Would somebody shut this idiot up?
-
wrote on 17 May 2021, 01:28 last edited by
Good case in point for historical examples being used as non sequitur rhetoric to support a personal bias.
-
Good case in point for historical examples being used as non sequitur rhetoric to support a personal bias.
wrote on 17 May 2021, 01:29 last edited by@horace said in Would somebody shut this idiot up?:
Good case in point for historical examples being used as non sequitur rhetoric to support a personal bias.
Thanks for typing slowly.
I got that comment.
-
No. Something approaching equality will only happen when those who feel disenfranchised decide to join the dominant culture instead of being a resentful self-segregated group.
wrote on 17 May 2021, 01:56 last edited by@mik said in Would somebody shut this idiot up?:
No. Something approaching equality will only happen when those who feel disenfranchised decide to join the dominant culture instead of being a resentful self-segregated group.
Melting pots work.
-
wrote on 17 May 2021, 02:43 last edited by
Yes, it does. Ax’s view is still paternalistic and therefore wrong both practically and morally. I’ll address it later.
-
wrote on 17 May 2021, 13:08 last edited by
I could go into a convoluted, unsupported, Ax-like response but I won't.
I didn't set preconditions. It is simply my opinion that until other cultures are willing to assimilate they will remain separate and to some degree disadvantaged. It weakens our nation.
Ax thinks we the 'privileged', can bestow equality on minorities. That's paternalistic and condescending. Plantation thinking, the bigotry of low expectation.
-
The man is probably a very well qualified (and well-connected) immunologist. He's been in government since the Reagan era.
As far as I know, he has no training in public policy, etc.
He's (again) out of his lane.
wrote on 17 May 2021, 13:34 last edited by@george-k said in Would somebody shut this idiot up?:
The man is probably a very well qualified (and well-connected) immunologist. He's been in government since the Reagan era.
As far as I know, he has no training in public policy, etc.
He's (again) out of his lane.
Like a certain steak, vodka, and failed university peddler I've heard about that everyone seems to idolize.
-
@george-k, first you have to read my comment above as a reply to @Mik’s comment that I qouted above.
I take exception to @Mik‘s world view that the group that feel disenfranchinsed must join the dominant culture as a precondition for equality, that he put the responsibility on the ones who feel disenfranchised to change the status quo.
The allocation of responsibility is wrong. To quote Uncla Ben, “with great power comes great responsibility”. The “dominant culture” is the one with the power (by definition), so that dominant culture cannot be morally let off the hook.
The solution prescription is also wrong. Have the ones who feel disenfranchised to join the dominant culture? History gave us many examples where that would have been suboptimal if not outright wrong, some these examples have been given in my prevoius comment.
The understanding of what is or was possible is also wrong — that somehow the ones who feel disenfranchised actually had to power to just “join” the dominent culture. The istorical examples I have in my previous comment show that the disenfranchised have been deliberately prevented from joining the dominant culture even if they wanted to.
wrote on 17 May 2021, 13:35 last edited by@axtremus said in Would somebody shut this idiot up?:
Have the ones who feel disenfranchised to join the dominant culture? History gave us many examples where that would have been suboptimal if not outright wrong, some these examples have been given in my prevoius comment.
Wow, Ax, I had no idea you were a "separate but equal" kinda guy.
-
@george-k said in Would somebody shut this idiot up?:
The man is probably a very well qualified (and well-connected) immunologist. He's been in government since the Reagan era.
As far as I know, he has no training in public policy, etc.
He's (again) out of his lane.
Like a certain steak, vodka, and failed university peddler I've heard about that everyone seems to idolize.
wrote on 17 May 2021, 13:55 last edited by@aqua-letifer said in Would somebody shut this idiot up?:
@george-k said in Would somebody shut this idiot up?:
The man is probably a very well qualified (and well-connected) immunologist. He's been in government since the Reagan era.
As far as I know, he has no training in public policy, etc.
He's (again) out of his lane.
Like a certain steak, vodka, and failed university peddler I've heard about that everyone seems to idolize.
Bullshit.. Get your head out of your ass.
Donald J. Trump became a billionaire. You can argue successfully he had a leg up that many do not have, but make it, he did. And you can argue successfully that Trump has an abrasive style. But you can't argue that in many ways Trump was ineffective in his presidency. He was able to leverage votes and the Presidency into political action.
Economic growth, minority policies, border security (I find it hilarious Biden is now spending money on The Wall), ME peace deals, etc. Unconventional as all get out, but he did receive more votes than any Republican candidate. Ever.
I don't know as I would call that being out of your lane...
-
wrote on 17 May 2021, 13:58 last edited by
In his business career Trump was constantly dealing with government at all levels. In that respect he may have known it better than any number of other candidates.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Would somebody shut this idiot up?:
@george-k said in Would somebody shut this idiot up?:
The man is probably a very well qualified (and well-connected) immunologist. He's been in government since the Reagan era.
As far as I know, he has no training in public policy, etc.
He's (again) out of his lane.
Like a certain steak, vodka, and failed university peddler I've heard about that everyone seems to idolize.
Bullshit.. Get your head out of your ass.
Donald J. Trump became a billionaire. You can argue successfully he had a leg up that many do not have, but make it, he did. And you can argue successfully that Trump has an abrasive style. But you can't argue that in many ways Trump was ineffective in his presidency. He was able to leverage votes and the Presidency into political action.
Economic growth, minority policies, border security (I find it hilarious Biden is now spending money on The Wall), ME peace deals, etc. Unconventional as all get out, but he did receive more votes than any Republican candidate. Ever.
I don't know as I would call that being out of your lane...
wrote on 17 May 2021, 14:34 last edited by@jolly said in Would somebody shut this idiot up?:
Bullshit.. Get your head out of your ass.
Well, I was just joking but sure, okay!
I think you could make a case that there should be no career politicians, and qualifications should be sought elsewhere if one wants to run for an elected office. I believe that. So I don't care that Trump had no political experience prior to his being president.
Here's the problem, though: you can't tell me that Trump was honestly interested in uniting liberals and conservatives. Quite obviously his thing was and always has been to play to his base.
By doing that, he created a communication vacuum during the early months of the pandemic because about half the country—many of which aren't rabid liberals and simply didn't vote for him—didn't feel confident in his messaging. That's why we had a Fauci.
The whole, "this is how you get more Trump" thing? Look in the damn mirror. That's exactly why Fauci was on the front page of every news site every day for the better part of the year.