I don't know if this is appropriate for SoylentNews - I'll leave that to the editors. It's a blog entry that does the best job I've seen, explaining a difficult issue: How do those of us originally from flyover territory perceive the progressive politics that dominates the left coast, and indeed most of the big cities.
Anyone from a red county will read this article and nod. Anyone from a blue county really ought to try to understand the article, because it explains why Trump won, and also explains the rise of the alt-right as a response to progressive politics.
[Ed. note: The linked article is rather long. Contrary to long-standing tradition, I did RTFA. On occasion, stories are submitted where it is not clear to me whether or not our community would find it appropriate or interesting. This is one of those occasions. So, consider this an experiment... of course, please comment on the story itself, but please also indicate whether or not you would like to see more stories like this, and why. Thanks! --martyb]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @07:22PM
"I was dramatically underpaid for the first two years I moved here. Fuck me, right? Back home, $50kCAD ($37kUSD) was a good salary for software"
I hope to God this guy came out to the valley in the 70's
That neighborhood he moved into would have been East Palo Alto. I don't think there
is a black person left there now.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @07:24PM (12 children)
Just read the linked blog. To me, it's whiny. I'm not from the coast (Buffalo NY), but not the midwest either. When I got to Boston for college it was overwhelming for awhile, then I adapted. All part of growing up.
If the author of blog was having such a hard time, why not work somewhere in the midwest for awhile to learn about working in a software company, and then decide to make the jump to CA if they really thought it was worth the trouble.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @07:37PM (9 children)
Take a software developer, by trade in Canada, who was _strongly_encouraged_ by a friend to work in California. Told of all the great things that happen there and the like-mindedness of the location. These events doubtless describe activities over years (too expensive, so moved further from town -> so this is after the first year(?) lease, and then he was ostrasized for racism).
Are you saying he should have first refused to go to California because of the social issues he didn't know existed? Or that many years in, he should have left, because of the social issues affecting him and the fact that he still didn't understand unwritten rules? In either case, you're exactly the "left" that is claiming to be so accepting for which he's claiming the opposite. _You_ are the problem being discussed in this post, and you sound completely oblivious to that fact.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @07:56PM
> _You_ are the problem being discussed in this post, and you sound completely oblivious to that fact.
Not really, after being exposed to Boston and figuring out that I would have to work waaay too many hours to afford it, I went back to Buffalo. Nice people, real estate is affordable and after 40 years working here I'm now quite comfortable.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by jmorris on Saturday August 05 2017, @08:15PM (7 children)
That is exactly what the other AC is saying and it boils down to "We don't want his kind around here, he should have stayed out in the wilds of Canada." It is the one sort of bigotry that is still not only allowed, it is approved. For you can be any color, of any racial stock, practice any sexual deviancy you please but there is ONE diversity that must not be; all must think exactly alike, all have exactly one culture, one religion. And pretty much one class, upper middle. Coastal elites want to live in a monoculture where they know, intellectually, that other sorts of people exist but they lack the mental machinery to handle meeting them one on one so they choose not to. They live in their gated communities, raise their children in elite private schools, send them to elite universities mostly filled with their own kind, work in trades that exclude outsiders, prefer to marry others of their own sort, etc.
The trick to dealing with them is to realize they are a walking contradiction and ruthlessly exploit them. Tell em to check their privilege. Say you are culturally enriching them by your presence, what are they some sort of bigot who doesn't like diversity? And so on. Trigger the dysfunction inherent in their religion. You just have to expend the effort to learn what that religion is, what the basic beliefs are and how to identify and exploit the places they contradict.
If you aren't of them, it means your religion / philosophy differs from theirs. Since they occupy the commanding heights of the culture they aren't used to practicing the sort of tolerance for differing beliefs you needed to learn early to survive. Yet the outward creed they adhere to holds tolerance and diversity to be most holy, this makes it the most easily exploited part of their world. Alinsky taught us that making people live up to their own book or rules was one of the most powerful weapons. He also taught that ridicule is the most potent, which is why you should be careful to only deploy it at great need in close quarters. Easy to burn a bridge you might need. Nobody likes their faith ridiculed and the elite have little practice at reacting well to it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @09:17PM
If you had a yuppie or mexican, indian, asian, or black person move out into the country you would be equally persecutory.
I've dealt with both kinds. There is a reason there are stereo types for city folk and country folk. And by and large both groups are bigots. Just like neither candidate had a popular majority (>50 percent of the populace.) and how the country is 48/48 split politically with MAYBE 5-10 percent actually being moderates and 1-3 percent being fringe loons.)
I agree that there are plenty of asshole city folk, just like there are plenty of asshole country folk. Also asshole city cops and asshole county sheriffs. And how even if there are up to 90 percent good folk in any of those groups it is the vocal and/or reactionary 5-10 percent of assholes that give the whole group a bad name.
That is life. Deal with it. (Isn't that what you're always telling libtards to do?)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @09:21PM (1 child)
get out more. Really. No matter what your socio-economic stratus is.
Or realize that human nature sort of dictates we're generally most relaxed with people "like us", and we at the very least find whatever reasons we can to look down our noses at those who aren't.
Think you'd be comfortable hanging out with Bill Gates and the rest of the Medina, WA or Mercer Island, WA crowds?
Think you'd be comfortable hanging out at the local Section 8 apartment complex?
Think you'd really be comfortable hanging out at the homeless tent village under the highway overpass or next to the exit?
Think you'd really be comfortable hanging out at the distant relative's ranch in eastern Bumfuckwherever?
(these are meant as introspective, rhetorical questions...)
I realize that I'd be uncomfortable in those situations, so I do not seek them out. Nor do I decry that they should change, really, but it'd be nice to see more mixing and just a general appreciation for The Others...by everyone.
Closer to home, as much as I like the various areas around Portland OR, I realize I would not fit in socially around Lake Oswego, in the Pearl District, West Hills, Aloha, etc. Nor would I fit in in far "lesser" areas, such as areas around Gresham, OR. It was slightly easier for me to live in more rural areas. For now, I enjoy my relative anonymity in the small apartment complex I live in, and long ago stopped worrying about knowing or caring much about (but not hating) my neighbors. But then again, I don't have any batshit crazy, disruptive, or whatever neighbors, either.
Having grown up in small towns, I definitely do not see the advantages of everyone else knowing about your daily business and "caring". imo, those places are definitely conform-or-be-cast-out hellholes for anyone who marches to their own rhythm.
But, hey, it works for other people. So there.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:47AM
How about another rhetorical, introspective question, to add to your list?
WTF should I try to "fit in", anyway? None of those clueless fuckers has ever climbed a mountain, only to be hammered by a williwaw halfways up - then continued to the top. None of them has ever stomped the tundra alone, far from civilization. None of them has ever gone to sea, challenging Mother Nature when she was in her worst mood. None of them can navigate the North American continent without their little GPS toys. None of them has ever been shot at and missed, then shit at and hit. None of them has walked into a fire, and defeated the fire, primarily because there was NO OTHER CHOICE. None of them has gone to the trouble to learn how to save a life.
WTF does their private little culture have to offer me? What possible reason can I find to dumb myself down, so that I can make these assholes comfortable around me?
Yeah, the question is rhetorical, to some extent - but it's not all rhetoric, either. When you're not a sheep, the only reason to wear sheep's clothing is probably to get close enough to kill a sheep for dinner.
(Score: 2) by chromas on Saturday August 05 2017, @10:20PM
How do I culturally enrich without a truck or taharrush gamea?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:46AM (2 children)
As a Californian who grew up in a conservative-leaning county, I have to point out that the vast majority of California, geographically, is red. The only reason why the state turned Blue is because that faggot Reagan granted amnesty to Mexicans, and as we all know, Mexicans will always vote for free shit and more amnesty. They reproduce like roaches and will vote Democrat.
Trump wisely understands that a demographic war is underway in America, and is fighting to take America back into the hands of its residents, not leeches.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Sunday August 06 2017, @09:59AM (1 child)
Yes, long live our rulers...old, rich, white, landowning men. They long for "the good ole days" that Trump promised them will return.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @02:12PM
Come to Niagara Falls Canada where one of the big landowners is a rich Chinese woman.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Saturday August 05 2017, @08:27PM
Yeah it's just pure whine. Nothing insightful.
He was underpaid in California? That should read: he didn't do the relevant research before moving from one country to another. If he was underpaid, he should have got another job (no difficult visa issues for Canadians).
He blames all his problems on other people. Maybe he should look in the mirror instead. Maybe, the reason that he was passed over for promotions is that he isn't very good.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:36AM
"To me, it's whiny."
To me, it seems to be more mockery of the truly whiny bitches who are making the news today.
From TFA: "I tell my story to highlight that we all have challenges."
Want me to get started on all you visually-normal SOB's and your fucking color coding schemes? The assholes at work have decided to paint lines on the floor so people know where to go for this and that. God-damned green stripes are all but invisible - if I'm not THINKING ABOUT THEM and LOOKING FOR THEM, I don't see them. I walk right over them without seeing them. You people use red and green for all kinds of "meaningful" shit, like traffic lights. FFS, it's a god-damned conspiracy. It's a worse conspiracy than the one that keeps women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen!!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by dak664 on Saturday August 05 2017, @07:33PM (27 children)
J.M. Greer usually gets it right IMO
http://www.ecosophia.net/hate-new-sex/ [ecosophia.net]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 05 2017, @07:39PM (4 children)
I particularly love how they fight hatred, real or imagined, with absurd amounts most definitely real hatred. And utterly miss the irony even when it's explicitly pointed out to them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Saturday August 05 2017, @08:39PM (1 child)
Because it is good to hate the haters. And of course it is no sin to be intolerant of intolerance. Once you can double think those without the slightest flicker of "WTF?" you are a Prog in everything but the detail of learning a hundred more smaller taboos and training yourself to duckspeak the correct platitude in whatever circumstance you find yourself in.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday August 07 2017, @01:34AM
Moderation in all things, please. Even moderation in moderation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @05:18PM (1 child)
Hate and violence aren't inherently bad. Both can have liberating and positive uses.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 08 2017, @12:51AM
Wrong. Hatred, unlike violence, has no legitimate use. The only thing it does is poison the soul of the person holding on to it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday August 05 2017, @09:55PM (20 children)
Hate crime is a real problem. Hate speech is a real problem. However, it is frequently the case that an accusation of hate speech is an ad hominem attack which is intended to halt a reasoned argument.
1702845791×2
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 05 2017, @10:39PM (15 children)
No, speech of any level of disagreeability is never a problem as bad as censorship. Never.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday August 05 2017, @11:43PM (8 children)
It is difficult to have reasoned debate when one party gets haughty and states that an argument is unacceptable. While some may see it as a meta-argument or a win through forfeit, it is an attack against a person, a class of people and/or an attempt to win (or de-rail) an argument without loss of status. So, when someone attempts to win an argument by curtailing sexism/racism/religion or whatever spangle [catb.org] has currency, it is an attempt at censorship (or diversion).
Regarding SoylentNews, I understand that the first (and possibly only) deleted post contained a person's home address. I understanding that posting such information publicly is often known as doxxing. Presumably, the information was factually accurate. Presumably, it was deleted on the grounds of incitement to physical violence. Is this censorship of free speech? Or merely muting [bash.org] a fuckwad [knowyourmeme.com] who shouts "Fire!" in a theater [wikipedia.org]?
1702845791×2
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 05 2017, @11:54PM (7 children)
Mostly doxxing is illegal and we can't legally allow illegal posts that come to our attention to remain up if we want to keep the site. There was also a post where a guy doxxed himself that we redacted for him. I think that's it though.
Hate speech though, that has an overwhelming need to be legal lest the progs win the battle they're currently fighting to have anything they dislike declared as hate speech and legally banned.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday August 06 2017, @02:23AM (6 children)
Historically speaking I find it hilarious you think it's "progressives" that want censorship. The record seems to show a pretty even split among economically-left and economically-right leaning folks.
Know what they have in common? Authoritarianism. Stop trying to frame a question of freedom in terms of a question of economic models. Stalin was economically hard left, Hitler was economically hard right, and both of them were hard authoritarians.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 06 2017, @10:30AM (3 children)
I wasn't speaking historically; I was speaking about now. Past good deeds don't make up for getting your authoritarian on today, which is exactly what you're doing. Yes, the right has their authoritarian peccadilloes as well but they don't have near the rabidness the left currently does and they don't want to apply it to the second most sacred of our rights, speech.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday August 06 2017, @11:35PM (2 children)
...are...are you blind deaf dumb and retarded? Have you not been paying attention to the last 55-some-odd years of history in the US? ...oh, Hell, I know the answer to that last one. Go back to sleep, Uzzard.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 07 2017, @12:18AM (1 child)
If you lack the intellectual honesty to see that unlike hippies of the 60s, the progs of today are fascist, authoritarian shitheads, there's no point in replying to me.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday August 07 2017, @01:10AM
You didn't read my post very closely, did you? I've had my share of run-ins with those people, and yes, they've become...well, you and your kind. It's unsettling, but not surprising considering how history works.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by pdfernhout on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:16PM (1 child)
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ [umanitoba.ca]
"OK, what’s this book about? It’s about what’s happened to the American government lately. It’s about the disastrous decisions that government has made. It’s about the corruption that rotted the Congress. It’s about how traditional conservatism has nearly been destroyed by authoritarianism. It’s about how the “Religious Right” teamed up with amoral authoritarian leaders to push its un-democratic agenda onto the country. It’s about the United States standing at the crossroads as the next federal election approaches.
“Well,” you might be thinking, “I don’t believe any of this is true.” Or maybe, you’re thinking, “What else is new? I’ve believed this for years.” Why should a conservative, moderate, or liberal bother with this book? Why should any Republican, Independent, or Democrat click the “Whole Book” link on this page?
Because if you do, you’ll begin an easy-ride journey through some very relevant scientific studies I have done on authoritarian personalities--one that will take you a heck of a lot less time than the decades it took me. Those studies have a direct bearing on all the topics mentioned above. So if you think the first paragraph is a lot of hokum, or full of half-truths, I invite you to look at the research. ..."
Sadly the book link no longer works and is blocked in the wayback machine due to robots.txt. But the book can be found here:
https://theauthoritarians.org/ [theauthoritarians.org]
That said, a more challengine US political isssue is:
"What Social Science Can Tell Us About Social Change"
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science.html [ucsc.edu]
The biggest challenge of the 21st century: the irony of technologies of abundance used by scarcity-minded people.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hendrikboom on Monday August 07 2017, @01:44AM
"The Authoritarians" is an excellent book, and I recommend it highly.
It does explain what is happening in the U.S., and elsewhere.
I've concluded that we need to avoid authoritarians, no matter whether they are on the so-called right of the so-called left.
As I said before, moderation in all things.
-- hendrik
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by http on Sunday August 06 2017, @12:35AM (4 children)
I would like to show the childish ridiculousness of your statement:
Imagine if the entirety of this post had been, "I'm going to kill you " and your address.
Disagreeable, right? Breath slowly, you're going to be OK.
If you can't imagine occasions where censorship is the lesser evil, your imagination aint worth shit. And if you won't admit it once your imagination does catch up, you're repeating slogans mindlessly. Really, you're a fine coder, you've done great work here, but your understanding of humans, law, society... are shit at best. It's been really hard to figure out how someone smart enough to follow other people's perl code can't figure out that it actually matters what you say to other people.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:14AM (1 child)
And it's just as incomprehensible to me how you can fail to understand what an insanely slippery slope censorship of any kind is. Or do you simply think your ideology will always be the one in charge and none of these restrictions will ever be used against you?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by http on Sunday August 06 2017, @04:26AM
I never once suggested it wasn't a slippery slope. I posted,
...so it should be clear from my post that my understanding of this is just fine.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday August 06 2017, @02:45AM (1 child)
Dammit, http, you actually made me side with Uzzard against an opponent of his. THINK before you say shit like that. That's precisely the same thinking that leads to "but if there's a nuclear bomb with a 24 hour timer on it, maybe a LITTLE torture is okay."
Stop that. I know, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but now it feels like my soul needs a bath in phenol.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday August 07 2017, @01:49AM
Even under such circumstances, torture is unlikely to produce reliable information.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @02:31PM
You're an idiot then. It's entirely possible to flood the relevant channels with so much fake news that you no longer need to censor to remove points of view completely.
Just think of all those Clinton supporters that think Bernie is why she lost. Or all those people that are still upset about Obama care imploding.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @03:58PM (3 children)
Hate crime is a very poorly conceived notion.
Why would a hate crime be more severe in nature than any other similar crime? It's not about the motives but about the arbitrariness of it. Somebody killing somebody because they got into a heated argument is considered less severe than somebody arbitrarily killing somebody because they're a [insert group protected by hate crime laws.] But those square brackets expose the problem. Hate crimes are difficult to define when viewed in terms of hate. However, arbitrary crime is very easy to define. For instance is Islamic Terrorism a hate crime? Most certainly, but it's not legally considered one yet largely because the law has not yet caught up. On the other hand such crimes would be well encapsulated if hate crimes were defined not in terms of hate but in terms of the arbitrary victimization.
Generalizing the definition would also, I think, make the laws much more poignant and fair. For instance, I think individuals arbitrarily attacking other individuals at political rallies, and by that I mean for instance a guy throwing a rock at a random person with the intent to cause harm, is certainly a hate crime. But it's not considered so by the law for reasons that are pretty much inexplicable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @05:00PM (1 child)
Hate crimes aren't arbitrary. They're illegal because of things like lynchings where people would be randomly targeted for no reason other than their group membership or are perceived to be.
It's an extra level of punishment on to of whatever crime they get convicted of.
Also it's not that difficult in many cases. Usually there will be slurs and fb posts as well as affiliations that would demonstrate a bigoted motivation.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday August 08 2017, @06:36AM
Punishment for hate crime isn't an extra level of punishment. It is recognition that it is not vengeance against specific individuals. Consider the scenario where Person A steals a lifetime of average earnings and Person B kills Person A. Person A is a dead criminal and Person B is a criminal because they have undertaken a vigilante action. Person B's action may be natural justice and proportionate. Person B may have targetted the correct person for the correct reason. However, Person B has circumvented the due process of a court of law and this is not to be encouraged. Person B might kill someone else, possibly for a less significant reason but Person B is unlikely to become a prolific serial killer.
Person C starts from the position of "Kill all of the gays!!!!!1!1" This is not vengeance. This is not natural justice. This is a one person campaign which is unlikely to be sated. It is aggression against complete strangers. The punishment (and rehabilitation) is proportionate.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday August 08 2017, @07:07AM
What similar crime? People are regularly attacked and killed because they are an ethnic minority or a sexual minority. People rarely get attacked or killed because they are an ethnic majority or sexual majority. Indeed, how many people have been attacked or killed because they were straight or cisgendered?
Protected characteristics are too narrow but we have such a longer path towards equality and therefore efforts are concentrated on characteristics which can be discerned by a violent stranger or a potential employer. This includes sex, race and nationality. Even in jurisdictions where gay people can marry, their choice of marriage venue, their choice of caterer and their choice of honeymoon suite may be greatly restricted. I'd like to see more protection against ageism, more protection for people with red hair and more protection for sexual minorities. And yes, placing some forms of equality ahead of others is itself discrimination. However, we live in a world where the majority of gay people live in a jurisdiction where their sexuality is illegal and/or they are expected to enter into sham marriages. We also live in a world where a straight, cisgendered white man with conservative views can be excluded from career development programs and then fired for mentioning that traditional gender rôles have a biological basis [soylentnews.org].
1702845791×2
(Score: 1) by pdfernhout on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:04PM
Very interesting blog post; thanks for mentioning it!
The biggest challenge of the 21st century: the irony of technologies of abundance used by scarcity-minded people.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @07:42PM (5 children)
Such dog whistle training is very revealing.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 05 2017, @08:14PM (4 children)
Anyone who believes in "dog whistles" is either a troll or a douchebag. Which are you?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @08:51PM
Different AC, but "dog whistles" are absolutely a real thing. The only thing is that over time, the definition has widened. Originally, it referred to the concept in opinion polling and then later to the more general definition referring to words that have broad appeal in a political context without negative baggage, such as "values" or "family." Then it expanded to ideas with special meaning to christian groups in particular, because of the aforementioned examples. Then to use of those terms in general, then to attack words used by groups, and then beyond.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @09:27PM
Lee Atwater verifies the fact:
Don't say the actual word; just use the code words. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [wikiquote.org]
Here's Ronnie Raygun:
Making a "states rights" speech next to the place Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner were murdered while they were registering Black voters. [google.com]
(I'd link directly to the page, but the S/N comments engine still has a heart attack when it sees e.g. %22 in URLs.)
Dogwhistle politics is definitely a thing.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @12:09AM
Anyone who does not believe in "dog whistles" is probably subject to them. Kind of like not knowing we are talking about racism because ostensibly we are discussing "free speech".
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:54AM
I think the dog whistle crap is for real. You can see a suggestion of it right here on Soylent from time to time. Post something about US politics or culture, and all the usual suspects arrive in short order, to make the proper $party line posts. Those forums maintained by MSM are worse by several orders of magnitude. Yeah, dog whistles seem to be real. Maybe they are less real out in the real world of flesh and blood, but they are very real online.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Saturday August 05 2017, @07:51PM (27 children)
The part that's missing is in the heartland we're more diverse in many ways, but the coasts see progressivism as being holier than thou, therefore any anti-social or bullying behavior can be excused by mere political posturing.
In the heartland if you're an asshole, you'll learn in church that Jesus mostly dislikes assholes, so you'll act civilized or get ostracized as it should be. On the coasts, you can be as much of a bullying asshole as you want as long as you're a unitarian universalist and say you hate white men and vote for hillary, which results in a lot of intellectually weak bullying assholes.
Then you add assortive mating and socialization, such that concentration increases over time. Is there anyone left in SV who isn't an antisocial asshole? Is there anyone left in the midwest who's a progressive bully? Not many, thats for sure....
The other aspect of alt-right is the legacy neos are obsolete "Israel firster baby boomers" and are obsolete culturally. And the boomer lefty hippies are just as obsolete culturally.... The alt-right isn't an alternative, its a generational replacement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @08:11PM (1 child)
You're suggesting that the peace and love generation has been replaced with bigots?
It's likely the isreal first boomers that outsourced the jobs and manufacturing that lead to this.
I wish the middle class people went after the people at the top who make the decisions, as opposed to the little people at the bottom. I guess it's easier to put down a person that's within reach of the same level as you, than to try to reach up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @12:11AM
Anti-semite! Neo-nazi spotted!!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @08:11PM (24 children)
> ...if you're an asshole, you'll learn in church that Jesus mostly dislikes assholes,
Never went to church as a kid (or adult) except for special events like weddings and memorials. I plan on keeping my perfect record, have never attended a regular Sunday mass and I just turned 63. One parent was raised as a Unitarian in rural Maine, the other left the Catholic church (on Long Island) as soon as they were old enough, saw how dishonest it was (about age 16) and never looked back.
The worst assholes I've met are the ones that wear their religion on their sleeve. They fight dirty when it comes to stealing business too, promise the moon to ignorant managers for a low price and then BS when they deliver something substandard technically. The way I see it, they must have been taught that "confession" was a special free pass--be an ass and abuse people all week, then atone for it somehow magically on Sunday. So much for learning morals and ethics in church.
(Score: 2, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 05 2017, @08:18PM (23 children)
Nah, progressives are way bigger assholes than muslims, you bigot.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @09:14PM (10 children)
> Nah, progressives are way bigger assholes than muslims, you bigot.
We could go all day(grin), hope you are enjoying it...
I was talking about born-again Christians. The kind that sign their email, "We walk by faith, not by sight." In my career, they are the worst assholes and cheat the hardest in business.
Only met one Muslim that tried to proselytize. Pretty mild, all he said was, "Please consider reading the Koran." To which I replied, "I never read the Bible, why should I start with another similar book now." After that he went back to being an engineer and we got along fine. Fwiw, I've met many Muslims engineers in USA.
(Score: 3, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 05 2017, @09:48PM (9 children)
You really should look at what happens when Islam runs a country if you're going to call out Christians over Muslims. Unless... do you approve of throwing people off the tops of buildings for being gay or executing them for being raped? Me, I could do without female drivers but only because I could do without any drivers who aren't me on my roads.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @10:33PM (8 children)
The Moors in Spain:
You weren't Muslim? You paid more taxes.
Full stop.
When The Catholics took back Spain:
Jews were expelled from the country.
The Spanish Inquisition burned people alive for heresy.
...for a little apples-to-apples comparison.
...and in most countries that are classified as "Christian", a minority of people pray daily and/or go to church weekly.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 05 2017, @10:41PM (6 children)
So, you're saying Islam is stuck 500-1k years in the past? We finally agree on something!
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @12:03AM (5 children)
I make it to be 1395 years for Muslims. [google.com]
For Christians, I make them to be 1988 years stuck on stupid. [google.com]
...or pick your own starting point.
When they finally throw away their scripture which contains lots of self-contradictory stuff, maybe that will be a starting point for a reasonable system.
At a minimum, throw away the half before The Nazarean started preaching the Do unto others stuff.
They are clearly already cherrypicking the parts they prefer in their scripture.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:19AM (1 child)
That's pretty much my point. Christianity, outside a very, very few fringe loons, is actually a religion of peace rather than calling itself one while preaching (or at best condoning those that do preach) death to heretics, infidels, Jews, homosexuals, and women who don't worship their men folk hard enough. Yet you pick Christianity as your religion to hate on. It'd be baffling if I didn't know you're just a child rebelling against daddy.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday August 07 2017, @02:56AM
Christianity was always at its best as a religion for the oppressed. When it was in charge of a significant part of the world, it became quite oppressive, and we got witch-burnings and crusades and the like.
But that's a problem with theocracy in general, no matter what the religion, and it isn't specific to Christianity.
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Sunday August 06 2017, @03:03AM (2 children)
Years since foundation is a stupid metric of progress. Were that the case, then the most developed nations in the world should be China, Egypt, Iran and Greece, whilst the USA should be a backwater shithole.
Social progress is not based on time spent in existence, it's based on the availability of better ideas as well as the willingness and ability to adapt to them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @11:33AM (1 child)
China - 1949
Egypt - 1805
Iran - 1979
Greece - 1821
USA - 1776
I don't think merely having had people living in a particular geographic area is really enough to declare national continuity.
(Score: 3, Touché) by unauthorized on Sunday August 06 2017, @12:47PM
Ah, so we judge states by when they come into their modern form of existence, but we judge religion by their original and much different form, do we?
By that standard mainstream American Christianity (which is a form of Protestantism) would be no more than 500 years old, where as both Sunni and Shia Islam are over 1000 years old.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 06 2017, @02:04AM
"You weren't Muslim? You paid more taxes.
Full stop."
Oh, really? And, if you didn't have the money to pay the taxes, then what? The bastards took your first born son, or your first born daughter? They burnt your house down? They took everything? Or, they just killed you?
In Islam, if you don't pay the "tax", you and everything you cherish is forfeit.
The inquisitions? I wonder if you can tell me exactly how many people, in total, were put to death by inquisitors? The number is shockingly small - and I do mean shocking. For all the hype, the inquisitions were very much a non-event.
(Score: 2) by chromas on Saturday August 05 2017, @10:40PM (11 children)
Progressives wear their religion on their sleeves; they just pretend it's not religion. They've got the evil Patriarchy as the bad guy, and Original Sin for those born cishetwhitemale (but they can repent and identify as something else). Their faith is intersectionalism. Instead of Sunday school they have gender studies class and Tumblr. Praise be Diversity!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @11:08PM (10 children)
I'm quite sure that in order to have a religion, you have to have a deity.[1]
Clearly, there are people who are so bathed in superstitious nonsense that they can't break away from the meme for a moment and they apply the religion yardstick to everything.
I'm now reminded of how Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Similar deal for non-Reactionaries and your "religion" confusion.
[1] Being without a deity, Buddhism is a philosophy.
Calling it a religion is more of this silly nonsense.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @11:35PM (1 child)
I'm the AC that has never attended a regular Sunday mass.
As a kid I never understood what my peers meant when they asked if I was atheist (or agnostic). It didn't make any sense because I had no frame of reference (which requires some religious training).
Only recently have I found some solutions --
+ The more formal one is, Post-Theological
https://thehumanist.com/magazine/january-february-2008/features/the-post-theological-umbrella [thehumanist.com]
+ The other one may have come from that Green site, something to the effect of, "I'm not atheist, I just believe in one less god than you do."
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday August 07 2017, @03:02AM
To be an atheist, you have to have a god (or more) to not believe in. But it's what you have instead of a god that makes it a religion.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Saturday August 05 2017, @11:43PM (1 child)
You might want to consult a dictionary before exhibiting your ignorance so publicly. A religion is a set of beliefs that offer an answer to the big questions of Life, the Universe and Everything. I.e. what is the Universe, why is it, why are we here and what are we supposed to be doing. A being or beings "outside" the observable universe who created it is a popular feature but not required. Progressivism and their Scientism fits that definition. It is a totalizing philosophy that includes a creation myth, a moral code, rituals of worship, etc. And it is more intolerant of differing beliefs than Islam; under Islam People of the Book can buy peace through paying the tax, there is no escape from a Progressive's hate of all who display insufficient enthusiasm.
Atheism is not a religion. It is a negation and is almost always a stepping stone to a positive belief system of some sort. But in practice almost every self proclaimed Atheist you are likely to meet is an evangelizing Progressive of the most annoying sort. Moldbug is instructive here, notice that Progressivism is clearly a mismash of Puritan / Calvinist belief stripped of God so that it could exploit a flaw in the 1st Amendment; by declaring itself Godless and "not a religion" (wink) it could bypass the protection mechanism and Establish itself as the one true State Religion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @11:48AM
I see you're off your meds again.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 06 2017, @02:05AM (2 children)
Humanists don't have a special deity, but they do have a religion. You don't seem to grasp very well what constitutes a religion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @03:48AM (1 child)
> Humanists don't have a special deity, but they do have a religion.
Huh? See: https://humanism.org.uk/humanism/humanism-today/non-religious-beliefs/ [humanism.org.uk]
Opening paragragh starts out
Or would you care to explain your version here??
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 06 2017, @11:17AM
You have a belief system? You have faith in your fellow man? That's enough right there to qualify as a "religion". Some backward tribe in Fuskistan believes that praying to a stone idol can solve problems, they have faith in it. Humanists believe that man is intrinsically good, and they have faith that *if only* they can teach everyone how good they can be, then they will be good.
It's a damned religion.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 06 2017, @05:46AM (2 children)
The Oxford Dictionary definition [oxforddictionaries.com]:
So yes, the definition of religion does include belief and worship of deities, beings of superhuman power, but it includes more than that. That's why Buddhism is counted as a religion, because it has such things (particularly, the life-death cycle and the means to leave it).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @08:07AM (1 child)
The everything-gets-recycled thing in Buddhism looks a bit like Science.
In nature, dead stuff does serve as fertilizer for new stuff.
On a grander scale, we're all made of star-stuff.
Whether that's the stuff up to iron on the periodic chart, formed in a regular old star, or the stuff more complex than iron that needed a supernova to make it.
...but everything that exists on Earth has come from a star that is now dead.
...and once our star (too small to go supernova) runs low on fuel, it will expand and gobble up the inner planets.
...then wait for something to smack into what's left and scatter the bits in the cosmic pool game.
Of all the belief systems, Buddhism seems closest to being fact-based.
...even though they (like all the rest) had no real idea and were just making it all up.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @02:28PM
> The everything-gets-recycled thing in Buddhism looks a bit like Science.
Very good, but one suggested edit--
The everything-gets-recycled thing in Buddhism looks a bit like the current best explanations of science.
Lower-case "s" since science is a process -- theory/test-with-experiment/repeat.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Saturday August 05 2017, @08:12PM (38 children)
pure crap. yes, culture shock happens, but its worse the other way around.
I'm in a progressive area and probably always will be (if I have my say). I'm athiest and don't enjoy being around people who want to force their religion on me and make me feel bad if I'm not in their chosen religion. ie, if I moved to any deep south state, I'd have a MUCH harder time than this guy who moved to a progressive area. no one would reject you for your religion; they might not belong to your religion, but you would not be pushed out. go to the south and have someone ask what church you go to. reply that you don't believe in that. see how far you get in that society and how many invites you get to the old boy's network, and how far you don't get at work since you are not 'one of them'.
article was drivel. I want my 10 minutes back.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 05 2017, @08:20PM (10 children)
I live in TN and while I was invited to church the first week I got here several times. Not a single person objected or looked down on me when I said thanks but it interfered with my fishing though. Maybe you're just an asshole when they invite you?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tekk on Saturday August 05 2017, @08:57PM (9 children)
I think he just missed out on the code. Seems like "It gets in the way of hunting/fishing" is the politically correct way to say "I don't go to church" around these parts :-) Least I've heard other people use that excuse before when I know better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @09:28PM
Live and Let Live Americans (which should be the majority, on either side, but obviously aren't), wouldn't care either way.
And depending on the region people will judge you for: being city/country folk, being wrong/non-religious, (not) being a sports fan, being (anti/pro) guns, hunting, videogames, sports, nascar, dirt track, fishing, etc. The real trick is finding a community that either keeps to itself, doesn't ask/doesn't judge, or embraces its differences. There aren't many that cover one, nevermind all of those conditions however.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 05 2017, @09:52PM (7 children)
Two of the guys I told that line to were preachers. In the south. They just laughed and we get along just fine to this day. So, I'm not buying his "you're just as big of assholes as us" line of shit.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by tekk on Saturday August 05 2017, @11:51PM (5 children)
That's what I'm saying. The line's the "correct" way to say it, being blunt about it may not be.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:21AM (4 children)
Yeah, that's just basic good manners. I guess not everyone has them though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @02:49PM (3 children)
It's not good manners. You're lying to clergy because you lack the integrity to deal with the consequences. They're clergy, they ought to have enough awareness to realize that religion isn't for everybody and to handle it like adults.
They ought to also have the professionalism to not take out personally.
I'm not surprised though you're not exactly a paragon of virtue, they were probably just glad to not have any responsibility for you in any possible afterlife.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 06 2017, @04:50PM (2 children)
You must be new here if you think I'm lying about it interfering with my fishing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @05:31PM (1 child)
That's not the lie, the lie is linking fishing to not attending church. Not fishing would be a lie on top of a lie.There's no reason you couldn't fish in the evening.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 06 2017, @07:27PM
Actually, there are several reasons I don't fish in the evenings. It's hotter. The fish generally bite better in the early mornings. Cooking at 5, eating at 6, cleaning at 7, and going to bed at nine so I can get up and go fishing early. And the lakes around here lock up half an hour after sunset until half an hour before sunrise the next day.
Now when it's raining heavily on Sunday morning it's not a valid excuse but even in TN that doesn't happen all that often.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:21AM
But were they "Christian", or were they "Catholic"?
(Score: 5, Informative) by jmorris on Saturday August 05 2017, @08:51PM (1 child)
You might try actually reading the articles before pontificating. That goes for the mods too.
Not only discrimination against other religions, intolerance for people who don't give sufficient applause to the ritual displays of religious bigotry required by Progressivism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @12:15AM
Some people just have evil, fucking parents. The "fucking" part is pretty much a given, since they're parents.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Arik on Saturday August 05 2017, @09:05PM (10 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @09:22PM (2 children)
I've dealt with both city and country and bigoted religious assholes looking down on or persecuting you for the 'wrong' faith or your lack of faith is quite common. Also treating you like a criminal because you don't believe in their God's word, which obviously means you can't be moral (even while some of their brethren are far more amoral while operating within the church's social network.)
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 05 2017, @09:53PM
Have you tried not being an asshole to them about their beliefs? That's usually plenty for most anyone to get along just fine with you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 06 2017, @11:27AM
I don't suppose it matters a whole lot - but did you mean "amoral" or "immoral"? https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/amoral-immoral/ [vocabulary.com]
I will note that an amoral person who is religious, will probably adopt his religion's morals, and never question whether they are truly his own morals. And, yes, you will find amoral people in church.
Immoral people, however, are far more likely to be using the church as cover. They're the people who backstab their fellow man all week long, go in for drunken lechery on Saturday, then go to church on Sunday to cover it all up. "I'm a deacon in church, you can't accuse me of immorality!"
And, oh yeah. That's why so many fringe loonies want to organize a "Christian" church that caters to their needs. The Gay Bay First Church of Fornication, or whatever the hell.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Saturday August 05 2017, @10:52PM (6 children)
Yeah, I am sure that there are all kinds of white Christians there. Or did you mean that there are also African-Americans?
I've lived in the South. You have no idea what diversity means.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 05 2017, @11:29PM (3 children)
You're either a liar or were raised in an upper-middle class neighborhood then. There is a fuuuuuuckload more diversity going on in the south than you'll ever see up north and even they shine like diversity beacons compared to out west.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @11:51PM (1 child)
> more diversity going on in the south than you'll ever see up north
I really doubt this. Exhibit A is NASCAR -- when I started consulting in Charlotte (mid-1980s) they were so bigoted that only white men were allowed in the pits. Women (I only saw white ones at the track) had to sit outside the fence in a special grandstand, and this was just on a private testing day (but same rules applied during race weekends). Every now and then there was a token black guy invited into the game.
I did my best to be quiet and (hopefully) competent, and got along OK. But I could never live there.
Exhibit B is the censored version of Huckleberry Finn from Auburn University, Montgomery Campus, Alabama,
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jan/05/huckleberry-finn-edition-censors-n-word [theguardian.com]
Trying to cover up their history...?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:23AM
History != current conditions. Progtards seem to have an inability to grok this.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:43AM
You have no clue.
In my street of about 20 houses, there are people from at least 5 different countries.
In Texas, diversity means being from a different county.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Arik on Sunday August 06 2017, @03:56AM (1 child)
You sound like the kind of ignorant asshole who will be hated no matter where he goes though. If you're a lousy person AND you don't subscribe to the majority view as well that can help reduce the latency of your karma, in the south just like everywhere else.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Whoever on Sunday August 06 2017, @04:21AM
Oh, wow: you have one Indian friend, so you must live in a diverse area.
Here, I live and work amongst people from India, China, Hong King, Taiwan, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Mexico, Britain, France and countless other countries. And, yes, we have different varieties of Christians and Jews.
It's completely laughable to think that anywhere in the South is remotely comparable in its diversity. You are the ignorant person.
Look in the mirror when you want to find an ignorant asshole.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bradley13 on Saturday August 05 2017, @09:23PM (2 children)
"I'm athiest and don't enjoy being around people who want to force their religion on me and make me feel bad if I'm not in their chosen religion"
Yeah, so, you may have skimmed your eyes over the words, but you clearly didn't actually understand them. "Force their religion on [you]"? Rejecting people for their religion is what progressives do.
I'm an athiest too; virtually my entire family (in flyover country) is deeply religions. Like the author of the blog article indicates: they accept different viewpoints, even if there is the occasional attempt to save my benighted soul. OTOH, I have to be careful not to offend progressives where I work, because they are incapable of accepting alternate viewpoints. I've never heard of an athiest being hounded out of a company populated by Christians, but non-progressives are being hounded out of progressive organizations? Happens all the time.
I'd far rather work in a group of religious folk than in a group of progressives. The religous folk are more tolerant and less self-righteous.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @12:20AM
Well I'm not! Definitely not! What is an "athiest", anyway? This is why I will not tolerate these "fly-over country" bumkins, the spelling is atrocious!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Sulla on Sunday August 06 2017, @02:53PM
As with everything it depends where you are, I am sure that working in a place with those westborogh baptists would be awful, but in general I have found religious people to be reserved. The only issue I ever had was a guy trying to befrend me in an attempt to convert me, then turn around and break off talking to me because I wouldn't convert and he couldn't "bare to see me burning in hell".
The places I have worked where there was a predominately progressive culture have been pretty intolerant to religion (one particular religion is A-ok). It was pretty common to make jokes insulting religious people and practices where everyone laughs.
I would be interested in seeing the number of lawsuits caused by over sensitive religous people suing employers compared to progressives sueing employers for the same level of infraction.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @09:32PM (7 children)
Well, this concept is basically the biggest problem. I learned in my women's studies class in college (yes, I--a white, conservative male--really did take a women's studies class to learn about opposing views) that "us" vs "them" is really a terrible thing. When you make someone into the "other," you alienate them from yourself, giving them no opportunity to ever be redeemed in your eyes. You turn them into the enemy, but they could actually be a friend if you both had the right mindset.
So maybe instead of demonizing the Christians of rural Tennessee or the transgender/minority/women's rights activists of San Francisco (depending on which "side" we happened to have latched onto through circumstances mostly outside of our own control), we should consider instead that we've all been duped by someone's agenda to some extent. We're all useful idiots to someone as long as we keep fighting each other. We all have deep psychological problems that we'll never even begin to work through as long as we point fingers at someone else.
(Of course, the rest of the women's studies class was dedicated to showing me how oppressive I am, being an unwitting member of the patriarchy and included in many categories of oppression: young, white, male, heterosexual, technical-minded, able-bodied, and several others. But I'm sure that was somehow different from "othering" me, which would have contradicted the material from the beginning of the class.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @11:18PM (5 children)
Your prose is WAY too measured.
Are you sure you're in the right place??
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday August 06 2017, @12:19AM (4 children)
Why? Is SN only for bashing the others?
I see this is a national sport in US, but there are non-americans here too. Should we leave?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @12:34AM (1 child)
8-) <--- Smilie applied retroactively.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday August 06 2017, @12:41AM
You like living dangerously deep into Poe's territory, eh? ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 06 2017, @02:09AM (1 child)
You won't leave because you enjoy your voyeurism. ;^)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday August 06 2017, @03:01AM
True to that. And a sick kinda voyeurism: seeing a civilization decay doesn't happen everyday, but is not a good thing to happen.
;^)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:18PM
The real beliefs slowly come out like the peeling of an onion. It's only later that you find out that they believe, oh, that Freemasons working for Satan are why we haven't realized yet that the Apollo program is a hoax or Ike faked the concentration camps for the Zionist conspiracy as political cover for its takeover of the Middle East.
All I can say is that it must work because so many do that. I think that's also in part the origin of the political "dog whistle" [wikipedia.org]. So many fringe or extreme beliefs start with the same well trodden argument chain. If you've been exposed to the argument chain before and someone starts by using the standard, usually entirely reasonable, argument opener, then they can intentionally or not imply the rest of the chain. It's only a small move from that to the even more subtle "code words" that imply those argument openers without even going that far.
My take on this is that "us versus them" is basic human wiring, evolved from many, many generations of humans who managed to live long enough to reproduce. It's got to have some positive use even if we don't like all the consequences. And I think it does have practical application. For example, con artists usually work to fool their marks in two ways, by first befuddling the higher intellect and second, by creating an environment that lulls the instinctive behaviors. For example, there's no shell game operator anywhere in the world who likes to give away money. Yet they are able to repeatedly con people into losing money. The higher intellect is fooled into focusing on the movement of the "shells" and the expected payoff rather than considering why someone would be doing something so supposedly easy to figure out and hence, lose money all the time. Similarly, many of these operations are so sophisticated that they have confederates of the shell game operator pretend to play as well. Often the mark is surrounded by such, lulled into a false companionship. But would they play, if they knew via their sensitive "us versus them" detector that they were surrounded by allies of the shell game operator?
These behavioral tools have their place. Rather than excise outright what can be unpleasant, it would be better to learn when such behavioral detectors malfunction rather than turn them off altogether. Here, I have to agree with The Mighty Buzzard. TheGratefulNet was going out of his way to be "one of them". He's deliberately being exclusionary and it worked. A lower key deflection would have worked better.
But I have seen religious zealots who treat everyone who doesn't perfectly believe their flavor of religion as outsiders. Even the mildest difference can be enough for them to shut you out. They'll usually be polite, but you can see the decision was made to write you off, that you are a hedonistic, immoral lost cause and going to hell or other unpleasant alternative. If they happen to be your boss and coworkers, then it will suck to continue working for that business.
My take is that progressive zealotry exists and it can be as bad as any other sort of zealotry. But a fair number of people in this thread are doing the "us versus them" mistake of comparing the worst behavior of the other side to typical behavior of their side. Even groups that tend to self-select for rude and threatening behavior, like say neo-nazis, soviet-style communists, or crime gangs, will have average behavior that is better than the worst behavior of any sufficiently large group.
Still, the typical, progressive ideals leave a lot to be desired in the workplace. There's too much us versus them thinking going on with antennae out sensing for even the most delicate smell of official outgroups like racists and sexists, and it has found its way into firing decisions since businesses can often be sued for this stuff, if they don't get rid of people with the undesirable behavioral issues.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 06 2017, @02:08AM (1 child)
"I'd have a MUCH harder time than this guy who moved to a progressive area."
Is that an objective, or a subjective opinion? Or, is it just relativism? That is, relatively speaking, your own problems are obviously much worse than some other asshole's problems.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Sulla on Monday August 07 2017, @04:17AM
I grew up on the I5 belt in Oregon, went to Alaska for college, and back to the same place in Oregon for work. The cultural shift was pretty massive. Where I am in Oregon has some pretty militant progressives, where you are free to do as you like as long as it fits within the defined boundries of their narrative. Alaska was very live and let live no matter what you agree, the most militant conservative thing I saw was telling the unions to fuck off when the city ran out of money due to heavy snowfall and had to hire cheaper worlk to clear the roads.
I never had to guard what I said in Alaska, I constantly have to watch what I say in Oregon. In real life I'm not even a Trump guy (Russians only pay for posts), but even talking about "the guy who got stabbed by a homeless person yesterday" gets responded to with cries of "racist".
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @03:07PM
Not just the south - try Wisconsin or Minnesota and tell me how the Laestadians treat you