Rashida Talib: White Supremacy Kills

[JamieDimonsBalls]

JFC.

And where is @zeke4ahs and co. with all of their outrage for this hate crime? Do you not give a shit now because the offenders weren't white males?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

JFC.

And where is @zeke4ahs and co. with all of their outrage for this hate crime? Do you not give a shit now because the offenders weren't white males?

The liberals on this forum have already spoken out loudly against the hateful Black Hebrew Israelites. The only reason we don't now take the time to do it again in response to a quickly deleted tweet is that we don't have the weird, creepy hard-on for AOC that you do.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

The liberals on this forum have already spoken out loudly against the hateful Black Hebrew Israelites. The only reason we don't now take the time to do it again in response to a quickly deleted tweet is that we don't have the weird, creepy hard-on for AOC that you do.

LOL, AOC? Didn't realize she said this too.

Also, please provide a link to your outspoken posts.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

LOL, AOC? Didn't realize she said this too.

Also, please provide a link to your outspoken posts.

I can't provide links because Rivals busted the search function, as you probably noticed, but it was back during the whole Kentucky kid vs. Native American nonsense in DC.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

conservatives don't care about murder unless the murderer is an immigrant, or the victim is a young pretty girl.

other than those two scenarios, murder victims are just acceptable collateral damage so they can keep their guns, no matter the cost to society.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Toward the bottom of this page, Twenty brings the group up. Zeke calls them nuts. On the following page Goat calls them the real villains of that particular incident. I have not read further.

 

[Thyrsis]

I can't provide links because Rivals busted the search function, as you probably noticed, but it was back during the whole Kentucky kid vs. Native American nonsense in DC.

Speaking of which, does anybody know why or how that happened and whether Rivals is going to restore search?

 

[iu_a_att]

LOL, AOC? Didn't realize she said this too.

Also, please provide a link to your outspoken posts.

Pretty much every week there is some murderous hate crime against a minority community or women. The impulse to murder the perceived other is recurrent. Liberals continuously call those crimes out and condemn them...as we decry violence more generally. Those with power often murderously abuse those without power. The powerless murder too...most often they murder other powerless people too. The powerful justify and even legalize their abuses while criminalizing even self defense by the powerless. Liberals think That minorities and the powerless should not be subjected to abuses murderous or otherwise. They think that all should be held to the same standard. It seems that is everywhere a controversial and minority position. Your sense is, I think, that Jews are too often the target of murderous abuses wherever they live as a minority. You say that Liberals should decry those abuses. And they do, we do. But I wonder if you share the liberal perspective? Or is your point really that all of us are illiberals who just support our own tribe? Is your point that the only difference between liberals and illiberal tribalists is that the former are hypocrites?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Pretty much every week there is some murderous hate crime against a minority community or women. The impulse to murder the perceived other is recurrent. Liberals continuously call those crimes out and condemn them...as we decry violence more generally. Those with power often murderously abuse those without power. The powerless murder too...most often they murder other powerless people too. The powerful justify and even legalize their abuses while criminalizing even self defense by the powerless. Liberals think That minorities and the powerless should not be subjected to abuses murderous or otherwise. They think that all should be held to the same standard. It seems that is everywhere a controversial and minority position. Your sense is, I think, that Jews are too often the target of murderous abuses wherever they live as a minority. You say that Liberals should decry those abuses. And they do, we do. But I wonder if you share the liberal perspective? Or is your point really that all of us are illiberals who just support our own tribe? Is your point that the only difference between liberals and illiberal tribalists is that the former are hypocrites?

Are you not familiar with Jamie's work? His point was that a black guy committed a crime, and he really, really wanted to talk about it.

 

[iu_a_att]

Are you not familiar with Jamie's work? His point was that a black guy committed a crime, and he really, really wanted to talk about it.

It was an awful hate crime against a small minority community. Awful. It it seemed Jamie’s point was really to focus an attack on a Muslim congressperson who is a frequent critic of Israel. I think he means to suggest she is an antisemite.

 

[zeke4ahs]

JFC.

And where is @zeke4ahs and co. with all of their outrage for this hate crime? Do you not give a shit now because the offenders weren't white males?

What are you talking about? Why would I not care? I particularly care that this was in a Jewish neighborhood. At first they thought it was not a hate crime, but have now evidence that it was. WTF are you talking about that I wouldn’t care? Sorry I didn’t start a thread about it, but since there are shootings nearly every week now, it just seems a little repetitious, when we know nothing will be done until GOP is not majority. Is this sufficient outrage for you?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It was an awful hate crime against a small minority community. Awful. It it seemed Jamie’s point was really to focus an attack on a Muslim congressperson who is a frequent critic of Israel. I think he means to suggest she is an antisemite.

Maybe he had multiple points, but if you look for every thread on this forum following the theme "Black person commits X crime; why aren't you liberals talking about it?" you will find that they were all started by Jamie. It's his thing.

 

[zeke4ahs]

I’m sure we can find a Jussie Smullett connection if we search enough.

 

[iu_a_att]

Maybe he had multiple points, but if you look for every thread on this forum following the theme "Black person commits X crime; why aren't you liberals talking about it?" you will find that they were all started by Jamie. It's his thing.

What is up with that do you think?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

What is up with that do you think?

Beats me.

 

[iu_a_att]

Beats me.

JDB should clarify his point. We have many problems in this country but they don't include ignoring crimes by black people.

 

[mainway_toys]

Maybe he had multiple points, but if you look for every thread on this forum following the theme "Black person commits X crime; why aren't you liberals talking about it?" you will find that they were all started by Jamie. It's his thing.

.... even though he's definitely not racist.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Pretty much every week there is some murderous hate crime against a minority community or women. The impulse to murder the perceived other is recurrent. Liberals continuously call those crimes out and condemn them...as we decry violence more generally. Those with power often murderously abuse those without power. The powerless murder too...most often they murder other powerless people too. The powerful justify and even legalize their abuses while criminalizing even self defense by the powerless. Liberals think That minorities and the powerless should not be subjected to abuses murderous or otherwise. They think that all should be held to the same standard. It seems that is everywhere a controversial and minority position. Your sense is, I think, that Jews are too often the target of murderous abuses wherever they live as a minority. You say that Liberals should decry those abuses. And they do, we do. But I wonder if you share the liberal perspective? Or is your point really that all of us are illiberals who just support our own tribe? Is your point that the only difference between liberals and illiberal tribalists is that the former are hypocrites?

There it is again - liberals are good and peaceful and conservatives are evil and murderous.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Gotta love partisan yabut bickering.

 

[iu_a_att]

There it is again - liberals are good and peaceful and conservatives are evil and murderous.

The essential feature of liberalism is the idea that everybody should be treated equally under the law. The liberal principle is everywhere and always in conflict with an alternative idea that some are properly privileged while others are properly subordinate. It is a matter of fact that those who are privileged use their privileges to abuse (sometimes murderously) those who are not privileged. Often, the abuse of the subordinate by the privileged is legalized (or decriminalized) while even the self-defense of the subordinate is criminalized. There is nothing slanderous about the above. Rather it is just a description of the political universe throughout time.

I purposely don't call those who support privilege and subordination "conservative". Instead I call them illiberal. I don't call conservatives illiberal because I think many would claim the mantel liberal for themselves. Indeed, many have called themselves classical liberals. These classical liberals claim to fully support the principle of equal treatment. They differentiate themselves from modern liberals who they claim have deviated from the core principle and gone into something like "identity" politics. In my view both classical and modern liberals are in opposition to the illiberal.

I think today in America most people who are illiberals call themselves conservatives. They get legitimacy from the association with classic liberals when they are not the same at all. There are some illiberals who call themselves the left or, perhaps, progressives. I think they go to greater trouble to distinguish themselves from liberals who they regard with hostility.

The surprise of Trumpism is that it reveals that a very much larger portion of the people who call themselves conservatives are actually illiberals. Many of us, you too I expect, thought that it was the illiberals who were the minority.

{ an additional thought. It is probably safe to say that liberals, both classical and modern, are a minority of the population. I think the illiberals who call themselves conservative strongly suspect that a majority of those who call themselves liberals are illiberals in disguise who are just angling to give their tribe privilege while making the other tribes subordinate. That is a harder position to refute.}

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

The essential feature of liberalism is the idea that everybody should be treated equally under the law. The liberal principle is everywhere and always in conflict with an alternative idea that some are properly privileged while others are properly subordinate. It is a matter of fact that those who are privileged use their privileges to abuse (sometimes murderously) those who are not privileged. Often, the abuse of the subordinate by the privileged is legalized (or decriminalized) while even the self-defense of the subordinate is criminalized. There is nothing slanderous about the above. Rather it is just a description of the political universe throughout time.

I purposely don't call those who support privilege and subordination "conservative". Instead I call them illiberal. I don't call conservatives illiberal because I think many would claim the mantel liberal for themselves. Indeed, many have called themselves classical liberals. These classical liberals claim to fully support the principle of equal treatment. They differentiate themselves from modern liberals who they claim have deviated from the core principle and gone into something like "identity" politics. In my view both classical and modern liberals are in opposition to the illiberal.

I think today in America most people who are illiberals call themselves conservatives. They get legitimacy from the association with classic liberals when they are not the same at all. There are some illiberals who call themselves the left or, perhaps, progressives. I think they go to greater trouble to distinguish themselves from liberals who they regard with hostility.

The surprise of Trumpism is that it reveals that a very much larger portion of the people who call themselves conservatives are actually illiberals. Many of us, you too I expect, thought that it was the illiberals who were the minority.

{ an additional thought. It is probably safe to say that liberals, both classical and modern, are a minority of the population. I think the illiberals who call themselves conservative strongly suspect that a majority of those who call themselves liberals are illiberals in disguise who are just angling to give their tribe privilege while making the other tribes subordinate. That is a harder position to refute.}

You routinely post as if conservatives and these "illiberals" are one and the same. It obviously annoys me because you do it so often. You also post as if you think all liberals or even all Democrats are good, peaceful and noble and that Republicans and conservatives are evil, murderous and ignoble. That is also annoying. Maybe that's not your intention, but it is what you do.

 

[iu_a_att]

You routinely post as if conservatives and these "illiberals" are one and the same. It obviously annoys me because you do it so often. You also post as if you think all liberals or even all Democrats are good, peaceful and noble and that Republicans and conservatives are evil, murderous and ignoble. That is also annoying. Maybe that's not your intention, but it is what you do.

Well, I value your feedback and honestly don't mean to annoy you. When I post I try to keep you mind. I try to be quite careful about how I write about conservatives. The idea that all liberals or Democrats are good, peaceful or noble is absurd. I renounce it. I renounce the idea that all illiberals are evil, murderous or ignoble. Even people who sometimes do evil, murderous and ignoble actions do not always do so. People are complicated and not reducible either to their ideology, partisan or tribal identities. I don't think that even people who do evil things are evil.

The discussion between you and I centers on the degree to which people are different, things are asymmetric etc. I claim liberals are different than illiberals; classical liberals are different than modern liberals; the privileged are different than the subordinated.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The essential feature of liberalism is the idea that everybody should be treated equally under the law.

I resent the notion that liberals (however you want to define them) own that concept. This idea is the seed that grows into the left seeing itself as owning the moral high ground in all policy disputes. Can’t we start with the notion that all of us want equality and fairness in our government? The conflicts arise out of the means of resolving competing moral imperatives as we see in hundreds of examples. As a general rule, and without casting aspersions on any group, I’d say that liberals tend to favor top-down immediate corrective action while conservatives tend to favor bottom-up more patient solutions. It all has to do with how we view sovereign authority. I’ve talked about this often over the years.

Why do you view “Trumpism” as a modifier of any philosophy? I don’t think he holds much of a political philosophy. I see Trumpism as a behavioral system, not a philosophy.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

The essential feature of liberalism is the idea that everybody should be treated equally under the law. The liberal principle is everywhere and always in conflict with an alternative idea that some are properly privileged while others are properly subordinate. It is a matter of fact that those who are privileged use their privileges to abuse (sometimes murderously) those who are not privileged. Often, the abuse of the subordinate by the privileged is legalized (or decriminalized) while even the self-defense of the subordinate is criminalized. There is nothing slanderous about the above. Rather it is just a description of the political universe throughout time.

I purposely don't call those who support privilege and subordination "conservative". Instead I call them illiberal. I don't call conservatives illiberal because I think many would claim the mantel liberal for themselves. Indeed, many have called themselves classical liberals. These classical liberals claim to fully support the principle of equal treatment. They differentiate themselves from modern liberals who they claim have deviated from the core principle and gone into something like "identity" politics. In my view both classical and modern liberals are in opposition to the illiberal.

I think today in America most people who are illiberals call themselves conservatives. They get legitimacy from the association with classic liberals when they are not the same at all. There are some illiberals who call themselves the left or, perhaps, progressives. I think they go to greater trouble to distinguish themselves from liberals who they regard with hostility.

The surprise of Trumpism is that it reveals that a very much larger portion of the people who call themselves conservatives are actually illiberals. Many of us, you too I expect, thought that it was the illiberals who were the minority.

{ an additional thought. It is probably safe to say that liberals, both classical and modern, are a minority of the population. I think the illiberals who call themselves conservative strongly suspect that a majority of those who call themselves liberals are illiberals in disguise who are just angling to give their tribe privilege while making the other tribes subordinate. That is a harder position to refute.}

Well if we accept your definition of a liberal, what do you call a liberal who builds cages to put children in fleeing oppression for a better life? Deportation?

I think they oppress and take advantage of people when it suits them because they are humans. I think they do it just as often also. It’s funny because if you take out liberal in your discussion and insert Christian, it could pass for a definition of a religion. The difference is, a liberal feels the ends justify the means and whoever is being oppressed will eventually see the light after they are forced to comply.

 

[T.M.P.]

we don't have the weird, creepy hard-on for AOC that you do.

Nothing strikes fear into the heart of an old white conservative like an ethnic female with power.

Nothing.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

The liberals on this forum have already spoken out loudly against the hateful Black Hebrew Israelites. The only reason we don't now take the time to do it again in response to a quickly deleted tweet is that we don't have the weird, creepy hard-on for AOC that you do.

Hard-ons and Puerto Rican’s ...... now you’re talking

 

[iu_a_att]

I resent the notion that liberals (however you want to define them) own that concept. This idea is the seed that grows into the left seeing itself as owning the moral high ground in all policy disputes. Can’t we start with the notion that all of us want equality and fairness in our government?

No, we can't start with a falsehoods. Modern liberals certainly don't own the principle of equality and fairness. Classic liberals also claim the mantle. Modern and classic liberals debate and have debated, for example, how to reconcile equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes. But there is another virulent strain of political ideology that has been with us since the beginning. That illiberal ideology demands privilege for some and subordination for others.

Why do you view “Trumpism” as a modifier of any philosophy? I don’t think he holds much of a political philosophy. I see Trumpism as a behavioral system, not a philosophy.

Trumpism is just illiberalism. It is exactly privilege for some and subordination for others. Illiberalism is entirely inconsistent with democracy and a recipe first for civil unrest and then for civil war.

Lindsey Graham declares he will violate the oath that the Justice Roberts will administer that requires him to view evidence fairly and impartially. So does McConnell.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

No, we can't start with a falsehoods. Modern liberals certainly don't own the principle of equality and fairness. Classic liberals also claim the mantle. Modern and classic liberals debate and have debated, for example, how to reconcile equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes. But there is another virulent strain of political ideology that has been with us since the beginning. That illiberal ideology demands privilege for some and subordination for others.
Trumpism is just illiberalism. It is exactly privilege for some and subordination for others. Illiberalism is entirely inconsistent with democracy and a recipe first for civil unrest and then for civil war.

I think for you “illiberalism” is a meaningless construct that you use to make your point about Trumpism.

I’m contrasting liberalism and conservatism. Conservativism is not liberalism.

 

[iu_a_att]

I think for you “illiberalism” is a meaningless construct that you use to make your point about Trumpism.

I’m contrasting liberalism and conservatism. Conservativism is not liberalism.

It is crystal clear that illiberalism is both meaningful and long predates Trump. The premise that some are privileged and others subordinate was central for some of the founders...i.e., the slaveholders. It was central for the Southern Democrats who destroyed reconstruction and replaced it with 100 years of Jim Crow. It is central for what you daintily call "populists" whose concern is tribal. Historically such populist and racist groups were the creators of the KKK and the inspiration for the Nazi movement. Illiberalism is the essence of fascism.

Conservatism in the spirit of Milton Friedman is not the same thing. Indeed, the free market more libertarian conservatism is in deep conflict with illiberalism. Economic conservatives and modern liberals disagree about a great deal but they agree that fairness and equality are at the core of good governance. They agree that governmental power must be held in check and leaders must be accountable. Illiberals don't agree. Trump is the most recent in a long, long line of such types.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It is crystal clear that illiberalism is both meaningful and long predates Trump. The premise that some are privileged and others subordinate was central for some of the founders...i.e., the slaveholders. It was central for the Southern Democrats who destroyed reconstruction and replaced it with 100 years of Jim Crow. It is central for what you daintily call "populists" whose concern is tribal. Historically such populist and racist groups were the creators of the KKK and the inspiration for the Nazi movement. Illiberalism is the essence of fascism.

Conservatism in the spirit of Milton Friedman is not the same thing. Indeed, the free market more libertarian conservatism is in deep conflict with illiberalism. Economic conservatives and modern liberals disagree about a great deal but they agree that fairness and equality are at the core of good governance. They agree that governmental power must be held in check and leaders must be accountable. Illiberals don't agree. Trump is the most recent in a long, long line of such types.

your last two sentences express a principal that is wholly situational for you and most people.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Trump is the most recent in a long, long line of such types.

These are just broad sweeping statements. What is Trump doing that makes him more authoritarian than any of his predecessors? Specifics please.

Ignoring congressional subpoenas? See Obama.
Endangering freedom of the press? Obama threw journalists in jail?
Enforcing immigration law? You got him there...he actually intended to enforce the borders and follow the laws on the books as opposed to everyone else who said "we are for protecting the border..." but lied about it. If you support sanctuary cities then you are not a liberal because that is not following the rule of law. If you supported DACA, you supported an illiberal power grab by an authoritarian executive who used a pen to get done what he could not get through Congress.

I think Aloha and CoH take umbrage at your "this is us" and "this is you" paradigm because it is revisionist bull shit. Now this will get catcalled as "whataboutism" because that is what happens whenever one of you makes sweeping generalizations about who the right is and what they support while holding up progressivism as all that is good and clean in this world and then get a mirror thrown up in front of you. Barr is right, many of you are religious zealots, you have just traded traditional religions in for a worship of the almighty state.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

The essential feature of liberalism is the idea that everybody should be treated equally under the law.

As an Independent social moderate, this is exactly how I would describe my beliefs. Respect, but you tend to paint people with a brush the size of TX.

 

[iu_a_att]

your last two sentences express a principal that is wholly situational for you and most people.

You babble.

These are just broad sweeping statements. What is Trump doing that makes him more authoritarian than any of his predecessors? Specifics please.

Trump says we should be like Putin's Russia. He says Putin gets 95% of the vote, that is how it should be here. He says he should be President essentially for life. He not only pardons but lauds war criminals. He has a white nationalist Steven Miller among his top advisors. He sells out key allies like Ukraine who used to be part of our consensus of building democracy around the world. Instead he lauds murderous dictators. The list is long. Trump, in every bone of his being, is and represents the principle that some are rightfully, even divinely, privileged while the rest are subordinate. That principle is antithetical to democracy. As Pat Buchanan wrote, if the choice is between divine privilege and divine subordination versus democracy then democracy must go. And so it seems that is the way things are destined to go.

You and I are both people. We have vices and virtues. All of us like to imagine that we live up to our virtues but the reality is that we too often indulge our vices. Likewise, people everywhere and always have the tendency to project their shadows and fears onto others. No doubt I have a blind eye towards my own inferiority and heightened awareness of the faults of others. No doubt your criticisms have some merit that I should reflect upon.

But there are differences between people as well. Hate is a vice for liberals while reason and wisdom are virtues. This is not so for the right. At its core the right makes hate of what it projects as evil a righteous virtue. This is a profound difference between liberal and illiberal.

 

[iu_a_att]

As an Independent social moderate, this is exactly how I would describe my beliefs. Respect, but you tend to paint people with a brush the size of TX.

Did you see yourself accused of being anything other than essentially a liberal? I go to tremendous pains to acknowledge that the difference between modern liberals and a form of conservatism are not differences over the value of fair and equal treatment, they are not differences about the virtue of reason and wisdom. My whole point is that modern liberals and classic liberals doesn't come close to exhausting the political perspectives that are alive in the world.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Did you see yourself accused of being anything other than essentially a liberal? I go to tremendous pains to acknowledge that the difference between modern liberals and a form of conservatism are not differences over the value of fair and equal treatment, they are not differences about the virtue of reason and wisdom. My whole point is that modern liberals and classic liberals doesn't come close to exhausting the political perspectives that are alive in the world.

I feel accused of nothing as your brush doesn't address me in the least despite your intentions.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Did you see yourself accused of being anything other than essentially a liberal? I go to tremendous pains to acknowledge that the difference between modern liberals and a form of conservatism are not differences over the value of fair and equal treatment, they are not differences about the virtue of reason and wisdom. My whole point is that modern liberals and classic liberals doesn't come close to exhausting the political perspectives that are alive in the world.

I feel accused of nothing as your brush doesn't address me in the least despite your intentions.

 

[iu_a_att]

I feel accused of nothing as your brush doesn't address me in the least despite your intentions.

What did I write that leaves you with the impression that I even intended to accuse you of something? I have been quite careful to differentiate between those whom I label "liberals" i.e., those who regard reason and tempered wisdom as virtues and hate a vice versus those whom I call "illiberals" for whom reason and tempered wisdom are not virtues and hate is not a vice. I have been quite careful to state that the set of those who share "liberal" values includes both modern liberals as well as many who have called themselves conservatives.

Modern liberals like myself believe that many of Trump's policies; those that are conventionally conservative are bad policies. We think that those are good reasons to vote him out of office. But much of what Trump does and what he champions is illiberal. It is his illiberal actions that repel modern liberals as well as many who define themselves as conservatives. But what we see is that those same illiberal behaviors that repel liberals of all varieties attract many, many others. Those folks support Trump precisely because they are illiberals too.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

What did I write that leaves you with the impression that I even intended to accuse you of something? I have been quite careful to differentiate between those whom I label "liberals" i.e., those who regard reason and tempered wisdom as virtues and hate a vice versus those whom I call "illiberals" for whom reason and tempered wisdom are not virtues and hate is not a vice. I have been quite careful to state that the set of those who share "liberal" values includes both modern liberals as well as many who have called themselves conservatives.

Modern liberals like myself believe that many of Trump's policies; those that are conventionally conservative are bad policies. We think that those are good reasons to vote him out of office. But much of what Trump does and what he champions is illiberal. It is his illiberal actions that repel modern liberals as well as many who define themselves as conservatives. But what we see is that those same illiberal behaviors that repel liberals of all varieties attract many, many others. Those folks support Trump precisely because they are illiberals too.

Dude, you JUST asked me in your last post what I felt "accused" of. I answered.

 

[iu_a_att]

Dude, you JUST asked me in your last post what I felt "accused" of. I answered.

In that post you implied that you thought I intended to accuse you of something. At least that is how I read it.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

The liberals on this forum have already spoken out loudly against the hateful Black Hebrew Israelites. The only reason we don't now take the time to do it again in response to a quickly deleted tweet is that we don't have the weird, creepy hard-on for AOC that you do.

How's this for a mix up?