SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Small town Republican thoughts on refuting the alt-right. In The Republican Journal:
I want to make one thing very clear: The Waldo County Republican Committee absolutely, unequivocally condemns Nazi and KKK ideologies and actions, as well as any other kind of bigotry, and we encourage all of our voters and the community at large to do the same.
For fellow Republicans out there, worry not, we don't like Antifa's ideology and actions either, but we need to clean our own house; we need to worry about our own responsibilities.
Such honesty, and clarity of thought!
The most dangerous part of politics today is identity politics, trolling, pathos and a severe lack of critical thinking. You cannot defeat the insidious hatred of bigoted politics with more hate. By doing so, you morph the conversation away from policy and ideology to silly label syntax, eventually devolving completely into back and forth verbal gymnastics. Make no mistake, these trolls are ready for you as you stoop to their level, and they beat you up with mountains of experience.
So what do we do? Very simple. Stay neighborly by controlling your reaction. Seek out those with whom you disagree, try to understand them first, and politely offer your counter argument.
And it looks like the Republicans in Maine, if not in Illinois, are rejecting the alt-right.
The way to defeat Mr. Kawczynski is not by attacking him, but by attacking his ideas. Here are some flaws in his thinking: His immigration ideas are antithetical to the Maine Republican party platform, a section of which states, "We support the assimilation of legal immigrants into Maine society."
Kawczynski's ideas stand in contrast to Maine history and culture; in fact, it is white folks with racist ideologies who pose the greatest threat to Maine's foundation, not other races of people.
Another brilliant tidbit:
Ultimately, all you have to do is walk outside with your eyes open in this state to see that Kawczynski's fearmongering about "white genocide" is completely laughable.
Entire guest column is well worth a read.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday February 09 2018, @08:08PM (13 children)
The way I see it is that we (and not just Americans) have much more in common than we do differences.
Except for tiny (relative to population) groups, people mostly want the same things: a decent way of life, relative safety for themselves and their loved ones, opportunities to succeed in their society, and the possibility of making a positive impact on the world.
That's true about the commonalities, but the differences are enormous. Sure, almost everyone wants safety for themselves and their loved ones, but they DON'T want safety for other people, especially if those people have different beliefs. Plenty of people would be *happy* to round up people whose beliefs they consider "dangerous" or "heretical" and have them burned at the stake, or at least have them forced to follow strict religious laws and be treated different because of their differing beliefs. And what exactly is a "positive impact on the world"? For many Americans, that means establishing Christianity as the official religion and requiring church attendance, while simultaneously eliminating all environmental regulations because "God wouldn't let anything bad happen to us" and "the Rapture will be soon anyway". For other religious people, having a "positive impact" means establishing a theocracy of their choosing, beheading people who break religious laws, etc. For other people, having a "positive impact" means creating a strong, militaristic society that conquers other nations and maintains an empire (the Romans did this for over 1000 years, they certainly thought conquering the Germanic tribes was a "positive impact").
Yes, there are different cultures and different belief systems. But that doesn't make those who think, live and believe differently than you do "the bad guys."
Actually, yes, it does. When those people want to use violence to oppress you, then they are by definition "bad guys". As I've pointed out above, there's plenty of people who would be happy to do just that. There's plenty of societies in the world where this is the order of the day in fact: if you believe differently, you will be punished. In fact, it's pretty much impossible to not have some kind of oppression (or "oppression" if you will) in some way, for society to function. In a religious society, you can't tolerate unbelievers, so they have to be oppressed. In a traditional society, you can't tolerate women attempting to make themselves equal to men, so they must be oppressed. In a society that doesn't want too much pollution, you have to "oppress" the polluters. In a society that values clean streets, you have to "oppress" the litterers. In a society where people have to go to work regularly to make sure the machinery of society functions, people have to be punished somehow if they don't bother to do their jobs. You can't have absolute freedom; no society can function that way. Every society has laws which embody its values so that people can leave together peacefully.
If you're a Germanic tribesman and the Roman legionnaires want you to either submit to their rule or be slaughtered, you don't think those are "bad guys" in your view? Or, if you're a fundamentalist Mormon and the government wants to punish you for marrying and raping several pre-teen girls, you don't think you'd see them as "bad guys", and vice-versa?
In fact, there are just a tiny number of hateful, disgusting scumbags who don't value life or liberty.
This is demonstrably wrong. Just look at most Middle-Eastern societies, or any place where religion and government are intertwined and have popular support. Your ideas about life and liberty are really an American thing, and even in America lots of people don't really believe it, they only believe in "liberty" as long as it fits within certain bounds they're willing to put up with.
The vast majority of us just want a decent living, a comfortable place to live and the chance to be themselves.
No, the vast majority wants more than that. They want their religion to be acknowledged as supreme, they want their neighbors to fit within their idea of "normal", etc., and if they don't get enough of this, they rebel. Just look at the Trump movement; much of that was fueled by immigration fears. The same thing is happening in parts of Europe over immigration. And the middle east is a poster child for what happens when too many groups of people with ideological differences are stuck together.
Given that decent and kind people are the vast majority
No, they aren't. Those "decent" and "kind" people are only like that as long as you behave a certain way, or are not a threat to them. Move in around them, outnumber them, start pushing your own religion (or lack thereof), and pretty soon they'll be happy to get out the pitchforks and burn you alive. It's happened over and over in human history.
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Friday February 09 2018, @08:57PM (4 children)
Much of what you say about the middle east is more about this:
than it is about religion. when you have young people (men, especially) who are educated and want to work, have a family and prosper, but are stymied by a small elite who control most of the resources, it's no wonder they're mad. Even then, it's only a small proportion of *those* people who become violent.
What's more, you're way off base with the intolerance of these folks. For at least a millenia, non-muslims were accepted as part of muslim societies and those (as we might call them today) expats, were welcome in muslim countries and were not harassed or prevented from practicing their own religion as long as they paid the Jizya [wikipedia.org].
Interestingly, the anti-semitic and anti-western rhetoric we hear today in the middle east has its roots in European anti-semitic writings and culture. Funny that. I wonder why they're so anti-western? Perhaps because, after the Ottoman Empire collapsed after World War I, the west has meddled in their affars, placing ethnic minorities in charge (as the British did in Africa) of authoritarian regimes, picking winners and losers and interfering (as in the 1953 coup in Iran that deposed the *democratically* elected government and installed the Shah, supporting the Ba'athists in Iraq and Syria, and on and on and on) in the internal affairs of their nations.
Regardless, if you were to go to just about *any* country that's hostile to the US and/or the west and asked (not a westerner asking, but a fellow citizen) Joe Schmo on the street to list the things that are most important to him, you'd get a litany of issues, with "death to America" and/or "death to the infidels" way down on the list, if there at all.
So go ahead and delude yourself. Sure, there are dangerous assholes that *claim* to be muslim. There are dangerous assholes that claim to be Christians or Jews or even Buddhists (note the stuff going on in Burma/Myanmar) for that matter.
I'll say it one more time. If you're not a bigoted scumbag who sees *everyone* who isn't just like yourself as a mortal enemy and you don't stand up to such bigots, then you're part of the problem.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday February 09 2018, @09:13PM (2 children)
For at least a millenia, non-muslims were accepted as part of muslim societies and those (as we might call them today) expats, were welcome in muslim countries and were not harassed or prevented from practicing their own religion as long as they paid the Jizya.
Gee, how nice! We'll conquer your lands and then force you to pay an extra tax!
Would you be OK with having to pay an extra tax for not being a Christian (or not being the right kind) wherever you live? You don't consider that oppressive?
Perhaps because, after the Ottoman Empire collapsed after World War I, the west has meddled in their affars
But somehow it was OK for the Muslims to invade the Iberian peninsula and rule that for centuries? Sorry, I don't see how one group of imperialists are any worse than another group of imperialists.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 09 2018, @10:51PM (1 child)
Whoosh! way to miss the point, friend.
But whataboutism is so satisfying, isn't it?
With it you can justify just about anything, can't you?
Well, enjoy being part of the problem.
Despite the fact that we live in the most peaceful and prosperous time in the history of humanity, you and those like you have to have boogeymen and enemies to demonize, so you can assert "dominance" over them. Which is what that's really all about -- your own insecurity.
I pity you.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday February 10 2018, @08:26PM
Interesting how you can't actually counter any point I made, so I guess you don't have any valid argument left. I pity you.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 09 2018, @11:12PM
You apparently don't understand that jizya tax to which you refer. Paying the tax was never an option for a Hindu, an animist, or an atheist. It was ONLY an option for Christians, or for Jews - for "children of the book". Any and all non-Abrahamic religions had but two options: convert or die.
The "tax" wasn't a tax at all, but a tribute. Like any tribute between kingdoms, as long as the tribute rolled in, you were permitted to live, within severe constraints. Tribute, not tax. The day you fail to pay the tribute, you can expect to face an ultimatum - convert or die. Whether you pay tribute or not, you daughters can be taken, to be given to good Muslim men. Doesn't matter what the daughter says, a Muslim claims that she converted, then she converted, and trying to unconvert makes her apostate, and thus, guilty of a capital crime.
Let's not confuse a tax with tribute. People around the world are taxed, more or less fairly. But, even in terribly unfair tax structures, you and all of your neighbors share a similar burden. Not so with jizya - you paid a tax that few of your neighbors were burdened with. And, failing to pay that tribute would most likely cost your life.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @10:08PM (6 children)
Trump's approval numbers rarely reach 40 percent.
Mostly they're down around 33 percent.
In November 2016, 42 percent of registered voters chose None of the above (they stayed home).
That left Killery with 39 percent and Drumpf with 38 percent (and a smattering for write-ins/3rd parties).
The Big 2 managed to find THE 2 WORST CANDIDATES IN HISTORY.
So, NO. It's not the vast majority.
...and The Orange Clown doesn't have a large following.
His faithful followers are a minority of a minority.
(Registered Republicans are about 21 percent of eligible voters and lots of folks who voted for him have seen what he's doing and have turned their backs.)
.
Now, if The Fourth Estate would do its fucking job properly and INFORM USAians rather than go for cheap ratings, that would be a move in the right direction.
...but what we have instead is Lamestream Media, pre-filtering the news to suit their corporate paymasters/sponsors.
A return to The Fairness Doctrine would be apt.
(Reagan really fucked up this country.)
.
A plug here for the weekly Ralph Nader Radio Hour.
If you don't have a broadcast outlet near you, there's a gratis podcast (which has several minutes more of content).
With Ralph, you'll find stuff that you will never get via Lamestream Media.
Pacifica Radio and other independent media also have day-long content that is more informative than Lamestream Media.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 09 2018, @11:15PM (5 children)
Fuck Ralph Nader - but otherwise your post is pretty damned good. I hate wasting a mod point to bring you back out of oblivion, but some witless wonder decided to bury you with a down mod.
Why don't you register an account, and I won't have to waste time rescuing you from oblivion? Baahhhhh, forget I asked. You'll give me the same meaningless reasons you've given other people in the past.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @03:29AM (4 children)
Ralph has made your life better in dozens of ways and you aren't even grateful.
Been in a car wreck and not have your face or your passenger's smashed on the dashboard|windshield?
Thank Ralph.
Not been sickened|killed by tainted meat or water?
Thank Ralph.
Been bumped from an airline and not told "Screw you. You're on your own"?
Thank Ralph.
Been on a plane and not been choked to death by somebody else's smoke?
Thank Ralph.
Has Ralph Nader Made Your Life Better Today--or Even Saved Your Life? [googleusercontent.com] (Skip down toward the footnotes.) (orig) [blogspot.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 10 2018, @04:31AM (3 children)
Ralph, the crusader who single handedly rescued all of us victims from the worst of all possible worlds - yay Ralph. Forgive me if I can't give it any enthusiasm. It is at least partly Ralph's fault that we have warning labels that are ludicrous. "Don't put chainsaw near your throat, as injury or death may result."
You're giving your boy Ralph all the credit for fresh meat on store shelves, instead of old rotten meat? Like, no one else was able or willing to raise hell about rotten meat? Here, in the US, the most outrageous meat scandals were during the US Civil War. There have been other scandals since, of course, but none so very outrageous. That's because people before and after Ralphie's time have raised hell, and in some cases, caused heads to roll. Don't be giving Ralph all the credit.
Oh - your footnotes.
So, not the lone crusader after all. Just some guy who knew how to capitalize on his associations with people - we call that networking. A guy who could take center stage, and relegate his colleagues to obscurity. The poster boy who took all the credit for the poster maker's work. Got it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @04:57AM (2 children)
Somebody has to step up and be the first to insist on change.
In dozens of cases, when everyone else was saying "Let somebody else do it", it was Ralph that took the bull by the horns.
Ralph is also a masterful organizer.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @06:41AM (1 child)
But he's a leftist! A goddamn progressive!!!!!! Can you not see the truth???
(Score: 2, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 10 2018, @07:32AM
I have no idea how the hell Runaway manages to commit the genetic fallacy so often when he only has one helix and it's made of RNA. Surely he must be running out of nucleotides by now.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Saturday February 10 2018, @04:09PM
Look for coincidences and ratios. Some groups can't get along with any other group, others live in peace. Take for example Jews vs Samoans. Now Samoans are about 1/10th the world population of Jews so terms like "Samoan Pogrom" or "Samoan Holocaust" should be about a tenth the Jewish equivalent, after all both races have lived with those horrible white males for a long time. In just ONE civilizations conflict during ONE war in ONE decade there were 24 nazi death camps for the Jews. Now Samoans being 1/10th the Jew population you'd assume over the entire history of mankind there numerically should have to be at least a tenth of the Jewish experience, or 2.4 Samoan Death Camps. Yet you look for them and find ... nothing?
The closest you can find is shitposting about how a fifth the population of Samoa died when New Zealand was running the place during the 1919 flu epidemic, whereas 9K New Zealanders died out of 1.4 million which is maybe 1%. The flu overall killed about 5% of the planet's human population but it varied by a factor of ten or so based on civil engineering infrastructure and medical treatment or lack thereof, and frankly probably a lot based on luck, so its hard to really claim NZ holocausted the Samoans in 1919 with a straight face. And that weak attempt is the best I can find. Its just so odd, for centuries about half of Europe (or the USA) had Samoa as a colony but they as a race never "earned" enough animosity for camps.
Its just odd the way some groups catch hell from multiple civilizations on multiple continents over multiple millennia, almost as if they have a subgroup behavior that doesn't play well with any others ever, whereas other groups live in peace, or even thrive, when rubbed up against the same supposedly evil civilizations. Just such a weird coincidence. And the people to blame for an entire species not getting along with one small group, is always some individual political opponent or trendy media approved two minutes hate victim, even though they can't get along with the entire world ever, never, historically.
I mean, isn't it historically relevant that "anti-semitism" seems to magically sprout up in every civilization they ever contact, but "anti-samoanism" isn't even a concept? I'm sure its all the white male right winger's fault, us 21st century moderns must have gone back in time to make the Egyptians, Romans, Palestinians,Industrial era Germans, frankly all of Europe multiple times in the middle ages, god only knows who else, pissed off at the Jews. Just one little modern political opponent did all that rabble rousing in the past. Huh.
I'm just saying, certain groups seem to bring on oppression by various means, and others don't, and local politics don't seem to matter much in the weight of history. As long as Jews act like Jews and Samoans act like Samoans, one of those groups is gonna end up in pogroms for all eternity across the entire planet regardless of small time local temporary politics.