also made all the difference in the world in the other direction.
Tonight's meal will mostly be reheated. Everything will be done in the microwave.
I didn't find that to be clear. It seemed like general advice, not aimed at anyone in particular.
I don't just disagree. The grounds for outrage is your judgemental attitude. If I publicly suggested to someone like-minded in a mixed audience that he stop going to shitty church or reading trash like the Bible, then I wouldn't be surprised if that provoked outrage for other members of the audience.
If you're free to say that sort of thing, in the way that you did, then why aren't I similarly free to object to it or express outrage? Doesn't it work both ways?
Quoting The Great Whatever
Like I said, it [i]indirectly[/I] related to me - meaning it didn't have to be addressed to me or specifically about me.
Quoting The Great Whatever
Well, I thought that you were just telling people what they should do or care about or appreciate or how they should see things, when, for me, that sort of thing is more a matter of personal preference, taste, what you find appealing, or enjoy doing. Hobbies and such. And I got the impression that you were looking down your nose at others who don't share your opinion or preferences or whatever.
But the flip side of what you said is simply that the media has lost its power to set the tone or direction of the Democracy.
Well, yeah, it's possible that someone has racist, sexist, etc. views in any situation we could describe.
Quoting csalisbury
In my case, part of why I'd do it (that is, function as Bannon did in his position at Breitbart) is because I'm a free speech absolutist, and I feel that an important aspect of that is people expressing speech that is controversial, that others are uncomfortable with, that offends others, etc.
I think it's okay for someone to have anti-semitic beliefs and to express those beliefs, because I think it's okay for someone to have ANY conceivable beliefs and to express anything conceivable. I'm not in favor of belief/thought/expression policing, even if it's just via social pressure. In my opinion, (especially widespread) social pressure for such things is just as bad as making them illegal. That would go just as well for widespread discriminatory social pressure of course. My objection there isn't the content or expression of beliefs but the act of socially pressuring others to conform to something.
You're free to, sure, but I just don't see what relevance or argumentative force it has on the conversation.
Quoting Sapientia
OK, well, I disagree. These things aren't just a matter of personal preference or taste, and transcend the individual. And culture transcends hobbies, and is more important than them.
The argumentative force behind my comment would have been the implication that for people like me, going to church or cooking might not be worthwhile or a better way of spending time. So any kind of general advice or demands that someone like me should go to church or spend more time cooking might be wrongheaded.
But that was before you clarified that you were only addressing someone of like mind.
Quoting The Great Whatever
Yeah, we disagree. Whether or not a Marvel movie is crappy is very much a matter of personal preference or taste. Perhaps not entirely, but very much so.
I don't think it has to be church specifically, but most human beings are not happy living a purely material existence and require some form of spiritual enrichment. Nothing of the sort, in my opinion, is provided by 'the open society' as it is in America now. The gambit of American culture is that we can live a purely material existence, and I think that's not so. And generally, I think Christianity is a richer and more interesting tradition than that coming out of its detractors.
Quoting Sapientia
Nah, I think they're crappy. People might like them, but that doesn't make them not crappy. It's a matter of personal taste how you find the movie, but that's not the issue.
Then perhaps I'm simply not like most human beings. I don't ever feel the need to use mumbo-jumbo terms like "spiritual enrichment". Do I require it? Do I yearn for it? I'm not even sure what it is, but if it's anything like church, then I already have something of an opinion on it, and I trust my opinion more than I trust yours.
Quoting The Great Whatever
Well, these terms that you're using are a bit vague, so I'm not quite sure what you even mean. What's a purely material existence? I could live without Christianity, and I don't think that it would be such a great loss.
Quoting The Great Whatever
And you thinking they're crappy doesn't make them not good, either.
Okay? I don't know why you're telling me all this.
Quoting Sapientia
A material existence would involve the means for physical survival and maybe reproduction, lack of pain, and possibly entertainment and the experience of pleasure and comfort and interest. Most people find an existence consisting of only these things unsatisfactory, because they don't provide any context or method for living life self-consciously, with a narrative history and vision of what it means to live in a certain way as part of a certain people.
I think the dominant opinion among educated people in the West is now that some sort of nihilism is self-evident, and that meaning is something that must be projected onto the universe by individual effort. But this seems to be due to a lack of experience with meaning and culture, which people then take to be the normal state of things.
Quoting Sapientia
I never said it did. Their being crappy makes them crappy, obviously. I say it because it's true; it's not true because I say it.
I don't know why you're perplexed at my reply. What were you expecting?
Quoting The Great Whatever
I'm still not sure what you mean, to be honest. A context or method for living life self-consciously? What's a narrative history? I'm guessing you're counting religion, but I'm not sure what else would tick all of those boxes. Philosophy? Politics? Being part of some sort of club or group?
Quoting The Great Whatever
I don't know if I'd put it quite like that, but I am a nihilist of some sort similar to what you describe, and I do think that there is good reason for that.
Quoting The Great Whatever
I don't agree with that assessment at all.
Quoting The Great Whatever
How predicable. And boring.
That's fine. I was just making enquiries out of curiosity, and expressing my opinion, which is hardly out of place on a philosophy forum.
You do seem to be projecting, though. So, perhaps you should look inwards for answers.
I mean, how else am I supposed to react to comments like: "Nah, I think they're crappy". That sort of comment [i]is[/I] boring (which, by the way, is pretty much just a more succinct way of saying "just doesn't seem to be an interesting way to discuss something").
You do understand what that means, right?
Look you and others routinely preen about how you recognize religion and spirituality as dumb "mumbo jumbo" that you won't be taken in by, but then you get instantly up in arms if people attack blockbusters and suggest cooking is more than a chore.
The idea seems to be that being above religion and its shallow mummery makes you a freethinker with no illusions and this is a philosophy forum so other freethinkers will naturally approve and applaud.
So this whole posture of being offended at people making cultural distinctions is silly.
I should do something like that. I don't think that I've ever made anything where I used a recipe. I just kind of throw in the things I want, and cook them till they're done. They usually do look like art projects of sorts when I'm done... elementary school ones at least.
Hollywood needs to ruin Utena. I promise that I'll still like it. Even if they last airbender it.
I guess we can just decide not to hold ourselves to any standards and just live like plebs and animals, but that sounds lame, I'll choose a better worldview.
I don't give much of a shit. Being what I am makes it difficult to retain any dignity at all in this world. I can't be humiliated anymore... but this comes at the cost of a lack of trust, and belief in others.
I'll figure out how to just go for it someday too. I'm like an expect at putting shit off until later though. Fuck future me.
How do you propose that anything about quality in the sense of assessments or value judgments could be not about personal taste?
I do watch plenty of fictional TV shows, though I only watch them on DVD/Blu-Ray, and as with movies (I'm a huge movie fan), as well as novels for that matter, I stick almost exclusively with "genre fiction," which in my case is basically a way of simply saying that I don't care very much for anything that's "just drama," especially realist drama (though it's also a way of saying that I am a huge horror, SciFi, fantasy, thriller, mystery, action etc . fan, and I'm also a huge fan of more absurdist-leaning comedies). If there were a crime, mystery or comedy angle I might be interested--for example, I love "Rizzoli & Isles", or if one of the cast or crew were someone I'm a huge fan of--that's the main way I wind up watching some realist dramas, but looking at some brief info on "Gilmore Girls," it doesn't look like something I'd be very interested in.
Because the evidence shows that those sorts of assessments/value judgments obtain nowhere else or in nothing else. It's difficult to even make sense of what we'd be saying with respect to them not being personal taste.
Empirical evidence re what's occurring and where it occurs when those sorts of judgments are made.
Like someone saying "Such and such is an excellent film," or "Such and such is awful," or "Such and such is sublime," or "So and so doesn't display the elegance of melodic phrasing in this piece unlike this other piece," etc. etc.
I explained this already. There's zero evidence that those sorts of quality assessments/value judgments are anything but personal taste, and it doesn't even make any sense what we'd be saying re how they'd obtain as something other than personal taste.
A particular person says them. That particular person is telling us how they feel about the thing in question. That's what personal taste is.
No to your no. I'm not saying anything about them explicitly saying "I feel", and I am not saying anything about their beliefs per se.
'The rock is heavy.'
'The movie is excellent.'
These sentences are about, respectively, a rock and a movie. Neither makes any reference to a person's feelings. So why would you think that's what they're about?
(And by the way, I'd say the person at least feels "that rock is heavy")
Are there any sentences that do not express matters of personal taste? If not, which ones don't?
Taste is an assessment of like/dislike, preference, etc ., so no. I didn't say that. I said it's also an expression of something they feel.
The difference aside from that is that in the one case we can show objective evidence for the claim, we can explain what it amounts to in terms of objective properties, etc.
Hence why I asked you in the first place to attempt that. So provide an example. What would we "point to" re where the quality interesting or good would be, just what it would amount to as something objective, in the movie itself?
As you can see, Harrison Ford can't act. Movies with actors that can't act are bad. So the movie is bad. This is objectively observable as much as a rock's weight.
If so, this will not get what you want, to differentiate between the rock and movie cases, since I can just ask you what makes a rock heavy, and then no matter what you respond with, ask why x means that the rock is heavy, rather than light. See how that works.
So what makes stunted delivery bad acting rather than good acting?
Again, it doesn't matter what we call it. It's just a name for that objective property. It has no other connotation. You could call it anything.
Not true. I did specify them for specific case upon request. Why are you lying?
Quoting Terrapin Station
But connotations are not what is at issue. When applied to people, 'heavy' has a negative connotation. That doesn't mean calling someone heavy is about your personal tastes. It's about whether someone is heavy. Likewise for calling a movie good or interesting. It's not about your personal tastes, but about whether the movie is good or interesting.
There are no objective positive or negative connotations. No objective normatives.
In my opinion, at least re the genre films I watch, the vast majority of films are good, including new ones. I don't really have a "best ever." I don't really think about artworks that way
I'm highly genre specific for the most part as well, but after reading at least a couple thousand manga, I think that maybe like four were good. Good ones too, I always come across too early on, and because they're fucking spectacular, everyone hates them, so I usually have to wait at least two months between chapters. At least you literally get to age with the characters, I guess.
Anime I'm more lenient on, as only like a dozen exist at all, and even though they come no where near the few good manga, I like about half of them.
Wow, no way I'd bother with a couple thousand of something if I were to feel that only four of them were good. Heck, I'd have a problem with much less than a 75% success rate for something like that.
Like you say, it was just an example. It is one of a number of things that you were judging to be shitty or trash, and that one should stop doing or throw away, and instead go and do something else of which you approve.
That's why - @csalisbury also - it's silly to make out as if it is just this one thing - what The Great Whatever thinks about Marvel films - that has ruffled my feathers.
I think it is worth defending because what you targeted is reprentative of a certain lifestyle and way of seeing things which I think has merit. And all I really get from you is that you don't see it that way, and have a different lifestyle, and you disapprove, and think that others who don't share your way of seeing things or your lifestyle are inferior, and that they should adopt your personal way of seeing things and your lifestyle.
I think that that's narrowminded and arrogant.
And @csalisbury, even if you're right in what is basically a charge of hypocrisy against me, that has no bearing on my criticism of The Great Whatever (cf. [I]Tu quoque[/I]).
Quoting The Great Whatever
That's jumping to extremes. More hyperbole?
Quoting The Great Whatever
>:O
Unintentionally funny argument of the day?
I reckon I can find a more sophisticated assessment than that, and which contradicts yours - even if it accepts that Harrison Ford doesn't act well in the movie. Would that one be objective or not? If so, then yours would be wrong.
I don't buy that the subjective plays no part in these assessments. It can influence them. Calling yours objective is suspicious, to say the least.
Uh, yeah, that's kind of how it works. Although I don't think you will find any, since all evidence points to the movie being bad.
Quoting Sapientia
Influence them? What does that matter? What matters is whether they're right. Subjectivity can't influence that.
Quoting Sapientia
Well, I don't think those things, so that's again your projection.
And besides, suppose it's my 'personal opinion' that it's not narrow-minded and arrogant. In fact, maybe my 'personal opinion' is that thinking that which lifestyles are appropriate is determined by arbitrary individual opinion is 'narrow-minded and arrogant.' Now what are you going to do? It's just my 'personal opinion.' For you to contradict it or suggest I hold another would be 'narrow-minded and arrogant,' right?
And also, why would a lifestyle that involves watching Disney movies and not knowing how to cook have merit? Why not defend something interesting or worthwhile instead?
Red Herring! The criticism you leveled was never a reasoned, logical argument nor even presented as such, so fallacy-sniping doesn't make any sense in this context at all. you objected to TGW on the grounds that you had a different view and didn't like his tone (you cited snobbery, for one...ad hominem! appeal to emotion! blah)
So, yeah, you didn't like his tone or his opinion because you felt like you were being judged for your cultural values and preferences. But so what? Everyone makes such value judgments, including you. So what's your point? I assume you don't want to argue that people shouldn't make value judgments or have tones?
So again, there seems to be this background thing going on where you feel comfortable and confident slyly mocking the beliefs and traditions of others, but weirdly thin-skinned when people mock movies and ordering takeout. Anyway, I'm just saying that's the vibe I get from many of your posts, the tone, and I think this asymmetry (insouciant dismissal of certain values and cultures on the one hand, outrage when you think the stuff you like is being dismissed on the other) suggests extreme narrowmindedness and arrogance.
Not my fault that everything is terrible.
Yesterday I read a very interesting article accusing the liberals and left of crying wolf over Trump's racism. It takes each accusation and examines it quite thoroughly:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/
Anyway, I made bomba rice for dinner this evening.
Bomba rice is a variety of rice cultivated in the Valencian region of Spain, where I'm currently living. I'd never heard of it till I moved here recently. It was brought here by the Arabs a long time ago, and it's the kind of rice to use in paella, a dish that originates here. It's quite similar to risotto rice, like Arborio, but I seem to get on with it better. It just behaves well, in the pan, on the plate, and in the mouth. It's got character.
What I do is chop an onion and some garlic, fry the onion, after a few minutes add the garlic, and then add some chopped or grated tomatoes. Then I add the rice, stir it around for a minute, and then add some stock/broth. I tend to make it kind of in the way you make risotto--adding the liquid gradually--just because I find it easier to watch over what I'm cooking rather than calculate the amount of liquid I'll need and then just leave it. (I hate leaving a meal just cooking while I do nothing. I can't relax.) So I just add stock whenever it's getting too low. In between stirring it I cover the pan, because the great thing about bomba rice is that the grains absorb a lot of liquid and expand in size without losing their shape and integrity. So I mostly keep the lid on so as not to boil away the liquid.
Saffron is a good addition towards the end, for both colour and flavour. I also like some heat, so chilis, paprika and cayenne pepper work well.
I've found it goes especially well with morcilla, which is a Spanish blood sausage. One way to incorporate this is to fry the chunks of morcilla in the same pan even before you put the onions in, and just leave them in there while the rice cooks. So long as you don't burn the morcilla to a crisp, it seems to be impossible to overcook it.
Cooking aside, that trump/racism article is very interesting but I think it's wrong. The way I see it, the problem with Trump and race isn't that he's actually racist but that he's perceived as being so by people who harbor deep racial animus, which goes well beyond registered white nationalists (and he very clearly encourages this perception while also maintaining plausible deniability) - what this does is foster an environment where it feels ok to be racist or whatever-ist. The president can say on tv he never meant that, but you still feel safe lashing out in public. The national tone or mood shifts. I personally don't think he's that much more racist than your average American. But that's irrelevant. If the argument is that by accusing Trump of strengthening racist sentiments*, we forfeit the right to be taken seriously if we call a candidate who endorses the kkk racist (i.e. we won't be able call people who declare that they're racist racist) - well that's a bad argument. isn't it? Don't say 'racist' until the president commends lynching during the state of the union? If someone is openly endorsing the kkk and still has a shot at winning, then things would have gotten bad enough no dissenting voice would make much of a difference.
The discussion of the "I love Hispanics" taco pic seemed so tone deaf I couldn't tell if the author was trolling. (what? that frat bro is a misogynist? he posted on facebook about how much he loves women! we'll know it's bad when he stops posting stuff like that...)
*To be fair, the author mentions those who accuse Trump of spearheading a white nationalist agenda, with white nationalist priorities. Those voices are out there, sure (as were the voices of those who thought Obama was an african-born radical socialist) but by and large people are more worried about the nonchalant integration of people with racist/xenophobic views into positions of power, and how that will play out, not about a conscious and concerted effort to make the US a white ethnostate)
I think maybe people on the left project their own racism onto everybody else. It reminds me of that Avenue Q song, Everyone's a Little Bit Racist. On hearing it, I got the feeling I was supposed to laugh along and think, 'yeah, I've totally thought those things!' but I hadn't, so the impression was more like, no, that's just you that's racist, retard.
That and I think it has to do with misdirecting one's own fears and prejudices at other people. If all you think about is race, it's impossible to think that everyone else doesn't also. I guess, also, there might be something to be said that it is the left that has been inflaming racist sentiments in recent years, for more than Trump ever has. I don't know, I'm so tired of these people.
Listening on youtube. I think this is interesting. You accuse the educated left - a lot - of condescendingly scolding poor whites for their views. But you seem more than a little irked at the racist ideas in Avenue Q which you don't harbor - but hey, they're 'projections'
Let's go through the racist ideas in the video.
(1) People with similar 'ethnic' names must be related (or at least this is a solid thing to joke about)
(2) Rap is bad for kids because of the language and ideas
(3) foreign workers should learn to speak english
(4) Asian people say words funny
(5)Jews control finance
(6)White people have all the power
(7) Ethnic taxi drivers have bad BO
Poor whites are on board with almost all of this. I hear this kind of stuff day in, day out (when I dispatch a call, part of that involves giving the name of the person who placed the call. Goldstein, chang, mohammed, and nyongo all get reactions. Often.)
So what do I make of this? You clearly on aren't on board with these ideas (or even admitting that people beside projecting privileged whites harbor them!), but you also aren't on board with ivory tower libs calling out poor whites for having these ideas - so what do you want?
This is my suspicion You don't care either way - you just want an angle to attack other people on campus. All this shit is just fodder for intracampus sniping, fuel for local resentments. Which is ivory tower thinking on steroids.
Prove me wrong! Walk me through it.
Casual racists who grow up around it, and don't have it inflicted upon them as a matter of curriculum, are not dangerous in the way that educated racists are. I personally don't like the casually racist ideas, and don't participate in them. But whereas I think those are uncouth or unproductive, or even mean or sometimes a pathway to violence (and I think these attitudes also come from being educated in a certain way), I think the educated attitudes are seriously dangerous. Casual racism comes from contact with other ethnicities, noticing differences, having ingrained biologically-driven preferences, and having bad experiences with an out-group. All of that is unfortunate, but it's part of life. The educated racism is not, it's pathological and insane. I'm just really, really tired of these sorts of people.
But yeah, the Avenue Q song doesn't resonate with me. I mean, look at this:
https://youtu.be/vqn9rXu1TCM?t=3m1s
The joke is literally that South African languages have clicks in them (the name, so far as I am aware, is made up, and is a parody of Xhosa). How is that funny? I mean, it doesn't offend me, but there does seem to be this weird sort of racism to it in that the very notion that a language might make use of a sound that yours doesn't is enough material for a standup routine. Likewise, how is it 'funny' that Mandarin speakers sound like Mandarin speakers?
I guess, If I were you responding to yourself, I'd say that noticing differences is unfortunate but part of life? Are you outraged? I'm assuming you'd want to say no, based on earlier posts. So what's your point? (See, I agree with you, but you seem to also want to go beyond this and chastise other college ppl for chastising non-college ppl.)
You suggested that the Avenue Q stuff was left projection. It really isn't, not at all, not even close. And so I agree that the systematized ideological racism of certain well-educated people is pernicious in a whole other way. For sure. But I'm still not sure how you're reconciling the it's-wrong-to-look-down-on-poor-whites-for-their-ideas stance with the I-can't-stand-people-who-make-jokes-based-on-arbitrary-cultural-differences stance. (I'm assuming you're not trying to do a thing of the guy in that video wasn't white while libs at college specifically hone in on poor whites?)
Idk man, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
I was introduced to it in high school by a neighbor of mine, who was pretty much the gold standard of what you might call a bourgeois southern Californian – liberal, college educated, gay, and so on. It seemed to serve, to me, a function of 'whew, I'm glad they said it so we can all admit we feel this way,' but my reaction on hearing it was not that.
Quoting csalisbury
It's not that I can't stand it, it's just not something that resonates with me or that I have a desire to join in with. Like I said, I think it's unfortunate, but it's of a different quality from educated racism (which I think this particular neighbor was not a party to – he was not young enough).
I'm the anti-Sturgeon--I say that 90% of everything is pretty good.
I have interests. Just like everyone else. Some interests I am more interested in than others.
You think I'm some kind of invader, trying to get to everyone to agree with me and I suppose in a way you are right, but only insofar as everyone else with an opinion does, to some degree or another. Convincing people and being convinced is part of the point of a place like this. Is it not?
Also as someone with mildly(?) controversial views, I have more reason to speak them then someone with less controversial views.
So as not to derail this thread: if you want to reply, it should be here