[MistyTiger]

What is wrong with rich smite men? And why is admiration for them equated with white supremacy?

Do you realise the nation you aware in was founded by Anglo-Saxons? Is it in anyway remarkable that such a nation would have rich white men in positions of authority? Furthermore, why would a reasonable person not show such authority figures due respect?

You are supposed to be a Taiwanese American. I would have thought your Asian cultural background would have imbued you with a respect for authority figures. Certainly all the Asians I know think that way and, furthermore, frequently chastise me for my Western critical view of politicians.

You aren’t really as Asian as you look, now are you? Miss America.

First, a tendency of many rich white men is to think that they are above the law and thereby superior to everyone. They feel like they can do no wrong. But this thinking is very wrong. No one is above the law and nobody is actually superior to anyone else.

And respect is earned in my opinion. I don't respect people just because they are authority figures. I respect people who act in ways that I find impressive and worthy of my respect. I don't have to respect anyone. If I do respect someone, it's because I agree with their actions.

I know this country was founded by Anglosaxons, but doesn't mean I have to respect any random whites. Men of high status do not have to be rich and white. This country used to welcome immigrants, not sure it still does, and even immigrants can "climb the ladder" to improve their circumstances and they can become influential. This country's founders believed that a man could follow his dream, his ambition to better himself and I still believe in that idea.

Don't try to categorize me, you'll only be disappointed. I respect authority only if I feel like they deserve my respect. I don't blindly respect a leader just because of the fact that he is the leader. As a scholar and student of philosophy, I learned to question people and observe their actions. If their words don't jive with their actions, then I know that they're fake and liars. Sadly a lot of people in the world don't stand by their words so I have to be skeptical, I'm from the philosophical school of skeptics. I can even be cynical at times. So I'm not the typical Taiwanese American, according to your definition.

Also, my parents taught me to be a critical thinker and to think for myself. I'm not one of those meek followers. Didn't anyone tell you not to judge a book by its cover? There is more than meets the eye.

[One Degree]

White men are no more prone to feeling superior due to their wealth and power than anyone else. The US was simply colonized by Europeans. Making white men the ultimate boogie man is nonsense.

[SolarCross]

First, a tendency of many rich white men is to think that they are above the law and thereby superior to everyone. They feel like they can do no wrong. But this thinking is very wrong. No one is above the law and nobody is actually superior to anyone else.

^ racism

[MistyTiger]

@MistyTiger

First, a tendency of many rich white men is to think that they are above the law and thereby superior to everyone. They feel like they can do no wrong. But this thinking is very wrong. No one is above the law and nobody is actually superior to anyone else.

You are a racist.

Call it what you will. I didn't invent the word white collar crime. I had nothing to do with the Ponzi scheme. And who were the ones who have been accused of insider trading? The media was all over Martha Stewart for insider trading years ago, she was white, right? What about Ivan Boesky? What about James J. McDermott Jr? Why do they talk about white privilege? This country likes to talk about being white as if it's the best thing in the world. I'm not white, so how should that make me feel, like dirt? Is it racist to realize the preference towards whites and the aggression/dislike towards non-whites? Because I felt it as I was growing up and even now I still feel it, people judge me for not being white and they pity me, but I've accepted it and I'm content with my heritage, I even listen to Taiwanese pop any day I like. I didn't start the discrimination in the US, just telling it like I've observed over the years. I've been excluded in some instances and labelled the outsider or the pariah, by who? White people, of course.

[Drlee]

Why do they talk about white privilege?

Because it exists. But with this modifier. There are a great many whites who are too dumb to realize that they have lost their personal privilege to a considerable extent. These are mostly poor and lower middle class non college degree whites. Middle class wages are falling for whites and others and their vote was virtually eliminated by the Citizens United ruling and gerrymandering.

This country likes to talk about being white as if it's the best thing in the world.

It likes to talk that way but act quite another.

I'm not white, so how should that make me feel, like dirt? Is it racist to realize the preference towards whites and the aggression/dislike towards non-whites? Because I felt it as I was growing up and even now I still feel it, people judge me for not being white and they pity me, but I've accepted it and I'm content with my heritage, I even listen to Taiwanese pop any day I like.

Asians are ex officio whites in the US. The days of overt discrimination against them are just about over. Smart counts. Asians (as the risk of lumping all together) have carved out quite a niche for themselves in the US. Most are admired, though not openly. A Chinese person walks into the classroom and the reaction is usually a quiet, "there goes the curve".

I like JPOP. It is the synchronized swimming of the rock music world. Beautiful to watch.

[blackjack21]

He says it is because they have contempt for anyone who is not in the top 20% of earners and so knife them in the back every time.

Well, a lot of the people supposedly infected with "white privilege" are poor; yet, they are not expressing fealty to either of the parties, in spite of welfare. So the behind the so-called "elite's" contempt is real fear. Identity politics has turned the populace against the government. If you cannot control the masses with welfare--if as Thatcher quipped, "you've run out of other people's money"--you are in bigger trouble than you may realize.

He says that the 80% can see ths more and more and so vote for them less and less over time.

Hillary Clinton was openly contemptuous of anyone supporting Donald Trump, and so was John McCain. John Kasich just blasted him and made himself sound like the Ayatollah of Ohio in the process. Kasich made it sound like if you don't like the caravan coming to challenge our borders, you are essentially against the will of God. People like Kasich need to pack it up and get the hell out.

He says the solution is for the Centrist Dems to bring the 89% back into the tent. He has zero hope that a 3rd party can solve the problem.

A favorite blood sport of the elite is concern controlling for the fate of the other side. The Democrats embraced licentious lifestyles, contraception and abortion. Within a generation, they went from total control of the government to a tenuous grip on power. Since Clinton took office, the Republicans have held Congress except for 2006-2010 when they tried to pull off amnesty for illegal aliens. Only the passage of ObamaCare got them back into power, and yet still we have globalists like John Kasich trying to act like they are complete morons with some bizarre religious idea that you have to support endless immigration.

If they blow it then it will be obvious that they can't win ever again without major changes.

Well, their problem is that they have a few people who are greedy for power like Pelosi and Schumer who have failed to groom adequate successors, which is a fundamental failure of leadership. Pelosi shows obvious signs of dementia, so her effectiveness is definitely limited. Schumer showed himself to be a thug in the Kavanaugh hearings. They have led their factions to three straight election losses. I think it's a good thing that they are in charge.

First, a tendency of many rich white men is to think that they are above the law and thereby superior to everyone. They feel like they can do no wrong.

What about rich white women, like Hillary Clinton for example.

This country used to welcome immigrants, not sure it still does, and even immigrants can "climb the ladder" to improve their circumstances and they can become influential.

The establishment welcomes immigrants to do the work that the people they pay to vote for them won't do. This country had very little immigration from the 1920s to the 1960s, because the establishment almost lost control of the country. They are at risk of losing it again. They just aren't afraid enough yet.

Making white men the ultimate boogie man is nonsense.

Well, that is one of the blessing of Obama's second term. Obama finally revealed a lot about the left that moderates did not want to believe was true.

This country likes to talk about being white as if it's the best thing in the world.

The left is teaching white supremacy under the guise of "white privilege".

There are a great many whites who are too dumb to realize that they have lost their personal privilege to a considerable extent. These are mostly poor and lower middle class non college degree whites.

They were smart enough not to vote for Hillary Clinton.

[One Degree]

The incumbent Republican is leading by nearly 7 points in the last RCP average, despite O'Rourke's sizable fundraising advantage. O'Rourke has raised more than $70 million since entering the race in 2017, new federal election filings show, compared to the $40 million Cruz has generated since taking office in 2013.

I found this interesting. I wonder how we can determine which party is supported by the moneyed interests instead of the people? Lol

[Steve_American]

@blackjack21,
Based on your replies it is clear that you didn't understand one word of what I wrote.
Not surprising given you support Trump.

[RhetoricThug]

^People populate politics, political parties do not exist (at least in the way you think they exist). Like sport teams, logos & jerseys are myths made by people and worn by players. The player base of a political game changes and new role-players redefine the rules of the game. The mechanization of perception and game-theory balkanize the noosphere. Asking "how screwed are labels if they don't win this dialectical conflict" is not a proper question. We should ask "How screwed is humanity if we continue lying to ourselves?"

Blackjack21 is not a trump supporter, he's a victim of myth. A chapter in the saga of the war on consciousness.

I would enjoy seeing some intellect for a change.
Praise the Lord.

The other end of intelligence offers you this: Ah, if only reason was more powerful than organized propaganda, but alas it is not. We are left with serendipity setting us on the best path. -One Degree

As for Jesus (like many others), THE Empire or the black iron prison killed him because he stopped lying to us. The Empire is us, it's a self regulating war on consciousness.

There will be less common-ground and less commonsense if we dwell upon our differences.

[Crantag]

@blackjack21,
Based on your replies it is clear that you didn't understand one word of what I wrote.
Not surprising given you support Trump.

Blackjack is a poster that I do not read.

I always read your stuff. I think that when we disagree (which is often) it is about the fine details, mostly, but lately I find myself agreeing with you more than before.

Either I've evolved, or you have.

[SolarCross]

Blackjack is a poster that I do not read.

Some people have the zealot gene which makes them somewhat thick-headed or wilfully blind to differing viewpoints. Here I am not talking about @blackjack21, but you aren't even the worst of your kind so that's something.

[Albert]

Blackjack is a poster that I do not read.

To bad, he is one of the best posters around here.

[blackjack21]

@blackjack21,
Based on your replies it is clear that you didn't understand one word of what I wrote.
Not surprising given you support Trump.

Individually speaking, Trump isn't that important except that he is the personification of political forces that remained dormant longer than they should have in my opinion. I understood every single word of what you said. Except for some of the younger posters here, we all lived through the transition from Reagan/Bush to Clinton. Your analysis starts in the 1990s, but you aren't looking at the very long term and what changed in the Democratic party, among other things. The Democratic Party's long-term strategy is failing, and I don't think they expected this to happen. When you look at something from a long-term perspective, you'd do better than to just look at snapshots in time.

I'd like to put it in simpler terms, but sometimes that eludes me. The Democratic Party's long-term strategy is failing in ways they did not anticipate. When looking at politics over 50 years, a simpler Darwinian perspective is often more informative. The Democrats owned the Welfare State whose roots were sown in the 1930s. The Democrats lost the White House once in awhile to Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan, but they always had a majority in the House. They controlled the legislative agenda until Gingrich--From Roosevelt to Gingrich. That's a long time.

The Social Security system is a Ponzi scheme in that it relies upon future generations to pay for the current one. There is no money set aside, no savings, no contract, etc. So it inherently relies on a growing population. Otherwise, tax burdens get incrementally worse, which typically leads to revolution. Medicare's stated intention was to provide health insurance at reasonable rates to the elderly. It's political intention was to keep older voters in line with the Democratic party, which worked for a long time. However, that is running its course for a number of reasons.

First, Medicare delivered tangible benefits, which allowed elderly people to live longer. That's a benefit for the elderly, and since they tend to vote more than young people, it was a benefit to the Democratic party. Jimjam's devout loyalty is a prime example. Second, by helping extend the lives of elderly working class people, they increased the cost of Social Security. It went from 16 workers per retiree to 3 workers per retiree. It's like 2.8 or something right now. Third, in the 1960s, the Democrats did something unthinkable a generation earlier. They embraced birth control, abortion and liberal divorce laws. This drove the birth rate down. The same thing happened with Social Democrat/Labour parties in Europe too. From a Darwinian perspective, the welfare state and its requirement for growing populations cannot coexist for too long with liberal sexual mores and the decline in reproductive output. I am not saying that as a normative statement, but a positive one. It matters fuck all what I would like to see happen, or you for that matter. These forces are coming to a head.

It's not simply a matter of the tactical brilliance of campaigning or even financing. Trump is PRESIDENT! That should still be reverberating through the political system, because huge chunks of the population preferred a candidate with no elective office experience to one who spent her whole life in the public sector. Trump had a fraction of her funding, and he still won. Look at Beto O'Rourke's funding compared to Ted Cruz. O'Rourke will likely lose that campaign. The establishment is pouring tons of money to unseat Cruz, but it's not working.

You might get a lot of Central American workers to do wage labor. However, maids and gardeners generally work on a cash basis. They are not employees, per se. If they are honest in paying their taxes as sole proprietors, they will become Republicans over night. Hispanics are also devoutly Catholic and family-oriented. With the Democratic party presenting itself as the last best hope for transgender people, rather than Rosie the Riveter's party from the 1940s, they have lost scores of working class voters. In Europe, it's even more counter-intuitive, because they are importing hyper socially conservative Muslims and enacting censorship to prevent the native population from forming anti-immigration coalitions.

I am a high tech worker. I just got a big stock option bonus last week, and it is already up size for me--which is a blessing considering I sold out of just about everything due to rates and an upcoming election. I'm not some downtrodden or broke person. I do very well financially, but I do well in a society where some of the people I grew up with are homeless and others are multi-millionaires. Those that didn't keep their middle class standing and improve on it fell down the economic ladder considerably.

While I never thought much of Tucker Carlson's shtick with the bow tie on CNN, I actually like his show on FoxNews because he echoes a lot of the sentiments and sociological observations that I note. Maybe you have to be from California to know what we're on about. I'm not sure why it's so hard to relate to what I'm saying. It's why I find people like John Kasich utterly puzzling as a governor of Ohio.

The Democrats have a much bigger problem than just replacing Pelosi and Schumer. The problems will continue. And you will notice that I have not inferred the opposite--that is, that this means smooth sailing for the Republicans. Far from it. They just had their lunch stolen by Donald Trump, and there are still people like John Kasich blasting him while fundamentally ignoring the base of the Republican party.

Asking "how screwed are labels if they don't win this dialectical conflict" is not a proper question. We should ask "How screwed is humanity if we continue lying to ourselves?"

This requirement for absolute solidarity is why I could never agree with Richard Rorty. If you understand game theory, you already know Prisoner's Dilemma and why solidarity among people of different classes is an unlikely outcome at best. "How screwed are the Republicans now that they have Donald Trump as their nominee?" is the type of question the media was asking after the Republican convention. It literally never occurred to many among the media or political establishment that Trump would win. The Democratic party is just a corporation too, and it was taken over by the Clintons and turned into a corporate party with anti-labor tendencies. Obama tried to spur the labor element, while stoking the corporate element--but those are divergent forces, and it didn't work. It just goes to show you that parties can be captured too.

Competition is part of nature. Some succeed and others fail. The Republican party's success in the same time period of the Democrats' decay is that the Republicans embraced capitalism, allied with white collar voters and made up the difference with social conservatives and evangelical voters. Again, from a Darwinian perspective, most voters get their initial political identify from their parents. Republicans have more children than Democrats. Darwin would look principally at reproductive fitness and offspring. Interestingly, this is also why egalitarianism and identity politics don't work well with women either. Women want to maximize their choices when they are young, but they are interested in the success of their offspring when they get older. Hence, many women undergo a political metamorphosis within their lives. Married women rely on a husband's income when bearing children, so they are not as likely to sign off on a policy of guilty until proven innocent with respect to men like Kavanaugh either. These things are obvious from the standpoint of Darwin, but not obvious at all to young urban liberals.

Blackjack is a poster that I do not read.

Do you really only read people you agree with? Don't you find that boring?

[Hong Wu]

Just giving a shout-out to my boy @blackjack21 for responding to pretty much every user, as someone on a discussion forum should, even though he predictably gets trolled for doing it.

Barack Obama auto-penned an opinion piece today that was called something like "Trump is a Shameless Liar." I got tired of that argument some time last year, it sounds like an argument a 14-year old girl would use. It's too bad that the Democrats are so lacking in real ideas; like I said (and this isn't necessarily my observation), all they've had for awhile now is "I'm not a Republican" and that position seems to be losing steam about 10 years in.

I made a post some time ago about an "information class" but I decided at some point that a "Potemkin class" would be a better term. Not trying to call out the user named Potemkin BTW, it's just a fair term. A certain kind of human being tends to go into communications or other kinds of liberal arts majors, then seek jobs in news, media or entertainment. As you might expect from people who are into entertainment and storytelling, they enjoy trying to project a false reality. These people were guiding our national discourse until the internet developed and now they are losing their importance. They never should have been important, it was just due to a temporary niche in technology that they were able to get the microphone because they were the ones trying the hardest to have the microphone, that's the kind of people they are, they just love having it and shouting into it for its own sake. Now that the microphones have been "socialized" everyone is telling them to STFU. Good riddance

[Steve_American]

@blackjack21,
To avoid diverting this thread, I'll take my reply about Soc. Sec. to its own thread.
I'll see you there.

[Crantag]

[Zag Edit: Rule 2]

[Steve_American]

Blackjack is a poster that I do not read.

I always read your [i.e. Steve_American's] stuff. I think that when we disagree (which is often) it is about the fine details, mostly, but lately I find myself agreeing with you more than before.

Either I've evolved, or you have.

Thank you. Maybe I have gotten better at explaining my points.
Anyway, how do you find all my posts? Do you click on my name somewhere and go to my site-home page and click on "Users history"?

[RhetoricThug]

(soundtrack)

The heart grows fonder...

This requirement for absolute solidarity is why I could never agree with Richard Rorty. If you understand game theory, you already know Prisoner's Dilemma and why solidarity among people of different classes is an unlikely outcome at best.

While it is true that dialectic provides the best outcome, individual-group-or-sociological competitiveness is a reaction to artificial scarcity. Arterial success depends on the road we travel, because society is a venational network. If the state vascular system pumps competition, deflates or inflates fear in a market through monetary monkey-business, the populace will cut main arteries in the name of financial interest. Finance is a toll for self-governing plasma, one must secure their blood-type through action. Usury is immoral, but it has crafted an artificial market and demand. We supply fear, because interest is so demanding.

"How screwed are the Republicans now that they have Donald Trump as their nominee?" is the type of question the media was asking after the Republican convention. It literally never occurred to many among the media or political establishment that Trump would win.

An interesting perspective. You've failed to address my sentiment elsewhere (viewtopic.php?f=44&t=174869&start=40), and I feel as if you're doing this because you are afraid of classical introspection.

The Democratic party is just a corporation too, and it was taken over by the Clintons and turned into a corporate party with anti-labor tendencies. Obama tried to spur the labor element, while stoking the corporate element--but those are divergent forces, and it didn't work. It just goes to show you that parties can be captured too.

I shall reiterate this: People populate politics, political parties do not exist (at least in the way you think they exist). Like sport teams, logos & jerseys are myths made by people and worn by players. The player base of a political game changes and new role-players redefine the rules of the game. The mechanization of perception and game-theory balkanize the noosphere.

Competition is part of nature. Some succeed and others fail. The Republican party's success in the same time period of the Democrats' decay is that the Republicans embraced capitalism, allied with white collar voters and made up the difference with social conservatives and evangelical voters.

Cooperation is part of nature. It's a win-win situation. Humanity's success in this time period of divisive thought will be that the species embraced objective reality. This reality includes (but is not limited to) a passion and passage for self-autonomy driven by the generative principle and creative collaboration. Capitalism has a biological grounding. It is the quintessential figure, abstracting itself from an objective environment or ground. Capitalists run a slick operation, but their critiques fail to energize a real opposition (one motivated by action). After-all, a capitalist's primary mode of negotiation is a faceless number. Numbers do not represent, accurately, the plight of a species. This is why competition is immoral, it wrongly assumes the role of arbiter and assimilates dissonance. Cooperation is our only choice. We must motivate action without resorting to competition.

Again, from a Darwinian perspective, most voters get their initial political identify from their parents. Republicans have more children than Democrats. Darwin would look principally at reproductive fitness and offspring.

Adaptive traits/characteristics predict dominance. Darwin would look at the adaptability of the species. Humanity has setup a curious divide, and we're bound to a blood-oath. Such a blood-oath represents mutual destruction, humanity will destroy itself if it doesn't adapt to the world collectively. This isn't a Marxist observation, I'm merely here to recognize the nature of the ONE mind humanity shares.

Interestingly, this is also why egalitarianism and identity politics don't work well with women either. Women want to maximize their choices when they are young, but they are interested in the success of their offspring when they get older. Hence, many women undergo a political metamorphosis within their lives. Married women rely on a husband's income when bearing children, so they are not as likely to sign off on a policy of guilty until proven innocent with respect to men like Kavanaugh either. These things are obvious from the standpoint of Darwin, but not obvious at all to young urban liberals.

I'd call this a contemporary interpretation of sociopolitical mythology.

[Hindsite]

[Zag Edit: Rule 2]

[One Degree]

One observation @blackjack21 made above is extremely important imo.
We live in a highly specialized society. The educated, in their fields, take their ‘superior knowledge’ and apply it to socio/political problems. They don’t realize this results in a ‘problem resolution’ approach. They want to solve the current problem without bothering with where it will lead. They often lack the historical understanding of how such solutions progress with time. They often are ‘problem solvers’ instead of ‘planners’.
As he pointed out, we need to take a longer view of where our choices will lead us instead of saying “this is the patch to solve this current malfunction”.