Would somebody shut this idiot up?
-
wrote on 16 May 2021, 23:28 last edited by
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 16 May 2021, 23:31 last edited by Copper
Yes, somebody shut this idiot up.
Fauci said correcting societal wrongs will take a commitment of decades, and he urged the graduates to be part of the solution.
I wonder if he knows that white people will hear about what he said.
-
Yes, somebody shut this idiot up.
Fauci said correcting societal wrongs will take a commitment of decades, and he urged the graduates to be part of the solution.
I wonder if he knows that white people will hear about what he said.
wrote on 16 May 2021, 23:42 last edited by HoraceFauci said correcting societal wrongs will take a commitment of decades,
So we won't begin thinking about whether what we're doing is working, until most of us are long dead?
Shhhhhhhhhhhocking!
-
wrote on 16 May 2021, 23:54 last edited by
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.
-
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, 00:40 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.
What, like equality would have been achieved had the Isrealite decided to join the Egyptian culture, like equality would have been achieved had the Jews decided to join the Aryan culture, like equality would have been achieved had the native Americans decided to join the Western European cultures? Ever occured to you that the segregation was not a choice made by the ones who feel disenfranchised, but rather the ones feeling disenchised feel that way because some form of segretation has been imposed upon them?
-
@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.
What, like equality would have been achieved had the Isrealite decided to join the Egyptian culture, like equality would have been achieved had the Jews decided to join the Aryan culture, like equality would have been achieved had the native Americans decided to join the Western European cultures? Ever occured to you that the segregation was not a choice made by the ones who feel disenfranchised, but rather the ones feeling disenchised feel that way because some form of segretation has been imposed upon them?
wrote on 17 May 2021, 00:43 last edited by@axtremus said in Would somebody shut this idiot up?:
What, like equality would have been achieved had the Isrealite decided to join the Egyptian culture, like equality would have been achieved had the Jews decided to join the Aryan culture, like equality would have been achieved had the native Americans decided to join the Western European cultures? Ever occured to you that the segregation was not a choice made by the ones who feel disenfranchised, but rather the ones feeling disenchised feel that way because some form of segretation has been imposed upon them?
Can you please explain that comment?
Please type REALLY SLOWLY so I can begin to understand what you're talking about.
Thanks.
-
wrote on 17 May 2021, 01:08 last edited by
@george-k said in Would somebody shut this idiot up?:
disenchised
George, if you cannot understand one little word like "disenchised" then obviously you will not understand the rest.
Understanding our Ax is like sampling a new mushroom found on the forest floor.
You will either be spectacularly enlightened, or wonder why in the hell you just ate it.
-
wrote on 17 May 2021, 01:15 last edited by
Skin color controls one’s lived experience to the extent that that experience cannot be communicated between people of different skin colors. Just ask any woke person, they’ll tell you that and attempt to shame you if you don’t nod in agreement. So, while historical segregation was not a choice in many cases, contemporary segregation, right down to the tangible realities each of us live in, is entirely a choice. A choice to subscribe to an ideology that has segregation at its core.
-
wrote on 17 May 2021, 01:23 last edited byThis post is deleted!
-
@axtremus said in Would somebody shut this idiot up?:
What, like equality would have been achieved had the Isrealite decided to join the Egyptian culture, like equality would have been achieved had the Jews decided to join the Aryan culture, like equality would have been achieved had the native Americans decided to join the Western European cultures? Ever occured to you that the segregation was not a choice made by the ones who feel disenfranchised, but rather the ones feeling disenchised feel that way because some form of segretation has been imposed upon them?
Can you please explain that comment?
Please type REALLY SLOWLY so I can begin to understand what you're talking about.
Thanks.
wrote on 17 May 2021, 01:24 last edited by@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, 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.