Everybody wants to join a tribe

[CO. Hoosier]

People want to be winners.

The ISIS recruiting message directed at the Western world exploits these two human motivations. It is very effective. Westerners, including young Americans are joining ISIS or becoming domestic ISIS sympathizers in unprecedented numbers.

There are a number of reasons for this. Most of those stem from the individual backgrounds and considerations. But there is one commonality that I think plays a role, and for some people a very important role. The USA brand is diminished. It is being intentionally diminished. Maybe it is irretrievably diminished. The recent celebration of 50 years after Selma gives us a stark evidence of this.

Compare this:

With this:

Tribes have symbols, banners, and physical means for identification. These symbols include everything from a Hoosiers jersey, to the Crips and Bloods gang colors. These symbols are proudly displayed by members of the tribe. There are no USA tribe symbols in the 2015 photo. There are many in the 1965 photo. What has changed?

I think the Howard Zinn-inspired "blame America first" message is having an effect. For many of us, the effect is easily overcome with knowledge and beliefs in who we are. For some others, the effect is profound. In some quarters, we have prohibited the display of the Stars and Stripes believing it to be "exclusionary" or "controversial". That notion is absolutely nuts. We are destroying our national unity in favor of smaller and isolated tribes centered around such things as race, political beliefs, religion and even the environment. The tribes are not in a shooting war, but we certainly are in a verbal pushing and shoving match. Many of us snap at the other tribes at the slightest provocation. In some cases we will use a demonstrable untruth or false flag to coalesce into gangs or tribes.

Enter the ISIS tribe. ISIS has a fertile field in which to plant its seeds.

 

[hoot1]

Actually doesn't ISIS attack our core values freedom (self indulgence to ISIS), democracy (man's will over Allah's), and capitalism (greed and avarice) to name a few things?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

People want to be winners.

The ISIS recruiting message directed at the Western world exploits these two human motivations. It is very effective. Westerners, including young Americans are joining ISIS or becoming domestic ISIS sympathizers in unprecedented numbers.

There are a number of reasons for this. Most of those stem from the individual backgrounds and considerations. But there is one commonality that I think plays a role, and for some people a very important role. The USA brand is diminished. It is being intentionally diminished. Maybe it is irretrievably diminished. The recent celebration of 50 years after Selma gives us a stark evidence of this.

Compare this:

With this:

Tribes have symbols, banners, and physical means for identification. These symbols include everything from a Hoosiers jersey, to the Crips and Bloods gang colors. These symbols are proudly displayed by members of the tribe. There are no USA tribe symbols in the 2015 photo. There are many in the 1965 photo. What has changed?

I think the Howard Zinn-inspired "blame America first" message is having an effect. For many of us, the effect is easily overcome with knowledge and beliefs in who we are. For some others, the effect is profound. In some quarters, we have prohibited the display of the Stars and Stripes believing it to be "exclusionary" or "controversial". That notion is absolutely nuts. We are destroying our national unity in favor of smaller and isolated tribes centered around such things as race, political beliefs, religion and even the environment. The tribes are not in a shooting war, but we certainly are in a verbal pushing and shoving match. Many of us snap at the other tribes at the slightest provocation. In some cases we will use a demonstrable untruth or false flag to coalesce into gangs or tribes.

Enter the ISIS tribe. ISIS has a fertile field in which to plant its seeds.

You're gonna have to link the Glenn Beck or Limbaugh article this came from...or wherever it came from. I just want to read the whole thing. So, if I get a call or something in the mail from ISIS, should I just disregard it? How soon should I expect this?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

[QUOTE="SuperHoosierFan, post: 354498, member: 4456"]You're gonna have to link the Glenn Beck or Limbaugh article this came from...or wherever it came from. I just want to read the whole thing. So, if I get a call or something in the mail from ISIS, should I just disregard it? How soon should I expect this?[/QUOTE]
hat

Once again you confirm Pavlov's experiments

My dog reacts to her leash the same way you react conservatives. Maybe you can find some help for your textbook conditioned response. In the meanwhile you are a total waste of time.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Actually doesn't ISIS attack our core values freedom (self indulgence to ISIS), democracy (man's will over Allah's), and capitalism (greed and avarice) to name a few things?

This is the problem

Core values ain't what they used to be in terms of being core, being valuses, or being universal. ISIS is stepping into the void for thousands of young people.

 

[Ladoga]

Its very similar to the reason that kids who are adrift in the world join gangs and commit previously unthinkable acts to be accepted. The major difference with this "gang" is that it requires adherence to human interpretation of a religious text and suggest suicide as a major means of inflicting the required damage to non-gang people.

 

[davegolf]

[QUOTE="SuperHoosierFan, post: 354498, member: 4456"]You're gonna have to link the Glenn Beck or Limbaugh article this came from...or wherever it came from. I just want to read the whole thing. So, if I get a call or something in the mail from ISIS, should I just disregard it? How soon should I expect this?

hat

Once again you confirm Pavlov's experiments

My dog reacts to her leash the same way you react conservatives. Maybe you can find some help for your textbook conditioned response. In the meanwhile you are a total waste of time.[/QUOTE]
Amen could have not said it better myself!

 

[hoot1]

CoH, I think your gang or tribe metaphor as it relates to why some recruits are attracted to ISIS is accurate. They don't think that they fit in with our society and look to ISIS as a place to find their dreams. Just as many American youngsters have an American dream, these misguided youths believe being part of the ISIS team will bring self fulfillment to them.

Many, if not most, will not find ISIS to be their long lost dream. If they aren't killed in battle, ISIS will either kill them or coerce them into servitude. I have a hard time believing that the ISIL version of Islam will somehow allow them to accept the crimes against humanity which they must perform as part of being accepted in the gang.

Admittedly, I could be naive about the numbers of recruits willing to join and endure ISIS servitude. Nevertheless, I just don't see the attraction as being permanent. The days and appeal of ISIS will be short lived almost regardless of what the image of America is, or isn't, around the globe and at home.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

[QUOTE="SuperHoosierFan, post: 354498, member: 4456"]You're gonna have to link the Glenn Beck or Limbaugh article this came from...or wherever it came from. I just want to read the whole thing. So, if I get a call or something in the mail from ISIS, should I just disregard it? How soon should I expect this?

hat

Once again you confirm Pavlov's experiments

My dog reacts to her leash the same way you react conservatives. Maybe you can find some help for your textbook conditioned response. In the meanwhile you are a total waste of time.[/QUOTE]

I agree, but your post was a waste of time. I still enjoy them though. Some sort of morbid curiosity I guess. I guess this is where you tell me President Obama is going to institute shariah law. Even though he's clearly stated he's not the strapping young Muslim socialist he used to be.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

COH-

I think you are right about the type of tribe mentality that leads to groups like ISIS being attractive to some.

I think you are mistaken in your quick assignation of blame to the "blame America" crowd. Many people have become disillusioned about America, not because they have been "tricked" into rejecting American values, but because their experience has been that America doesn't want them. If you want to simply brush off their very real complaints, then you're going to have to live with the fact that America as a tribe is over. If you want the idea of America to succeed, then the practice of America needs to be repaired. If you want people to desire to be part of the American tribe, then the American tribe needs to show they want those people.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

COH-

I think you are right about the type of tribe mentality that leads to groups like ISIS being attractive to some.

I think you are mistaken in your quick assignation of blame to the "blame America" crowd. Many people have become disillusioned about America, not because they have been "tricked" into rejecting American values, but because their experience has been that America doesn't want them. If you want to simply brush off their very real complaints, then you're going to have to live with the fact that America as a tribe is over. If you want the idea of America to succeed, then the practice of America needs to be repaired. If you want people to desire to be part of the American tribe, then the American tribe needs to show they want those people.

Is it even possible to unify the tribe?

In my lifetime, America has gone from some groups riding in the back of the bus to those same groups, plus many more groups, bitching about microagression. Microagression will never ever be eliminated. It is like trying to eliminate microorganisms. There are too many vested interests encouraging different groups of people to demonstrate, boycott, and feel excluded about something. As I said, if there are no legitimate grievances, the purveyors of discontent will simply make them up.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Is it even possible to unify the tribe?

In my lifetime, America has gone from some groups riding in the back of the bus to those same groups, plus many more groups, bitching about microagression. Microagression will never ever be eliminated. It is like trying to eliminate microorganisms. There are too many vested interests encouraging different groups of people to demonstrate, boycott, and feel excluded about something. As I said, if there are no legitimate grievances, the purveyors of discontent will simply make them up.

Well, then it's a lost cause. But I think we should continue to address the legitimate grievances and see what happens.

 

[toastedbread]

People want to be winners.

The ISIS recruiting message directed at the Western world exploits these two human motivations. It is very effective. Westerners, including young Americans are joining ISIS or becoming domestic ISIS sympathizers in unprecedented numbers.

There are a number of reasons for this. Most of those stem from the individual backgrounds and considerations. But there is one commonality that I think plays a role, and for some people a very important role. The USA brand is diminished. It is being intentionally diminished. Maybe it is irretrievably diminished. The recent celebration of 50 years after Selma gives us a stark evidence of this.

Compare this:

With this:

Tribes have symbols, banners, and physical means for identification. These symbols include everything from a Hoosiers jersey, to the Crips and Bloods gang colors. These symbols are proudly displayed by members of the tribe. There are no USA tribe symbols in the 2015 photo. There are many in the 1965 photo. What has changed?

I think the Howard Zinn-inspired "blame America first" message is having an effect. For many of us, the effect is easily overcome with knowledge and beliefs in who we are. For some others, the effect is profound. In some quarters, we have prohibited the display of the Stars and Stripes believing it to be "exclusionary" or "controversial". That notion is absolutely nuts. We are destroying our national unity in favor of smaller and isolated tribes centered around such things as race, political beliefs, religion and even the environment. The tribes are not in a shooting war, but we certainly are in a verbal pushing and shoving match. Many of us snap at the other tribes at the slightest provocation. In some cases we will use a demonstrable untruth or false flag to coalesce into gangs or tribes.

Enter the ISIS tribe. ISIS has a fertile field in which to plant its seeds.

Blame the Saudis, and open immigration policies which have allowed this filth to come here.

 

[hoot1]

Is it even possible to unify the tribe?

There are too many vested interests encouraging different groups of people to demonstrate, boycott, and feel excluded about something. As I said, if there are no legitimate grievances, the purveyors of discontent will simply make them up.

A few years ago many Americans were calling attention to our country being a Judeo-Christian nation. Now some of those same people are calling attention to Christians being persecuted in this country and being treated as second class citizens. So in a few years a large segment of our population is suddenly feeling excluded.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

A few years ago many Americans were calling attention to our country being a Judeo-Christian nation. Now some of those same people are calling attention to Christians being persecuted in this country and being treated as second class citizens. So in a few years a large segment of our population is suddenly feeling excluded.

"Focus on your own damn family!"

The gay rights effort was inextricably intertwined with an anti-christian effort, or at least an anti-evangelical effort. Bumper stickers and soundbites clearly demonstrate this. This dual POV still goes on with all the verbal crap directed at the Memories Pizza Parlor. The gay rights messaging was equal parts equal rights and anti-Christian--still is. I suppose this was to be expected because the evangelicals were so conspicuous with their views about homosexuality, but that doesn't explain all of it. Muslims put homosexuals in prison, if not worse, and the same groups who are pointedly anti-Christian and anti-evangelical are reflexively defensive of Islam. This tells me that, by in large, the left really isn't motivated by the high moral positions it says it is. Instead it is, all and always has been, mostly about destroying groups and individuals whose views spring from a basic conservative position. It shows a basic unwillingness to actually discuss issues, because according to many, there is nothing to discuss.

 

[Rockfish1]

[T]he left really isn't motivated by the high moral positions it says it is. Instead it is, all and always has been, mostly about destroying groups and individuals whose views spring from a basic conservative position. It shows a basic unwillingness to actually discuss issues, because according to many, there is nothing to discuss.

See what you did there? You cartoonishly denigrated liberal thought, then complained that civil discussion with liberals is impossible. You have a mote/beam problem.

 

[hoot1]

"Focus on your own damn family!"

The gay rights effort was inextricably intertwined with an anti-christian effort, or at least an anti-evangelical effort. Bumper stickers and soundbites clearly demonstrate this. This dual POV still goes on with all the verbal crap directed at the Memories Pizza Parlor. The gay rights messaging was equal parts equal rights and anti-Christian--still is.

I just don't buy the generalities that gays are anti-Christian and Christians are anti-gay regardless of what a few bumper stickers say. A gay black Christian minister met with our group a few weeks ago and proved once gain how wrong this generality is. Christians and gays have been working behind the scenes in thousands of churches for about the last fifteen years with the matter being settled to a surprising degree. Some have left their churches because of decisions made while others have found new doors open to them. The Indiana General Assembly is a late comer to this problem and as far as I can tell simply embarrassed itself by jumping to a conclusion before finally backing off.

The owners of Walkerton, Indiana pizza parlor can speak only for themselves just as anti-Christian gays can. I really don't think either was or is in danger of losing rights in spite of all the hoopla caused by the IFRFA.

 

[Collett_Park]

COH-

I think you are right about the type of tribe mentality that leads to groups like ISIS being attractive to some.

I think you are mistaken in your quick assignation of blame to the "blame America" crowd. Many people have become disillusioned about America, not because they have been "tricked" into rejecting American values, but because their experience has been that America doesn't want them. If you want to simply brush off their very real complaints, then you're going to have to live with the fact that America as a tribe is over. If you want the idea of America to succeed, then the practice of America needs to be repaired. If you want people to desire to be part of the American tribe, then the American tribe needs to show they want those people.

Going through this thread, I was formulating a response, and then I read this offering. Thank you for saying what I was thinking (and saving me time and effort).

In other words: DITTO.

 

[Rockfish1]

I just don't buy the generalities that gays are anti-Christian and Christians are anti-gay regardless of what a few bumper stickers say. A gay black Christian minister met with our group a few weeks ago and proved once gain how wrong this generality is. Christians and gays have been working behind the scenes in thousands of churches for about the last fifteen years with the matter being settled to a surprising degree. Some have left their churches because of decisions made while others have found new doors open to them. The Indiana General Assembly is a late comer to this problem and as far as I can tell simply embarrassed itself by jumping to a conclusion before finally backing off.

The owners of Walkerton, Indiana pizza parlor can speak only for themselves just as anti-Christian gays can. I really don't think either was or is in danger of losing rights in spite of all the hoopla caused by the IFRFA.

It's not "Christians" who oppose gay marriage. It's conservative evangelicals, who have no basis to claim that their bigotry represents all Christendom. No matter what they noisily claim, they speak only for themselves.

 

[Rockfish1]

Shorter CO. Hoosier: "Black people should be more flag wavey."

 

[hoot1]

It's not "Christians" who oppose gay marriage. It's conservative evangelicals, who have no basis to claim that their bigotry represents all Christendom. No matter what they noisily claim, they speak only for themselves.

Conservative Evangelicals?

Rock, your link referred to White Evangelical Christians, not conservative evangelicals.

 

[mjvcaj]

ISIS is a perfect example of why Group Think is so disturbing. Plenty on this board have the exact same problem.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I just don't buy the generalities that gays are anti-Christian and Christians are anti-gay regardless of what a few bumper stickers say. A gay black Christian minister met with our group a few weeks ago and proved once gain how wrong this generality is. Christians and gays have been working behind the scenes in thousands of churches for about the last fifteen years with the matter being settled to a surprising degree. Some have left their churches because of decisions made while others have found new doors open to them. The Indiana General Assembly is a late comer to this problem and as far as I can tell simply embarrassed itself by jumping to a conclusion before finally backing off.

The owners of Walkerton, Indiana pizza parlor can speak only for themselves just as anti-Christian gays can. I really don't think either was or is in danger of losing rights in spite of all the hoopla caused by the IFRFA.

I don't dispute anything you say

But I would add a few things. James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robinson definitely put an evangelical Christian tinge on the homosexual discussion that many leftists and activists anxiously exploited. The equal rights movement came to be as much about personal attacks of these people as it did about advocating for equality. This is still going on today and was clearly shown with Diane Sawyer's surprise that Bruce Jenner, who is himself becoming the public image of the LBGT community, is a . . . . . . .REPUBLICAN! Incidentally, I thought that Jenner handled that part of the interview very well, much better than Sawyer.

In the places where "establishment" Christians reside, the debate about gay rights is much more measured and much less personal and antagonistic. This is the way it should be for all of us, but it isn't.

I don't think the Indiana Legislature jumped to any conclusions. The wild unjustified conclusions came only from the leftists who mindlessly called for boycotts while screaming Hoosiers were being exclusionary. As I pointed out often, and without meaningful response, IRFRA was in practical effect no different from other RFRA laws. Lawyers who knew better, and laypeople who didn't know better, or chose not to know better, set the whole issue ablaze with nutso overreactions. Only Meaningless additional legislation cooled things down a little.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I don't dispute anything you say

But I would add a few things. James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robinson definitely put an evangelical Christian tinge on the homosexual discussion that many leftists and activists anxiously exploited. The equal rights movement came to be as much about personal attacks of these people as it did about advocating for equality. This is still going on today and was clearly shown with Diane Sawyer's surprise that Bruce Jenner, who is himself becoming the public image of the LBGT community, is a . . . . . . .REPUBLICAN! Incidentally, I thought that Jenner handled that part of the interview very well, much better than Sawyer.

In the places where "establishment" Christians reside, the debate about gay rights is much more measured and much less personal and antagonistic. This is the way it should be for all of us, but it isn't.

I don't think the Indiana Legislature jumped to any conclusions. The wild unjustified conclusions came only from the leftists who mindlessly called for boycotts while screaming Hoosiers were being exclusionary. As I pointed out often, and without meaningful response, IRFRA was in practical effect no different from other RFRA laws. Lawyers who knew better, and laypeople who didn't know better, or chose not to know better, set the whole issue ablaze with nutso overreactions. Only Meaningless additional legislation cooled things down a little.

It doesn't even register with you, does it, as utterly ridiculous that you would actually attack "leftists" for criticizing things Christian leaders actually said? You're a caricature.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It doesn't even register with you, does it, as utterly ridiculous that you would actually attack "leftists" for criticizing things Christian leaders actually said? You're a caricature.

LOL

Maybe you ought to read what I said. I have no problem criticizing what people say. You are one of the better example of my point.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

LOL

Maybe you ought to read what I said. I have no problem criticizing what people say. You are one of the better example of my point.

Please. You're entire schtick has long been to simply blame liberals for everything. Here you even admit that the liberals had a legitimate reason to criticize, but you shift the blame back on the left for "anxiously exploiting" the comments in question.

You used to be a good poster. It has been a long time since you've been capable of having an objective, fair conversation about anything.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Please. You're entire schtick has long been to simply blame liberals for everything. Here you even admit that the liberals had a legitimate reason to criticize, but you shift the blame back on the left for "anxiously exploiting" the comments in question.

You used to be a good poster. It has been a long time since you've been capable of having an objective, fair conversation about anything.

Good grief . . . . .

Don't complain to me about having been a good poster. You conflate the words "Christian" and "conservative" more than anybody on the board. Nothing says that you are all about discussing global warming science better than you saying I am a "climate denier". Having an intelligent discussion with you about anything lasts about two posts.

And as far as this point is concerned, I don't consider bumper stickers like "focus on your own damn family" or "hate is not a family value" or suggesting a boycott of a state or a pizza joint over made up scenarios about same sex weddings as advancing any argument about equality. Purveyors of that baloney, like you, are more interested in spewing pejoratives than engaging in serous discussions.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Good grief . . . . .

Don't complain to me about having been a good poster. You conflate the words "Christian" and "conservative" more than anybody on the board.

What a complete load of crap. You don't even pay attention to what others on this board say. You just look for opportunities to inject your partisan hackery.

 

[Rockfish1]

Conservative Evangelicals?

Rock, your link referred to White Evangelical Christians, not conservative evangelicals.

Hoot your post referred to "Rock" and not to "Rockfish1".

 

[CO. Hoosier]

What a complete load of crap. You don't even pay attention to what others on this board say. You just look for opportunities to inject your partisan hackery.

What's up with you today?

You link a wildly inaccurate, and decidedly dishonest, account of Ferguson to support your position that the USA is not a place for blacks, I ignore it thinking you just made a mistake, and then you double back around now claiming I'm the one who is unnecessarily partisan? As I said. If you can't find anything to complain about, you just make it up. But I was talking about you collectively as a left winger, not you individually. You proved me wrong about that. Sigh.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

What's up with you today?

You link a wildly inaccurate, and decidedly dishonest, account of Ferguson to support your position that the USA is not a place for blacks, I ignore it thinking you just made a mistake, and then you double back around now claiming I'm the one who is unnecessarily partisan? As I said. If you can't find anything to complain about, you just make it up. But I was talking about you collectively as a left winger, not you individually. You proved me wrong about that. Sigh.

What's up with me?

Well, we'll leave aside that you missed the point of my providing that link.

You clearly were accusing me personally, not as a member of a collective, of some pretty huge nonsense.

You doubled down by saying that I - personally - conflate "conservatives" and "Christians" "more than anyone on the board." You clearly know nothing of my work. I think you view everything I type through the prism of the liberal caricature you have created in your head.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

What's up with me?

Well, we'll leave aside that you missed the point of my providing that link.

You clearly were accusing me personally, not as a member of a collective, of some pretty huge nonsense.

You doubled down by saying that I - personally - conflate "conservatives" and "Christians" "more than anyone on the board." You clearly know nothing of my work. I think you view everything I type through the prism of the liberal caricature you have created in your head.

I absolutely got the point of your comment and the link

There is so much to say about both that I could never justify it in a post. So I just took a very small bite and chewed on that.

Here is a larger response.

I think your point is in error and stems from a broad-based idea that we now see in the current fascination with "microaggression" which is why I posted about that. Very briefly, I think people are and become what they think they are. I see that in myself and I see that in others. Most importantly, I see that in the mindset that makes a permanent underclass. The underclass comes from people who are there, and it comes from people who aren't there, but sympathize with those who are.

I've posted often about the book The Brain that Changes Itself. If you haven't read it, you may want to. It explains part of what I am trying to say. I also recommend an occasional visit to The Sparring Mind.com and this particular essay. My take away from these materials, and others, is that attitudes about life are more like a habit than reality. If you believe your circumstances are hopeless, much of that belief comes from habitual behaviors and beliefs rather than reality. Your link is a very good example of this. Moreover, the link proves my point that the hopelessness rests upon a false narrative that was created to affirm and perpetuate the habit. If you can set aside your political prejudices long enough to learn about Ben Carson before he burst upon the political scene, I think that time would be well spent. He is an example of what I am talking about.

Transferring this idea to politics suggests to me that liberals are more inclined to affirm the behaviors and habits that keep people in the underclass. They are more likely to see victims. They are more likely wanting to help people because they are victims. This isn't bad faith, it is just reality. Conservatives are more likely to not see these the world in this way and are more willing to encourage people to lift themselves with techniques that do not reinforce habitual victimhood. Thus conservatives are very interested in school choice and beating the "soft bigotry of low expectations" and liberals are more interested in providing help by ECE and other victim reinforcing techniques. This attitude also explains why many studies show conservatives are, as a whole, and in broad generalities, are more optimistic and happier than liberals. It also explains why liberals see themselves as "empathetic" while conservatives are not.

Mostly personal. I see every day that the earmarks of getting old are essentially habits that I personally fight all the time. The pace of walking, paying attention to surroundings, driving like an "old man," and mindlessly watching TV are only habits and are a mindset that doesn't have to be.

In sum, I see you as an example of all things liberal. I post like that with you. But you aren't the only one on the board. The more I study and read about the plight of the large cities, and now that I live in one and near minority neighborhoods and trade with minority owned businesses, I am more convinced than ever that if we are ever to bust out of the seemingly perpetual problems shown by perpetual underclass, we need a societal change in attitude. Liberals are not providing that change . Liberals are affirming the mindset that put us where we are. We need to change the mindset, not affirm it. Despite my basic optimism, I don't see that happening.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I absolutely got the point of your comment and the link

There is so much to say about both that I could never justify it in a post. So I just took a very small bite and chewed on that.

Here is a larger response.

I think your point is in error and stems from a broad-based idea that we now see in the current fascination with "microaggression" which is why I posted about that. Very briefly, I think people are and become what they think they are. I see that in myself and I see that in others. Most importantly, I see that in the mindset that makes a permanent underclass. The underclass comes from people who are there, and it comes from people who aren't there, but sympathize with those who are.

I've posted often about the book The Brain that Changes Itself. If you haven't read it, you may want to. It explains part of what I am trying to say. I also recommend an occasional visit to The Sparring Mind.com and this particular essay. My take away from these materials, and others, is that attitudes about life are more like a habit than reality. If you believe your circumstances are hopeless, much of that belief comes from habitual behaviors and beliefs rather than reality. Your link is a very good example of this. Moreover, the link proves my point that the hopelessness rests upon a false narrative that was created to affirm and perpetuate the habit. If you can set aside your political prejudices long enough to learn about Ben Carson before he burst upon the political scene, I think that time would be well spent. He is an example of what I am talking about.

Transferring this idea to politics suggests to me that liberals are more inclined to affirm the behaviors and habits that keep people in the underclass. They are more likely to see victims. They are more likely wanting to help people because they are victims. This isn't bad faith, it is just reality. Conservatives are more likely to not see these the world in this way and are more willing to encourage people to lift themselves with techniques that do not reinforce habitual victimhood. Thus conservatives are very interested in school choice and beating the "soft bigotry of low expectations" and liberals are more interested in providing help by ECE and other victim reinforcing techniques. This attitude also explains why many studies show conservatives are, as a whole, and in broad generalities, are more optimistic and happier than liberals. It also explains why liberals see themselves as "empathetic" while conservatives are not.

Mostly personal. I see every day that the earmarks of getting old are essentially habits that I personally fight all the time. The pace of walking, paying attention to surroundings, driving like an "old man," and mindlessly watching TV are only habits and are a mindset that doesn't have to be.

In sum, I see you as an example of all things liberal. I post like that with you. But you aren't the only one on the board. The more I study and read about the plight of the large cities, and now that I live in one and near minority neighborhoods and trade with minority owned businesses, I am more convinced than ever that if we are ever to bust out of the seemingly perpetual problems shown by perpetual underclass, we need a societal change in attitude. Liberals are not providing that change . Liberals are affirming the mindset that put us where we are. We need to change the mindset, not affirm it. Despite my basic optimism, I don't see that happening.

There's a lot of good stuff in that post, but one major failing, mainly as it relates to your response to liberalism. You see recognition that there are legitimate problems as nothing more than victim reinforcement. There are real problems. Problems that were not caused by the victims. But you're one-size-fits-all solution ("Give people the opportunity to improve their own lots in life") amounts to not much more than victim-blaming in the real world, where people can't always pull them up by their bootstraps, where women are less likely to be taken seriously in certain industries (ever heard of Gamergate?), where minorities are more likely to get pulled over by the police, where gays are more likely to suffer discrimination.

These problems are real. If you think that liberals fail to offer real solutions, I can only counter that conservatives fail to admit they even exist.

EDIT: And on a personal note, my offense comes from the fact that you paint me - again, personally - with your liberal caricature brush even in places where it is unwarranted. Your glib remarks about Christianity are wholly unwarranted based on the very large body of work I've produced on this very forum confirming my great respect for and support of religious Americans. I have never "conflated" Christians with radical social conservatives, and in fact have engaged in a number of very aggressive fights with fellow liberals on that very issue.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

There's a lot of good stuff in that post, but one major failing, mainly as it relates to your response to liberalism. You see recognition that there are legitimate problems as nothing more than victim reinforcement. There are real problems. Problems that were not caused by the victims. But you're one-size-fits-all solution ("Give people the opportunity to improve their own lots in life") amounts to not much more than victim-blaming in the real world, where people can't always pull them up by their bootstraps, where women are less likely to be taken seriously in certain industries (ever heard of Gamergate?), where minorities are more likely to get pulled over by the police, where gays are more likely to suffer discrimination.

These problems are real. If you think that liberals fail to offer real solutions, I can only counter that conservatives fail to admit they even exist.

EDIT: And on a personal note, my offense comes from the fact that you paint me - again, personally - with your liberal caricature brush even in places where it is unwarranted. Your glib remarks about Christianity are wholly unwarranted based on the very large body of work I've produced on this very forum confirming my great respect for and support of religious Americans. I have never "conflated" Christians with radical social conservatives, and in fact have engaged in a number of very aggressive fights with fellow liberals on that very issue.

The failings of a forum like this

Of course I couldn't hope to cover all the aspects of the problem in a single post. There are scores if not hundreds of things to look at and change. I certainly didn't offer my post as a one-size-fits-all cure for the race issues. I'm not intending to write a book or even a 10 page brief. I only intended to respond to one of the conspicuous points that I saw in your post and link.

As far as driving while black is concerned, I've done some reading about that. Most of the time, the cops are not focused on the race of drivers, but on the behaviors of the drivers. Cops watch known places for drug dealers, drug houses, and gang hangouts. It just so happens that most of the locations are in minority "high crime" neighborhoods. They will stop vehicles that drive slowly past the points of interest, or by the points of interest several times in an evening. They aren't targeting skin color, often times they can't even see skin color. As far as routine traffic stops are concerned, the statistics show that minorities are more likely to run lights and stop signs, exceed speed limits, and engage in rapid or reckless lane changes. This certainly comports with my limited observations while on my bike or driving. I don't know why that is, but that is what the statistics show. Moreover, there is a higher police presence in minority areas because that is what the peaceful residents demand and is where the cops will do the most good. (The two officers who were gunned down in Brooklyn a few months ago were assigned there as an extra presence). So yeah, the number of minority stops will be proportionally larger than the population, but there are non-racial reasons for that.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The failings of a forum like this

Of course I couldn't hope to cover all the aspects of the problem in a single post. There are scores if not hundreds of things to look at and change. I certainly didn't offer my post as a one-size-fits-all cure for the race issues. I'm not intending to write a book or even a 10 page brief. I only intended to respond to one of the conspicuous points that I saw in your post and link.

As far as driving while black is concerned, I've done some reading about that. Most of the time, the cops are not focused on the race of drivers, but on the behaviors of the drivers. Cops watch known places for drug dealers, drug houses, and gang hangouts. It just so happens that most of the locations are in minority "high crime" neighborhoods. They will stop vehicles that drive slowly past the points of interest, or by the points of interest several times in an evening. They aren't targeting skin color, often times they can't even see skin color. As far as routine traffic stops are concerned, the statistics show that minorities are more likely to run lights and stop signs, exceed speed limits, and engage in rapid or reckless lane changes. This certainly comports with my limited observations while on my bike or driving. I don't know why that is, but that is what the statistics show. Moreover, there is a higher police presence in minority areas because that is what the peaceful residents demand and is where the cops will do the most good. (The two officers who were gunned down in Brooklyn a few months ago were assigned there as an extra presence). So yeah, the number of minority stops will be proportionally larger than the population, but there are non-racial reasons for that.

And my experience suggests that when I go to the Dollar General and see a car parked on the curb because the driver couldn't be bothered to walk in from a spot, the person driving that car is black. So what? If Fort Wayne decided to have a massive crack down on Dollar General parking violations, I'd still at least consider the possibility that the policy was able to be put in place because it affected black people most.

There was a study I read last year that suggested white folks and black folks do drugs at about the same rate, but black people were far more likely to do jail time for minor possession. Can this be explained because black people are more likely to buy their drugs in these suspicious areas that the cops case? And if so, can you really claim that it's not at least partially racial?

When laws aren't applied equally, the reasoning is usually pretty complex, but all of the "non-racial" reasoning you provide might still very easily have a racial foundation.

But, most importantly for the point I made originally, these differences, however you try to explain them, are not imaginary. They are real differences, and they might adequately explain why some people rightfully don't feel like they are part of the American tribe.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

And my experience suggests that when I go to the Dollar General and see a car parked on the curb because the driver couldn't be bothered to walk in from a spot, the person driving that car is black. So what? If Fort Wayne decided to have a massive crack down on Dollar General parking violations, I'd still at least consider the possibility that the policy was able to be put in place because it affected black people most.

There was a study I read last year that suggested white folks and black folks do drugs at about the same rate, but black people were far more likely to do jail time for minor possession. Can this be explained because black people are more likely to buy their drugs in these suspicious areas that the cops case? And if so, can you really claim that it's not at least partially racial?

When laws aren't applied equally, the reasoning is usually pretty complex, but all of the "non-racial" reasoning you provide might still very easily have a racial foundation.

But, most importantly for the point I made originally, these differences, however you try to explain them, are not imaginary. They are real differences, and they might adequately explain why some people rightfully don't feel like they are part of the American tribe.

There are indeed differences about how whites and blacks look at the American tribe

I never suggested otherwise, at least not deliberately. The point of my post was to offer an explanation about how and why a group like ISIS can have any foothold here or anywhere in the West. My point was simply that Western nations, for a variety of reasons, don't offer the reasons to encourage a strong belief in Western culture, at least reasons that would on their face overcome an organization like ISIS. You took the discussion into why blacks and others don't feel like they belong. So stipulated. But, I think part of reason why they have such a feeling is because we encourage and enable that, often unwittingly, but also by intention. We can change that part of the dynamic but for the attitudes of those who benefit from perpetuating that notion. Now we have come full circle.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

There are indeed differences about how whites and blacks look at the American tribe

I never suggested otherwise, at least not deliberately. The point of my post was to offer an explanation about how and why a group like ISIS can have any foothold here or anywhere in the West. My point was simply that Western nations, for a variety of reasons, don't offer the reasons to encourage a strong belief in Western culture, at least reasons that would on their face overcome an organization like ISIS. You took the discussion into why blacks and others don't feel like they belong. So stipulated. But, I think part of reason why they have such a feeling is because we encourage and enable that, often unwittingly, but also by intention. We can change that part of the dynamic but for the attitudes of those who benefit from perpetuating that notion. Now we have come full circle.

What I argued is that we can't change that dynamic simply with "Rah! Rah! Go America!" which seemed to be your implication. Blacks experience American differently than whites. Poor people experience it differently than the rich. Women differently than men. Gays differently than straights. And so on. What I'm saying is, if people don't feel like they belong, it might run deeper than just, "A bunch of liberals convinced them to blame America for their problems," which was essentially your explanation.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

What I argued is that we can't change that dynamic simply with "Rah! Rah! Go America!" which seemed to be your implication. Blacks experience American differently than whites. Poor people experience it differently than the rich. Women differently than men. Gays differently than straights. And so on. What I'm saying is, if people don't feel like they belong, it might run deeper than just, "A bunch of liberals convinced them to blame America for their problems," which was essentially your explanation.

Not exactly

The blame America first crowd had a role, but it is by no means the full story. Besides, it is a point that I first heard a member of the British Parliament discuss on, IIRC, the BBC about the UK. I just adapted it to us based upon he FBI report in my original post. Moreover, the way women, blacks, gays, old white guys, or even you and I see America is in part based upon our own habits and mindset; which isn't necessarily reflective of reality. I also discussed that.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Not exactly

The blame America first crowd had a role, but it is by no means the full story. Besides, it is a point that I first heard a member of the British Parliament discuss on, IIRC, the BBC about the UK. I just adapted it to us based upon he FBI report in my original post. Moreover, the way women, blacks, gays, old white guys, or even you and I see America is in part based upon our own habits and mindset; which isn't necessarily reflective of reality. I also discussed that.

You say that, but when push comes to shove, you always seem to fall back on, "Liberals are to blame for making everyone hate America." If that's not your intention, then I suggest you work on your communication skills.

 

[zeke4ahs]

The failings of a forum like this

Of course I couldn't hope to cover all the aspects of the problem in a single post. There are scores if not hundreds of things to look at and change. I certainly didn't offer my post as a one-size-fits-all cure for the race issues. I'm not intending to write a book or even a 10 page brief. I only intended to respond to one of the conspicuous points that I saw in your post and link.

As far as driving while black is concerned, I've done some reading about that. Most of the time, the cops are not focused on the race of drivers, but on the behaviors of the drivers. Cops watch known places for drug dealers, drug houses, and gang hangouts. It just so happens that most of the locations are in minority "high crime" neighborhoods. They will stop vehicles that drive slowly past the points of interest, or by the points of interest several times in an evening. They aren't targeting skin color, often times they can't even see skin color. As far as routine traffic stops are concerned, the statistics show that minorities are more likely to run lights and stop signs, exceed speed limits, and engage in rapid or reckless lane changes. This certainly comports with my limited observations while on my bike or driving. I don't know why that is, but that is what the statistics show. Moreover, there is a higher police presence in minority areas because that is what the peaceful residents demand and is where the cops will do the most good. (The two officers who were gunned down in Brooklyn a few months ago were assigned there as an extra presence). So yeah, the number of minority stops will be proportionally larger than the population, but there are non-racial reasons for that.

The driving while black experiences I hear about are for a totally different reason....driving in affluent neighborhoods. I suppose they could say they were driving slowly to case the places, but I have several friends who have been stopped while they were either going to their own house or going to a friend's house. Officer gave a lame explanation like rolling through a stop sign, when asked why they were stopped.