Check out this Facebook website
- Thread starter hoot1
- Start date
Re: Do not
That headline they had about the govt. wanting to start a race war seemed to resonate with all of the massive TV coverage of the Ferguson and other situations; the way that the media has turned these cases of police brutality into it being all about race.
That headline they had about the govt. wanting to start a race war seemed to resonate with all of the massive TV coverage of the Ferguson and other situations; the way that the media has turned these cases of police brutality into it being all about race.
Let's be clear . . .
people like to think of themselves as rational creatures because we're capable of logic. But that doesn't mean that we are rational beings . . . we're generally emotional creatures and more often than not use our capacity for logic to back into rationalizations for our emotional responses.
I think the website hoot linked represents the general sensibilities of far more folks in this country than either us would like to admit. What is the rational approach to those folks? Do we write them off, ignore them in order to restrict the conversation to only a reasonably rational conversation about topics (which is probably what this board's ethos should be). Or do we engage, so long as they're respectful of the rational thought that others present in response to their posts, that we perceive to be irrational?
My sense is that hoot is asking Accuro questions in part to understand where Accuro is coming from, and in part to find a place to engage Accuro on a rational basis. S'OK . . . .
This post was edited on 12/14 6:34 PM by Sope Creek
people like to think of themselves as rational creatures because we're capable of logic. But that doesn't mean that we are rational beings . . . we're generally emotional creatures and more often than not use our capacity for logic to back into rationalizations for our emotional responses.
I think the website hoot linked represents the general sensibilities of far more folks in this country than either us would like to admit. What is the rational approach to those folks? Do we write them off, ignore them in order to restrict the conversation to only a reasonably rational conversation about topics (which is probably what this board's ethos should be). Or do we engage, so long as they're respectful of the rational thought that others present in response to their posts, that we perceive to be irrational?
My sense is that hoot is asking Accuro questions in part to understand where Accuro is coming from, and in part to find a place to engage Accuro on a rational basis. S'OK . . . .
This post was edited on 12/14 6:34 PM by Sope Creek
You do realize . . .
that those conspiracy theories really are crazy, don't you?
What would "the government" (or even a "shadow government") have to gain by starting a race war?
When has the government - at least since Nixon - been able to control anything the media does? Have you not witnessed the Pentagon Papers? Edward Snowden?
What's helpful is to have some perspective about the sources of these stories. When you realize that what "the media" are trying to do is to make money, and the best way to do that is to have the fastest, most outrageous take on events so that they can garner readers'/watchers'/listeners' attention - and therefore justify higher advertising rates to sponsors - you can pretty easily learn to filter out the outrageousness from the actual story . . . and in the end most of what you see is fairly normal (if often regrettable) stuff.
In my opinion what the site that hoot linked really says about the owner of the site - and to a certain extent your posts, too, Accuro - is that you feel alienated from what is presented as popular culture, feel like that popular culture is driving too much of what occurs in the country, and that you have little, if any, influence on that popular culture. I think that's a relatively immature understanding of the role of popular culture; sure there might be changes that can be uncomfortable for some - like gay marriage makes some feel uncomfortable where there's little, if any, normal life contact with gay people. But the really good thing about our society is that we're structured for change to occur relatively slowly, and have lots of opportunity to have continuing dialogues about these issues before change occurs. For example, the Stonewall riots occurred in 1969 . . . and the fact of homosexuality was an undercurrent in society already, too. It's taken 40+ years for the gay marriage issue to be presented front and center for decision . . . that's a long time.
The issue of police relations with black communities is not new, but it also isn't something that is necessarily fixed. One need only look to the changes that the Los Angeles police department has made as an indication that we can deal with issues effectively.
The great thing about our society is that if we're willing to listen to each other, and be open to change based on what each of us can recognize as real solutions, and not the bumper stickers that we sometimes hide behind defensively, a pretty reasonable, even better, and yes, even good, society is possible. Still.
This post was edited on 12/14 7:25 PM by Sope Creek
that those conspiracy theories really are crazy, don't you?
What would "the government" (or even a "shadow government") have to gain by starting a race war?
When has the government - at least since Nixon - been able to control anything the media does? Have you not witnessed the Pentagon Papers? Edward Snowden?
What's helpful is to have some perspective about the sources of these stories. When you realize that what "the media" are trying to do is to make money, and the best way to do that is to have the fastest, most outrageous take on events so that they can garner readers'/watchers'/listeners' attention - and therefore justify higher advertising rates to sponsors - you can pretty easily learn to filter out the outrageousness from the actual story . . . and in the end most of what you see is fairly normal (if often regrettable) stuff.
In my opinion what the site that hoot linked really says about the owner of the site - and to a certain extent your posts, too, Accuro - is that you feel alienated from what is presented as popular culture, feel like that popular culture is driving too much of what occurs in the country, and that you have little, if any, influence on that popular culture. I think that's a relatively immature understanding of the role of popular culture; sure there might be changes that can be uncomfortable for some - like gay marriage makes some feel uncomfortable where there's little, if any, normal life contact with gay people. But the really good thing about our society is that we're structured for change to occur relatively slowly, and have lots of opportunity to have continuing dialogues about these issues before change occurs. For example, the Stonewall riots occurred in 1969 . . . and the fact of homosexuality was an undercurrent in society already, too. It's taken 40+ years for the gay marriage issue to be presented front and center for decision . . . that's a long time.
The issue of police relations with black communities is not new, but it also isn't something that is necessarily fixed. One need only look to the changes that the Los Angeles police department has made as an indication that we can deal with issues effectively.
The great thing about our society is that if we're willing to listen to each other, and be open to change based on what each of us can recognize as real solutions, and not the bumper stickers that we sometimes hide behind defensively, a pretty reasonable, even better, and yes, even good, society is possible. Still.
This post was edited on 12/14 7:25 PM by Sope Creek
Re: You do realize . . .
Interesting stuff, Sope, at least the parts that I understand. I am not sure that the govt. wants a race war; I only said that it seemed that way from all of the media coverage that was playing up the racial angle almost exclusively instead of the very legitimate issue of trigger happy and brutal police. It is like they are trying to whip up minorities into a frenzy of hatred toward white people. Is the media doing this on their own, or are they controlled by the "shadow govt." ?
Interesting stuff, Sope, at least the parts that I understand. I am not sure that the govt. wants a race war; I only said that it seemed that way from all of the media coverage that was playing up the racial angle almost exclusively instead of the very legitimate issue of trigger happy and brutal police. It is like they are trying to whip up minorities into a frenzy of hatred toward white people. Is the media doing this on their own, or are they controlled by the "shadow govt." ?
"Shadow government"?
You'll have to explain what you mean, and provide some evidence for that . . .
. . . as far as what the media are doing, remember it's all about ratings and money. Eyeballs on their channels and websites is virtually all they are about these days, and so what passes for "news" is infotainment, i.e., a bit of information, a whole lot of entertainment and not much circumspection. How events play out . . . they really don't care so much. The longer a crisis goes on, the longer they can milk it.
One more observation: "the trigger-happy and brutal police issue" is a legitimate one . . . and with at least the Gardner death in New York (on the heels of the Brown shooting in Ferguson) African-Americans have at least the appearance of an issue that is specific to the way they are being treated differently than whites. It's a serious charge, and based on my interactions with African-Americans I encounter at work it's one that needs to be taken seriously. IMHO, it's time we listen to their voices, and use the same filters that we use for the media, Rush and right wing radio, police and everybody else to try to sort out fact from fiction, and real issues from agendas. We might not be perfect at it, but I think we can do a pretty good job of it.
Charlie Feld is - or used to be - a high level consultant helping turnarounds in major company IT organizations. And one of his tenets in starting this process was that we need to believe the other person is trying to do the right thing until we have reason not to. All of us are so cynical with each other, and with the media we have understandingly so . . . if we spend a little time listening non-judgmentally I think it can be pretty amazing what we learn that we didn't know - and thought we did know - before we started listening that way.
You'll have to explain what you mean, and provide some evidence for that . . .
. . . as far as what the media are doing, remember it's all about ratings and money. Eyeballs on their channels and websites is virtually all they are about these days, and so what passes for "news" is infotainment, i.e., a bit of information, a whole lot of entertainment and not much circumspection. How events play out . . . they really don't care so much. The longer a crisis goes on, the longer they can milk it.
One more observation: "the trigger-happy and brutal police issue" is a legitimate one . . . and with at least the Gardner death in New York (on the heels of the Brown shooting in Ferguson) African-Americans have at least the appearance of an issue that is specific to the way they are being treated differently than whites. It's a serious charge, and based on my interactions with African-Americans I encounter at work it's one that needs to be taken seriously. IMHO, it's time we listen to their voices, and use the same filters that we use for the media, Rush and right wing radio, police and everybody else to try to sort out fact from fiction, and real issues from agendas. We might not be perfect at it, but I think we can do a pretty good job of it.
Charlie Feld is - or used to be - a high level consultant helping turnarounds in major company IT organizations. And one of his tenets in starting this process was that we need to believe the other person is trying to do the right thing until we have reason not to. All of us are so cynical with each other, and with the media we have understandingly so . . . if we spend a little time listening non-judgmentally I think it can be pretty amazing what we learn that we didn't know - and thought we did know - before we started listening that way.
What got me started on this
A distant cousin and Facebook friend put this on Facebook as taken from the website which I linked..
I was surprised my Cousin would latch onto this particular message along with visiting the website, so I posted this thread to see what the gang at the Cooler might be thinking. Guess this all fits in with a good many fine citizens who are feeling uncomfortable with our federal government.
A distant cousin and Facebook friend put this on Facebook as taken from the website which I linked..
I was surprised my Cousin would latch onto this particular message along with visiting the website, so I posted this thread to see what the gang at the Cooler might be thinking. Guess this all fits in with a good many fine citizens who are feeling uncomfortable with our federal government.
Re: "Shadow government"?
Sope, I am no expert on this, but the shadow govt. is, I think, usually believed to be the rich, mega-billionaires who own and control the banks including the Federal Reserve Bank, as well as the print and broadcast media, Hollywood, and many other sectors of the economy, and, as is pretty apparent, control congress and the executive branch as well.
One giveaway that all the news media outlets are controlled is the fact that, with a few differences here and there, they all report the exact same stories every night.
Sope, I am no expert on this, but the shadow govt. is, I think, usually believed to be the rich, mega-billionaires who own and control the banks including the Federal Reserve Bank, as well as the print and broadcast media, Hollywood, and many other sectors of the economy, and, as is pretty apparent, control congress and the executive branch as well.
One giveaway that all the news media outlets are controlled is the fact that, with a few differences here and there, they all report the exact same stories every night.
I'll tell you what . . .
manage your own board over on your own board, OK?
If you have something substantive to say in the discussion here then by all means say it. But to stalk a guy on this board for the purpose of managing his posting on another board is, IMHO, absolute crap.
manage your own board over on your own board, OK?
If you have something substantive to say in the discussion here then by all means say it. But to stalk a guy on this board for the purpose of managing his posting on another board is, IMHO, absolute crap.
Re: I'll tell you what . . .
There are a heck of a lot of things that are absolute crap ahead of looking out for a posters interests. Sheesh, lighten up Francis!
I am not a board manager. All I wanted to do is warn Accuro that posting anything more about race will get him banned over there. I actually am looking out for Accuro's interests (and I can't believe I'm doing so). If I were to tell him on our board, I would get in "trouble" with the moderator who is hell bent to ban Accuro.
There are a heck of a lot of things that are absolute crap ahead of looking out for a posters interests. Sheesh, lighten up Francis!
I'm sure your board's moderator would not want me chastising posters
On his board for issues that they raise or cause on mine. Besides that, if you know Acurro at all then you know that such admonitions bounce off of him like a super ball off concrete.
The fact that you followed him here could be called stalking.
On the other hand, you are very welcome to participate in the discussions here as an interested party, regardless of your school affiliation. We even let Purdue fans post here!
This post was edited on 12/17 11:22 AM by DougS
On his board for issues that they raise or cause on mine. Besides that, if you know Acurro at all then you know that such admonitions bounce off of him like a super ball off concrete.
The fact that you followed him here could be called stalking.
On the other hand, you are very welcome to participate in the discussions here as an interested party, regardless of your school affiliation. We even let Purdue fans post here!
This post was edited on 12/17 11:22 AM by DougS
Re: I'll tell you what . . .
Glades, if you are still here, based on your initial post I thought that you were the mod over there, and that you were threatening to ban me, but now, you say that you were looking out for me, so thanks. I guess that you are not responsible for the current two week ban that I am under for no good reason that I can ascertain.
Glades, if you are still here, based on your initial post I thought that you were the mod over there, and that you were threatening to ban me, but now, you say that you were looking out for me, so thanks. I guess that you are not responsible for the current two week ban that I am under for no good reason that I can ascertain.
