Jump to content
TAHAWK

Civil Protest, Policing, Moving Forward

Recommended Posts

The FBI has really tarnished its reputation with conservatives.  I don't know if citizen academies (Jr. G-Men) has any great appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 " It's ironic that a country founded by rebels now has such a strong contingent of folks who think conformity is what we should be teaching in schools.  I can't think this is really an isolated issue though, since pretty much EVERY generation in every country throughout history has thought their younger generations were full of silly liberal nonsense."

 I lived through "No freedom of speech for Communists," to see "No freedom of speech for anyone other than us [SBLM, Anarchists,  and/or socialists.]"  I think conformity to an authoritarian paradigm, right or left, or racial, should NOT be taught in schools.  It should be THE place where opposing ideas are compared - not repressed.  Now university professors are fired for expressing opinions as shocking as "All lives matter" or "captalism is not inherently evil."  Berkeley was the center of the "Free Speech Movement" during the Vietnam blunder.  Now any speech not conforming to the current PC is met with Molotov Cocktails and clubs.  

The current political silliness-de-jour is about as illiberal as possible.  NOT " I disagree with what you say but defend your right to say it" INSTEAD: " I disagree with what you say, so you are not allowed to say it."  And this obscenity is tacitly support by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"LIberal,"like "progressive" and "blue,." is makeup on a pig.   Woodrow Wilson, THE 'liberal" "progressive," imprisoned political opponents and encouraged mobs to attack those whose ideas he disliked.  Sound familiar?

Meanwhile, the Black-on-Black slaughter in the cities -  run for decades on a one-party system  - is merely background noise for the "Woke" and their political, media, and entertainment allies. 

The statute of Frederick Douglass is torn down by the "enlightened."  FREDERICK DOUGLASS !   An ignorance so profound in the young is not "silly."  

 

Edited by TAHAWK
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TAHAWK said:

 " It's ironic that a country founded by rebels now has such a strong contingent of folks who think conformity is what we should be teaching in schools.  I can't think this is really an isolated issue though, since pretty much EVERY generation in every country throughout history has thought their younger generations were full of silly liberal nonsense."

 I lived through "No freedom of speech for Communists," to see "No freedom of speech for anyone other than us [SBLM, Anarchists,  and/or socialists.]"  I think conformity to an authoritarian paradigm, right or left, or racial, should NOT be taught in schools.  It should be THE place where opposing ideas are compared - not repressed.  Now university professors are fired for expressing opinions as shocking as "All lives matter" or "captalism is not inherently evil."  Berkeley was the center of the "Free Speech Movement" during the Vietnam blunder.  Now any speech not conforming to the current PC is met with Molotov Cocktails and clubs.  

The current political silliness-de-jour is about as illiberal as possible.  NOT " I disagree with what you say but defend your right to say it" INSTEAD: " I disagree with what you say, so you are not allowed to say it."  And this obscenity is tacitly support by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"LIberal,"like "progressive" and "blue,." is makeup on a pig.   Woodrow Wilson, THE 'liberal" "progressive," imprisoned political opponents and encouraged mobs to attack those whose ideas he disliked.  Sound familiar?

Meanwhile, the Black-on-Black slaughter in the cities -  run for decades on a one-party system  - is merely background noise for the "Woke" and their political, media, and entertainment allies. 

The statute of Frederick Douglass is torn down by the "enlightened."  FREDERICK DOUGLASS !   An ignorance so profound in the young is not "silly."  

 

It’s always remarkable to see and hear those people that want to censor content. I must add that the seemingly endless capacity of the web to bring a tsunami of news, the ability of people to cut paste, hijack, make fake accounts, troll and who knows what else without accountability of any kind is beyond the capacity of mortals to sort through.  
 

upon a time, intellectual, philosophical and academic study and publication was lengthy, in depth and had to be defended one on one.  There was a long stretch of time when professionals dedicated to investigative journalism and history were respected and brought greater clarity to perspective and understanding.

True, there have always been anonymous publications like the Federalist papers, Pseudonyms and the like.  True, the rumor mills are as old as speech itself.  And other creative avenues of disinformation like, “subsequent intelligence found after a military operation that happens to square nicely with justifications but that has to be classified.”

upon a time, critical thinking, logic, reason, and other skills were important.  Now, however, those skills and accountability appear more impediments and irritations that upset a perspective.  I have come to see fanaticism and intolerance as true enemies of this society.  I have seen the resurgence of anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism awaken again like a bout of sleeping malaria which shocks me.  I see now forces and borderline anarchy wanting to dismember the fabric of the entire social spectrum and crazy talk of civil wars. ( a topic I write about elsewhere as absurd).  
 

This response I’m writing here isn’t so much about the Academy ideas as it is about the strange and toxic mixes of disinformation, social order and our capacity to sift through it.

 The threatening nature of ideas, the desire to silence speech and its content, the immediate categorization of those who might disagree as reactionary, racist, oppressive and mean spirited (among many other colorful metaphors) all point to a type of fanaticism that must constantly be tempered.  That seems a tall order for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, yknot said:

According to the laws, ICE detainees may contact pro bono legal advisors, consulates, and certain nongovernmental agencies free of charge. Fees often apply for calls to family, which is where some of the problems occur if detainees don't have access to cash. Each detainee is also assigned a case officer. Detainees don't disappear but they can be left twisting in a dysfunctional and overloaded system. Situations like Guantanamo Bay however are completely different. People have been held there incommunicado which is why there was such pressure to close it. 

That’s good to know.  It is continually a frustrating state of affairs to not be able to strip away subtle hype or slightly different meanings of words to get at the true picture.  Still, no matter how one slices it, getting caught up in such a system is a grim prospect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, David CO said:

The FBI has really tarnished its reputation with conservatives.  I don't know if citizen academies (Jr. G-Men) has any great appeal.

I'm not sure if I'm misinterpreting the posts from Troop75Eagle and David CO.  This program is nothing more than an attempt for local community leaders to see what the FBI does.  It's a glorified ride along.  I dont see anything in the provided link that says otherwise.  Where is this recruiting and Jr-Gmen coming from?  I live in a suburb but the nearest metro city PD has a similar program.   Anyone in my community can also request a ride along with my local PD.

edit: I referenced FBI b/c that was part of my initial posts and jr g-men, the link is actually ICE related but the intent of my post remains the same because its basically the same program.

Edited by thrifty
added content
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2020 at 5:10 PM, David CO said:

This is factually untrue.  

I've said it before.  History has not been a timeline moving steadily from conservative to liberal.  It is more like a pendulum, moving back and forth.  

Well, I didn't actually mean "liberal" using any kind of modern political definition, that was poor word choice on my part.  I was referring to the tendency of each younger generation to lean towards new and different methods and ideas while the older generations lament the passing of their "traditional values" regardless of what they are.  I realize that's not going to hold true in every specific cultural circumstance, but overall, I think it has been the case for as long as young people have been able to actually learn about new ideas.  Obviously in cultures and time periods where information flow was constrained, this tendency is far less pronounced.

That said, I know there have been societies where there were relatively sudden shifts to more conservative beliefs, but I'm not aware of any where this change was driven by the younger generations.  All of the time periods I'm aware of where this has happened it has been an older generation forcing the issue, usually either out of a desire to retain political power or out of religious fervor. (or after a war)

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, elitts said:

 

That said, I know there have been societies where there were relatively sudden shifts to more conservative beliefs, but I'm not aware of any where this change was driven by the younger generations.  All of the time periods I'm aware of where this has happened it has been an older generation forcing the issue, usually either out of a desire to retain political power or out of religious fervor. (or after a war)

 

Almost all youth movements are driven by an older generation.  Young people are very susceptible to flattery.  Always have been.  They love to be told that they are better than the generations that came before them.  Political movements, both liberal and conservative, have taken advantage of this.

The Black Lives Matter movement are telling young people that they are better than their elders.  Bernie Sander did the same thing.  It's very effective.  The kids love it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, David CO said:

Almost all youth movements are driven by an older generation.  Young people are very susceptible to flattery.  Always have been.  They love to be told that they are better than the generations that came before them.  Political movements, both liberal and conservative, have taken advantage of this.

The Black Lives Matter movement are telling young people that they are better than their elders.  Bernie Sander did the same thing.  It's very effective.  The kids love it.  

Well, in the context of what BLM is arguing for, I think that's measurably true.  My grandmother's generation (Silent Generation) was "accidentally" racist enough to be horrifying sometimes (and that ignores any deliberate racism).  My parent's generation (Boomers) were better, but if you look at the time period they've been "in power" they certainly haven't spent much time or effort to fix or work toward fixing the issue; but at least the Boomers started to be cognizant that there is actually a problem.  Gen X is only just now getting to the high table of politics, so we don't really know what they'll manage once they can overcome the existing political inertia.  The <40 folks (maybe even <30) are the ones that are fully engaged on the issue and energized about it, so from the viewpoint of "Who is most likely to drive us towards fixing this" standpoint, they are "the best hope".

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic "liberalism" was characterized by the statement, "I disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it."   Judged by that standard, modern "liberals" are highly illiberal.  What they do not want to be said is to be banned and criminalized as "hate speech," they hatefully demand.  They also seek to go "forward" to socialism, a belief that the state is the source of all good and, thus, should have near absolute power - a very old idea - "regressive."    As Orwell said, “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”  

More Black civilians were killed in the last 24.    Their lives apparently do not "matter" to SBLM.  In the latest media spew, AOC suggests they are killing  each other because they are hungry - a fairly dubious and, even, odious suggestion.  Hunger has been shown to cause aggression, as with crowding [at least in rodents, Sail-fin Mollies, and Guppies].  Not sure how hungry the shooters in NYC are, and NYC is very densely populated (Manhattan ranking 8th in density, in the World).  Chicago is not in the top fifty-eight in population density.  But, then, neither NYC nor Chicago are near the top of U.S. cities for murder rate - not even in the top [bottom] thirty.  For that, you need to look at (or avoid) St. Louis and East St.Louis,  Gary,  Chester, Baltimore, Flint, Detroit, New [sic] Orleans,  Cleveland, and the like.  You know, all those cities run by elderly folks exerting "inertia."  Ha!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, elitts said:

Well, in the context of what BLM is arguing for, I think that's measurably true. 

 

BLM is arguing for a lot of things.  Some I agree with.  Most I disagree with.  

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, elitts said:

Well, in the context of what BLM is arguing for, I think that's measurably true.  My grandmother's generation (Silent Generation) was "accidentally" racist enough to be horrifying sometimes (and that ignores any deliberate racism).  My parent's generation (Boomers) were better, but if you look at the time period they've been "in power" they certainly haven't spent much time or effort to fix or work toward fixing the issue; but at least the Boomers started to be cognizant that there is actually a problem.  Gen X is only just now getting to the high table of politics, so we don't really know what they'll manage once they can overcome the existing political inertia.  The <40 folks (maybe even <30) are the ones that are fully engaged on the issue and energized about it, so from the viewpoint of "Who is most likely to drive us towards fixing this" standpoint, they are "the best hope".

 

I’m one of the Gen x’ers at 52 y/o.  From a Cynical standpoint, my generation will inherit a massive amount of wealth.  In fact, the biggest transfer of wealth in history I’ve read.  Society at large has thumbed its nose at X’ers for a variety of reasons.  I can say that we, among anyone with a lot of ‘skin’ in the game asset wise have a certain tolerance for social justice but also severe distrust of institutions and established religions.  Sympathy is free, but when it comes to political change to grab assets....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

Classic "liberalism" was characterized by the statement, "I disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it."   Judged by that standard, modern "liberals" are highly illiberal.  What they do not want to be said is to be banned and criminalized as "hate speech," they hatefully demand.  They also seek to go "forward" to socialism, a belief that the state is the source of all good and, thus, should have near absolute power - a very old idea - "regressive."    As Orwell said, “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”  

More Black civilians were killed in the last 24.    Their lives apparently do not "matter" to SBLM.  In the latest media spew, AOC suggests they are killing  each other because they are hungry - a fairly dubious and, even, odious suggestion.  Hunger has been shown to cause aggression, as with crowding [at least in rodents, Sail-fin Mollies, and Guppies].  Not sure how hungry the shooters in NYC are, and NYC is very densely populated (Manhattan ranking 8th in density, in the World).  Chicago is not in the top fifty-eight in population density.  But, then, neither NYC nor Chicago are near the top of U.S. cities for murder rate - not even in the top [bottom] thirty.  For that, you need to look at (or avoid) St. Louis and East St.Louis,  Gary,  Chester, Baltimore, Flint, Detroit, New [sic] Orleans,  Cleveland, and the like.  You know, all those cities run by elderly folks exerting "inertia."  Ha!

I disagree with your characterization of liberals. Almost all of them I know do defend the right for others to have contrary opinions. The idea that they all want these banned or criminalized , no.  Regardless of ones right to express their opinion, however does not insulate them from others expressing their disagreement including protesting that opinion, or boycotting a place of business for example. Also to claim that they seek socialism, as defined in your terms is disingenuous. Most advocate for specific policies which their opponents then label as "socialism" as it invokes a fear response. Our current system is not socialism vs capitalism but a complex system of policies, etc... which have components of  free enterprise, governmental services and regulations. We can disagree on policy and even specifics components within a policy, but the labeling of a policy as "socialism" for the sole purpose of then equating it with [your] definition does not promote dialogue to find solutions to complex problems faced by our society.

Regarding AOC, I believe you have mis-characterized her response. At no point did she suggest hunger was the cause of folks killing each other. In fact she was explicit in stating the of crime of shoplifting. I may not agree with her, but IMO it is not right to state something she suggested when in fact she did not.

Lastly, I have spent the last few weeks listening to my Black friends about their experiences. I have always known racism still exists, but thought it was relegated to the few extreme nut jobs. I am learning that there still exist residual effects of the overt racism which still are an obstacle to my Black friends; obstacles and other situations to which I am immune due to my pigmentation. At its core, BLM first asks that we just listen and not get so defensive. I ask everyone, is listening too much to ask?

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

Lastly, I have spent the last few weeks listening to my Black friends about their experiences. I have always known racism still exists, but thought it was relegated to the few extreme nut jobs. I am learning that there still exist residual effects of the overt racism which still are an obstacle to my Black friends; obstacles and other situations to which I am immune due to my pigmentation. At its core, BLM first asks that we just listen and not get so defensive. I ask everyone, is listening too much to ask?

I have done the same and I am astonished at what is still occurring in the Navy, a microcosm of society. As a senior in the navy, talking to other senior black officers and sailors about the racism they encounter.  To hear their sides of the story of an event I was actually involved in. Totally unaware of some of the behind the scenes actions of others.   I too assumed the best of people.  Totally agree, is listening too much to ask?  Is it too hard to try to understand what others have gone through, what they are currently still experiencing.  Don’t make it political, make it personal.  We cannot wish is away, with vague stereotypes or cherry-picking of statistics.   It’s hard, it’s an uncomfortable conversation to have.  But it’s time to get comfortable being uncomfortable.  DuctTApe, you put it more eloquently than I can.  
 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

At its core, BLM first asks that we just listen and not get so defensive. I ask everyone, is listening too much to ask?

No.  Listening is not too much to ask.  But yes, sitting idly by while they riot, loot, and desecrate monuments is a bit too much to ask.  At its core, BLM is an anarchist group.

Edited by David CO
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, David CO said:

No.  Listening is not too much to ask.  But yes, sitting idly by while they riot, loot, and desecrate monuments is a bit too much to ask.  At its core, BLM is an anarchist group.

There is a huge difference between whose who loot/riot and those who protest.  And why are the riots occurring?   And for the monuments, specifically the ones honoring confederate leaders or soldiers, do you not understand why they want them removed?  Is it too much to ask they they want a statue of a person or representation that honors, or remembers, or celebrates the subjugation is a single person due to the color of their skin removed.  

Edited by Navybone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...