Political Roundtable Part XIII

[SUPERBALLMAN]

Watch on YouTube

Superball - do you think it is okay for this guy to crash another's peaceful protest?

Well I think he was just trying to get through the crowd riding his bike home when he was stopped. Generally no I don't , although we know if the shoe was on the other foot...

[sfam]

My biggest issue with a government takeover of health care is mission creep. They'll start by saying government only covers the catastrophic stuff, but then people will advocate that they have a "right" to more and better health care, and we'll get to the point where government is paying for band-aids.

That's a very reasonable fear. Compare that to the very actual problem of rising costs (ACA slowed them down) that are far higher than most developed countries, and inadequate coverage, and maybe there is reason for coming up with a solution. This isn't possible though because of the bizarre belief that nothing the government does turns out right. Even though we have the best military in the world, respond to thousands of disasters every year, and generally follow the rule of law.

[sfam]

Just saying, there's actual truth to the now defunct Republican position that most across the world want to live in freedom. Is it really surprising that people across the world, including Muslim countries, have heard this message and responded by wanting to immigrate? Wouldn't you imagine they are the ones most likely to put up with the insane hassles the US immigration system puts up to get here? Just use common sense here.

If they want to live in freedom, why don't they agitate for freedom in their own country? The fact is, democracy is difficult. It takes a lot of responsibility, tolerance and trust. Muslim societies have been unable to maintain any type of stable democracy so far, anywhere. So what makes you think they will be good stewards of democracy on U.S. soil? Is there something magic about the dirt here?

Oh. My. God.

This cannot be a real post. Look up "Arab Spring" for an example of just that behavior.

The fact that it wasn't successful in any country outside of Tunisia doesn't change the sentiment. Listening to people in downtown Cairo reminisce about their very short stint of freedom in Tahrir square makes it clear as day for me how big a sentiment this is in many countries. Not surprisingly, if you are younger and urban, you want freedom more. If the unemployment rate is higher, you want freedom more.

Democracy is in fact very difficult. This has nothing to do with religion, no matter how many times you state it. Dictators across the world are not all Muslim, in fact this isn't even the majority of dictators.

But to your point about Muslim countries and democracy, the rest of the world considers Indonesia one of the world's largest democracies. Just sayin. Just like the US, the Economist Intelligence Unit lists them as a flawed democracy.

[nate33]

Just saying, there's actual truth to the now defunct Republican position that most across the world want to live in freedom. Is it really surprising that people across the world, including Muslim countries, have heard this message and responded by wanting to immigrate? Wouldn't you imagine they are the ones most likely to put up with the insane hassles the US immigration system puts up to get here? Just use common sense here.

If they want to live in freedom, why don't they agitate for freedom in their own country? The fact is, democracy is difficult. It takes a lot of responsibility, tolerance and trust. Muslim societies have been unable to maintain any type of stable democracy so far, anywhere. So what makes you think they will be good stewards of democracy on U.S. soil? Is there something magic about the dirt here?

Oh. My. God.

This cannot be a real post. Look up "Arab Spring" for an example of just that behavior.

The fact that it wasn't successful in any country outside of Tunisia doesn't change the sentiment. Listening to people in downtown Cairo reminisce about their very short stint of freedom in Tahrir square makes it clear as day for me how big a sentiment this is in many countries. Not surprisingly, if you are younger and urban, you want freedom more. If the unemployment rate is higher, you want freedom more.

Democracy is in fact very difficult. This has nothing to do with religion, no matter how many times you state it. Dictators across the world are not all Muslim, in fact this isn't even the majority of dictators.

But to your point about Muslim countries and democracy, the rest of the world considers Indonesia one of the world's largest democracies. Just sayin. Just like the US, the Economist Intelligence Unit lists them as a flawed democracy.

There's what? 41 Muslim nations. Indonesia is the only one that is classified as a Democracy, and that's only barely. And the irony is that one of the reasons why America has slipped to just one notch ahead of Indonesia is due to the decline in civil liberties... thanks to the threat of Muslim terrorism.

(I also question the legitimacy of their ranking system. The U.S. takes a hit relative to Scandinavian countries because our voter turnout is low. But that's due to the representative nature of our electoral college. In swing states, voter turnout is comparable to most of Europe.)

[nate33]

The fact that it wasn't successful in any country outside of Tunisia doesn't change the sentiment. Listening to people in downtown Cairo reminisce about their very short stint of freedom in Tahrir square makes it clear as day for me how big a sentiment this is in many countries. Not surprisingly, if you are younger and urban, you want freedom more. If the unemployment rate is higher, you want freedom more.

Sure there's sentiment. But not ENOUGH sentiment. There are obviously many who either don't want to or are unable to make the necessary sacrifices to achieve a Democracy. Even when given lots of assistance from outside countries, like in Iraq, they were unable to maintain it.

[payitforward]

Before I respond I have to note one thing that really pleases me & 3 problems:

I was worried that I'd really offended you. Hence, it pleases me no end that you engaged w/ what I wrote. You didn't (& didn't need to) explicitly accept my apology, but entering dialogue is even better & makes me feel that the problem I created has been put behind us.

My first problem is that responding to what you write in blue, still on the topic of those first 2 paras of the multi-para post to all of which I hoped to reply, tells me we (I) will never get to the rest of them! I suppose this is typical of how things go on a discussion board.

My 2d problem is that I'm going to have to debunk most of the response in blue (I'll get to that in a minute), which means that we're not yet moving towards creating any shared understanding. I find this discouraging, though perhaps that's foolish on my part. Some of why it's discouraging comes from my 3d problem, which is...

...that I'm starting to get depressed about this thread once again -- largely because of the lengthy reply I just found myself forced to make to tontoz. I'm starting to feel that it may not be possible to sustain participation. There's too much to do & it's too debilitating to read stuff like what tontoz wrote. Note that this is my problem not his. I'm not complaining about tontoz.

But I will certainly respond to what you've written here, nate.

Finally, "these types of riots and conflict" -- ...does "conflict" always/often/usually have to lead to "riots?" & must all "riots" (using the term broadly here to mean non-civil confrontation of groups) be unresolvable -- i.e. be end states?

I would say that history answers the question for us. There are no long-standing multicultural societies. Sooner or later, multicultural societies end via war, genocide, secession, or a refugee crisis of some sort. The costs of administering a multicultural society grow too large as the state is forced to intervene more often to maintain a common set of laws and standards that are objectionable to a larger and larger group of minorities. There's a reason why Sweden was full of exclusively Swedes until recently, as Japan was full of exclusively Japanese and Russia was full of Russians. There's a reason why there is widespread chaos and crime in places like Africa and Brazil. Africa's ethnic and cultural boundaries were rearranged due to colonization, and they're still trying to regain an equilibrium. Likewise, Brazil is dealing with the culture clash of white settlers, Amerindian natives and Africans, all of whom have different ideas of how their society should be organized. Brazil has the highest crime rates in the world.

I'd say, w/ tons of evidence, that the opposite of what you write is true: that there are few long-standing societies (in the period of written history) that are not multicultural. Yet, your examples of Japan & Sweden are well chosen to support your point, so let me reply about them first.

Japan is an island society; for a long time as well it was an intentionally self-isolating society. For that reason it had lots of time to resolve the multi-cultural tribal basis that characterized even its island into a thoroughly integrated-seeming social order. But, even in the case of Japan, its social origins were in multiple & quite different tribes -- i.e. "cultures". I don't know that history well at all, but I do know that at least some traces are left of the "culture clashes" that went into its creation. The most obvious one is the Ainu (whose culture itself was the result of multiple cultural source strands).

Sweden, while not an island nation, was far enough out of the flow of global migration for centuries, even millenia, that like Japan its existence as a single-named "nation" grew out of mostly indigenous multiple tribes. Or... so I think. It would be too much trouble for this context to investigate further. Especially since these are exceptions to what I'm going to write next.

Every other European nation I can think of is an excellent example of a "multi-cultural" society. I wonder whether you are aware that before the advent of radio, for example, there were something more than twelve spoken languages in France. Different peoples. As well, of course, France was part of the Roman province of Gaul. Over the centuries of Roman conflict & occupation, a distinctly foreign culture was transplanted there: above all by Roman Legionnaires who stayed in large number; they were granted lands by the Empire (lands appropriated from Celtic & other cultures already in place), they married local women, they took on aspects of a variety of local cultures (depending where they were in what is now France) & established parts of their own cultures (Roman -- but also the cultures of their own origin: legionnaires could be from anywhere in the vast empire, from hugely different places). Obviously, as well, over almost 2 millenia a distinctly "French" culture emerged. Christianizing the nation added another cultural layer. As it happens, I lived in France for a few years -- if a person was interested (& I was) it was easy to see many of the veins in the complex, striated marble of things "French." For that matter, they were often quite conscious, a source of pride or of looking down the nose at some other cultural strands. Beyond all that, there was also in the Southwest of the country, & still is, a distinct Basque culture that has more in common (or at least wants to!) with the (also distinct in their setting) Basque people in Spain.

I could go on about France; that's just the tip of the iceberg. E.g. there were Jews in France starting I think a bit before the year 1000; another & even more distinct culture among the many there -- among the Franche-comtoises, the Toulousains, the Bretons (on the northwest coast & speaking a language that has no roots in Latin, I believe), the Normans, etc. There are also elements of Visigothic culture, and even of the Vikings. What we now call "France" (one of the many tribes, the "Franks", wound up supplying the name) is an altogether multi-cultural entity. & I haven't even gotten to the West Africans, Algerians, Egyptians, etc. who started adding to the mix a few hundred years ago. Or mentioned the Greeks who founded Marseille (or, probably, took it over from some preceding marauding folk).

I could give you the exact same run down on England, nate -- the anglo-saxons, Romans, Vikings, Normans, Scots, Welsh, etc.; all totally different cultures. & pre-historically they talk about the "river people" & some other groups of which there is distinct evidence but who preceded written history & so left no helpful records.

Ditto Spain. Ditto Portugal. Italy in spades! The oddest of your mentions, however, is Russia -- there are literally 1000s of cultures, indigenous & invasive (but more indigenous, as the place is so huge!) in what we now call "Russia."

What I think is leading you wrong is precisely to take a synchronic view of countries that stand out for chaos -- Brazil makes that point for you. But, who says all that "riot & conflict" is an "end state?" It stands out, so it draws attention. But, nations & cultures are more than "everything about us right now". They are diachronic, they happen in time; they are not exhausted by that synchronic view. Moreover, even in the case of Brazil, there's plenty to see that's come of their multi-cultural history that represents not "riot" or "conflict" but new & valuable human stuff that has developed out of those things (& others) -- Brazilian music for example. Or look at Argentina instead of Brazil. Still plenty of conflict, but also & again unique & extraordinary cultural development that has emerged precisely out of & because of multiple cultures in struggle.

Based on that, now go back to Japan & take another look. In the 70+ years since the definitive end of its isolation, & under the influence of Western, esp. American culture, that country has changed enormously & I think most people would say for the better. Not immigration, ok, but still the influence of multi-culturation.

& we are at the dawning of of that multi-culturation globally, to tell the truth.

Let me tell you a story. I was in Islamabad once for meetings. I was traveling w/ a young guy, a Pakistani originally from Islamabad but who lived in New York. He was a pain in the ass but that's a different story. We had time on our hands that day and spent the afternoon with his older brother (who ran a rental car business) and his family -- wife & 2 daughters, one of them 12 years old, the other maybe 9. They were very nice, gave us lunch, etc. I spent a lot of time talking w/ the kids, both smart as a whip & of course wanting to know all about this foreigner. The older girl had a typical of-that-age moodiness. "Islamabad is sooo boooring" I remember her telling me (as I tried not to laugh!). I asked her what music she liked, & in response she told me "mostly I like Irish bands" & rattled off a list of groups I'd never heard of.

Later, I was chatting with the mom, & she confided in me that her daughter was getting to be a handful. Moody, a little in revolt, looked down on her non-hip mom, etc. At that point I did burst out laughing & told her that my daughters had been exactly the same at that age, & that I thought it was pretty much universal. She laughed too and was definitely relieved.

I was in a lot of people's homes on that trip, more than usually I would be, including a Zoroastrian family in Karachi. Zoroastrianism is one of the oldest known human religions & is nearly gone -- I believe there are about 120,000 Zoroastrians in the world. And they strongly encourage their kids to marry out of the religion (in Pakistan to marry Muslims, obviously, as there are very few Christians in Pakistan - tho there are some, & I believe they are not at all discriminated against, btw: Islam views Jesus as one of the great prophets, the greatest before Muhammed I think) -- because the gene pool is shrinking & they are starting to have too many health problems....

Where was I going with this, I wonder? Oh yes, I wanted to mention that in every home I visited what was on TV was American shows. All the usual ones. In the long run, that's what will win.

I'll need to respond to the following para later. At least telling a story left me less depressed by this thread.

Ok, those are my questions. Preliminarily, I'd say that "culture clash" is, as nate says, likely to be a part of what happens when very different cultures engage deeply with one another. The more deeply they engage, the deeper the clash. We see this in lots of contexts less demanding than those of immigration, & we've seen it repeatedly in times of immigration. Or just when very different cultures cohabit an area w/o immigration being required. It's undeniable.

But, I feel comfortable in saying that overall the contacts & even conflicts of very different cultures, even by way of immigration, have been extremely productive in history. I'd be happy to produce any number of examples, but I bet most people here can come up w/ lots of them on their own. It is a certain fact that there would be no United States without them.

An obvious case is the mass immigration of the Irish. The view that there's was a radically different culture was considered an absolute fact (I'd say that at the time Protestants saw Catholicism as further from their own religion than Christians today see Islam as being). The view that they were a violent culture ditto. & there were riots galore -- with lots of violence, murder, etc.

I'd disagree with this characterization. Protestantism didn't even exist until the 1400's. The same forces of Catholic Christianity that shaped the English over a thousand years also shaped the Irish. The English didn't break from Catholicism until the mid 1500's. Both Catholicism and Protestantism share many of the foundational cultural beliefs common throughout Christianity - including a guilt-based morality system and elements of a separation of a Church and State. Both cultures were also shaped heavily by Greco-Roman tradition. They were a heck of lot more similar than Christians and Muslims today.

There's also the not insignificant issue that Irish visibly looked like Americans. A 2nd generation Irishman without an accent could pass for a 10th generation English colonist, making assimilation that much easier.

I doubt you think the Irish shouldn't have been allowed in, nate. Especially since it would be easy to document much the same kind of stuff as other waves of ethnic immigration followed. Which brings me to the 2d of your paragraphs I want to address today:

A prerequisite of democracy is that most of the people already have very similar values, goals, and a vision for society. You want most people to agree about things without the coercion of the state. If you don't have this condition, then you will inevitably have conflict once the minority groups grows sufficiently in size to have an expectation of enforcing their own cultural norms rather than the norms of the majority culture."

1. I think the first sentence is plainly incorrect. Most people who've thought/written about politics, from Aristotle forward, conclude that the reason we have any government is because individuals' "values, goals and... vision(s)" are in conflict by nature -- that w/o government they lead to "the war of all against all" (as Hobbes puts it). And that people not only don't share a "vision for society", but that don't have any such vision! Above all, this POV is at the foundation of conservatism as we understand it. You find it in Burke -- hell you find it everywhere in conservative literature.

I think you are conflating two things. I agree that we all have selfish individual interests that conflict with society at large, and we need government to keep us in line. Without theft laws, shoplifting would be so rampant that nobody could run a store. But that's different from sharing similar goals, and vision for society. I used my child marriage example as an extreme case, but one that's at least easy to follow. It's a whole lot easier to form age of consent laws when society at large already has a general agreement of what the age of consent should be.

But the issue comes up in other, less obvious ways. For example, there's a reason why socialism can function fairly well in Norway, but it utterly fails in Venezuela. For socialism to work, most of the public has to "buy in". (And for the sake of this argument, let's not get too into the weeds on defining socialism. Basically, I'm referring to a very generous social safety net at taxpayer expense.) The people with surplus income, which is being taxed and redistributed away, at least need to trust that those receiving benefits are not abusing the system. It requires the "receivers" to feel some level of guilt for receiving, and the "givers" need to believe that the "receivers" actually do feel that guilt and don't want to continue to be a "receiver". And that level of trust requires a culture of high outgroup preferences. Clannish cultures don't have those outgroup preferences. They focus their efforts at what's good for the family and extended family, and feel much less empathy for outgroups beyond their family circle. For whatever reason, Northern Europeans have developed a mix of cultural/individual traits that result in high outgroup preferences which permits Socialism to function relatively smoothly with society still remaining substantially free of government coercion.

When socialism is tried elsewhere, deficits quickly balloon as the "givers" find ways to stop giving and economic collapse follows (see Latin America or Greece). Either that, or an authoritarian government is necessary to keep it going (see China or Cuba). You can write the laws as carefully as you want, but socialism won't work in Argentina, or Turkey, or Zimbabwe. Heck, it's not even working so well in America if our budget deficits are any indication.

2. The 2d sentence - "You want most people to agree about things without the coercion of the state" - is either anodyne (agree there's a God in heaven? It looks like rain tomorrow?) or utterly Utopian ('the property line is right there.' 'No, it's back there -- get the hell off my property!' 'Oh yeah?' 'Yeah.' -- next comes the noise of guns). Again, far from a prerequisite of democracy (of any government) agreement is the reason we have government (& the rule of law, & the power to enforce laws). It's the opposite of a prerequisite! The advantage of democracy is that there's some ability to constrain those with the most power (wealth, land, liegemen, money, etc.) from dictating the terms of those "agreements."

See above

3. Your 3d sentence ("minority groups... enforcing their own cultural norms rather than those of the majority culture") is what I'd call a picture in your mind. Historically, wouldn't you say we've had more problems from majority groups enforcing their preferences on minorities than the opposite? That's a rhetorical question, nate. The answer is yes. As well, I'd say we more often see minority cultures shedding their cultural differences over a few generations than growing more strident in enforcing them. Often, the cultural markers are reduced to symbolic stuff maintained with much less meaning than it had in the past.

We've had a minority culture of blacks in our country for 300 years. They've been freed for 150 years. Jim Crow has been eradicated for 50 years. But by any measure, we still have tremendous difficulty in assimilating the majority of blacks despite trillions of dollars being directed to the task. I'm not making a value judgement on who is responsible for this lack of assimilation, I'm just saying that it's obviously not an easy task. (I'll also say, as I've said in the past, that blacks are a special case where there is a much more compelling duty of society to try and help them integrate effectively, since their presence here in the first place was not voluntary.)

Respectfully, nate, these first two paragraphs seem distinctly in *conflict* with the truth. Not *riot*ously so, but *inevitably* so all the same.

I can't continue now with the rest. But I will. I'm pretty sure that what we'll find is a particular problem w/ what you imagine Muslim culture to be & to mean -- what you imagine inaccurately & based on (I speculate) little or no contact with Muslims -- rather than anything that flows from the 2 paragraphs I've just looked at, in which you meant to (but failed to) create a rational foundation for that problem.

I'll conclude with something personal: I just spent more than an hour on the above. Time I really didn't have for it (got a lot of projects!). I did it, because it matters to me what & how you think about these things. In fact, I'd say that's why I overreacted last week, because after 5 years on this Board what you & others here think about things has come to matter to me. You are "real", IOW. In a way Donald Trump isn't.

In fact, f*ck Donald Trump. Oh hell, f*k the Democrats too. In short, I'm not trying to change your mind, nate. I'm trying to reach your mind. Feel free to offer any reasoned response to what I've written above. I don't mind being wrong; the only way you learn is by being wrong. Lucky me I've been around so long & wrong so many times that I've learned a lot (above all I've learned & keep learning how easy it is to be wrong!).

When I turn to your next paragraphs, I'll talk about my exposure to Islamic culture, arranged marriage, etc. Like I say, man, for better or worse I've been around!

I appreciate the time you spent on this.

[sfam]

The fact that it wasn't successful in any country outside of Tunisia doesn't change the sentiment. Listening to people in downtown Cairo reminisce about their very short stint of freedom in Tahrir square makes it clear as day for me how big a sentiment this is in many countries. Not surprisingly, if you are younger and urban, you want freedom more. If the unemployment rate is higher, you want freedom more.

Sure there's sentiment. But not ENOUGH sentiment. There are obviously many who either don't want to or are unable to make the necessary sacrifices to achieve a Democracy. Even when given lots of assistance from outside countries, like in Iraq, they were unable to maintain it.

I really hope you never live under a dictatorship, but perhaps you should consider talking to some that do. Strangely enough, dictators, be they Muslim or otherwise want to keep power.

EDIT: Regarding Iraq, Biden was right. There is not a country there. Spend as much money as you want, no matter how much Turkey or anyone else would wish otherwise, it's not happening.

This is totally separate from the absurd folly to think that you can simply spend more money faster on a society to turn it into a democracy quicker. I've been to over 20 developing countries, most of which never see funds falling from the sky for a decade. And I have never seen a less mature civil society than I have in Iraq. Its filled with older led NGOs who essentially know how to point buckets into the sky, collect funds, and make the books "look" like how USAID, UNDP, DFID or whomever is asking. This is NOT due to their Muslim heritage, its due to a warping of civil society due to the funding process. Claire Lockhart writes wonderfully on this in a book titled, Fixing Failed States.

[sfam]

Let me tell you a story. I was in Islamabad once for meetings. I was traveling w/ a young guy, a Pakistani originally from Islamabad but who lived in New York. He was a pain in the ass but that's a different story. We had time on our hands that day and spent the afternoon with his older brother (who ran a rental car business) and his family -- wife & 2 daughters, one of them 12 years old, the other maybe 9. They were very nice, gave us lunch, etc. I spent a lot of time talking w/ the kids, both smart as a whip & of course wanting to know all about this foreigner. The older girl had a typical of-that-age moodiness. "Islamabad is sooo boooring" I remember her telling me (as I tried not to laugh!). I asked her what music she liked, & in response she told me "mostly I like Irish bands" & rattled off a list of groups I'd never heard of.

Later, I was chatting with the mom, & she confided in me that her daughter was getting to be a handful. Moody, a little in revolt, looked down on her non-hip mom, etc. At that point I did burst out laughing & told her that my daughters had been exactly the same at that age, & that I thought it was pretty much universal. She laughed too and was definitely relieved.

Yep. Sounds like a terrorist.

[SUPERBALLMAN]

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[dckingsfan]

@nate - nice story in the WSJ written by Greg Ip - almost could swear he is on the board

Not sure if you can get behind the firewall: Trump’s Hard Line on Immigration Collides With U.S. Demographics

[dckingsfan]

largely because of the lengthy reply I just found myself forced to make to tontoz. I'm starting to feel that it may not be possible to sustain participation.

I often feel the same way. It would be soooo much easier to just ignore... but then I won't be able to complain about the ridiculousness of the actions of an administration. And what fun would that be...

An example of why we need immigration is lost on most. And why our current immigration policy is broken. It takes time and energy to explain.

Is it worthwhile. Maybe not. But it is oft cathartic.

[montestewart]

largely because of the lengthy reply I just found myself forced to make to tontoz. I'm starting to feel that it may not be possible to sustain participation.

I often feel the same way. It would be soooo much easier to just ignore... but then I won't be able to complain about the ridiculousness of the actions of an administration. And what fun would that be...

An example of why we need immigration is lost on most. And why our current immigration policy is broken. It takes time and energy to explain.

Is it worthwhile. Maybe not. But it is oft cathartic.

Take a break now and then if it's wearing you down, or just read without responding. That's what I try to do. You don't have to decisively rebut everything you disagree with

[gtn130]

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

These videos are not remotely persuasive. Not even sure what your point is.

[dckingsfan]

largely because of the lengthy reply I just found myself forced to make to tontoz. I'm starting to feel that it may not be possible to sustain participation.

I often feel the same way. It would be soooo much easier to just ignore... but then I won't be able to complain about the ridiculousness of the actions of an administration. And what fun would that be...

An example of why we need immigration is lost on most. And why our current immigration policy is broken. It takes time and energy to explain.

Is it worthwhile. Maybe not. But it is oft cathartic.

Take a break now and then if it's wearing you down, or just read without responding. That's what I try to do. You don't have to decisively rebut everything you disagree with

That's a good point. But these few issues that are coming up now are really interesting and sooo important.

1) Immigration - why both parties have it wrong and what we need
2) Tax reform - why we need it and why both parties have it wrong

Guess I will be around for a while

[bsilver]

largely because of the lengthy reply I just found myself forced to make to tontoz. I'm starting to feel that it may not be possible to sustain participation.

I often feel the same way. It would be soooo much easier to just ignore... but then I won't be able to complain about the ridiculousness of the actions of an administration. And what fun would that be...

An example of why we need immigration is lost on most. And why our current immigration policy is broken. It takes time and energy to explain.

Is it worthwhile. Maybe not. But it is oft cathartic.

Take a break now and then if it's wearing you down, or just read without responding. That's what I try to do. You don't have to decisively rebut everything you disagree with

Rebutting is sort of like a civic duty performed for the benefit of other like minded posters. We're all probably competitive enough that we don't want to see annoying stuff go unchallenged, especially from certain posters. Some seem to enjoy the exercise, so easier for the rest of us.

Some actually believe they may actually change someone's mind on an issue. IMO, that's ridiculous. In reality, arguments from opposing sides, actually seem to further cement one's original opinions. With the last election we've certainly evidence for this.

[closg00]

Another anecdotal story about a Trump deplorable.

'Goodbye, Racist!': Passengers Cheer As Unruly Man Gets Booted From Plane
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alleged-racist-kicked-off-plane_us_58ae514ee4b05ca474a0a9c3



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[popper]

I often feel the same way. It would be soooo much easier to just ignore... but then I won't be able to complain about the ridiculousness of the actions of an administration. And what fun would that be...

An example of why we need immigration is lost on most. And why our current immigration policy is broken. It takes time and energy to explain.

Is it worthwhile. Maybe not. But it is oft cathartic.

Take a break now and then if it's wearing you down, or just read without responding. That's what I try to do. You don't have to decisively rebut everything you disagree with

Rebutting is sort of like a civic duty performed for the benefit of other like minded posters. We're all probably competitive enough that we don't want to see annoying stuff go unchallenged, especially from certain posters. Some seem to enjoy the exercise, so easier for the rest of us.

Some actually believe they may actually change someone's mind on an issue. IMO, that's ridiculous. In reality, arguments from opposing sides, actually seem to further cement one's original opinions. With the last election we've certainly evidence for this.

Yeah. This social scientist has spent decades trying to sort through the causes of the disconnect in reason between competing viewpoints. Interesting stuff IMO.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[payitforward]

The Armenian holocaust by the Turks was awful. But it had nothing to do with Islam...

Had nothing to do with Islam based on what? Because you say so? ....

The genocide practiced against the Armenians was horrid, but it reflected Turkish nationalism. And the Turkish nationalist movement, led by Mustafa Kemal (later called "Ataturk"), grew from a desire to remove Islam (i.e. to remove religion) from national life.

I doubt Ataturk practiced Islam. One of his famous acts was to gather 500 leading Muslim clerics, telling them he was sending them by boat to some kind of religious festival or event in the Middle East, & then to sink the boat in the ocean with the 500 clerics on it!

I take it you are a Christian. How much worse was what the Germans did than what the Turks did? You ready to issue the same blanket condemnation of Christians as you did of Muslims? Of course not -- nor should you. In either case.

As far as I know Hitler wasn't practicing any religion at all and didn't believe in God, was actively oppressing churches and had an inner circle of anti-church radicals.

Yes, that was kind of my point wasn't it? Although it seems you didn't bother (or weren't able) to understand it. Not that Christianity, like Islam, was "guilty" of genocide but that neither was. Do you get my meaning this time?

At the same time, plenty of believing Muslims were required to carry out the Armenian genocide. & plenty of believing Christians were required to carry out genocide against the Jews (& Gypsies, etc.). & in fact, the Christian church -- every denomination in Germany to my knowledge -- supported the Nazi government. I've already posted a photograph here of German Catholic bishops -- including the future Pope! -- all giving the Heil Hitler salute.

Are there horrors in the Islamic where grown men molest children? Sure. Are there men who sell their young daughters? Sure. &, you know what, tontoz? We have that kind of thing right here in America.

It is a crime here. You do know that right?...

It happens here. You do know that right? Unfortunately, there may be reason to think it happens a lot more here than in Islamic countries.

But the real question is... did you read my post? I know a lot more about this than you do. Your sarcasm seems to reflect not just thoughtlessness but some odd desire to portray yourself as an ignorant twerp. I don't understand that.

Over a long life I've learned that when a jackass brays the second time, it's no surprise if it sounds just like the first time. And that It's useless to remind a jackass that his noises reflect no knowledge at all. And that when a jackass brays, it's harder to pay attention to actual information in the air around you.

A person isn't a jackass, of course, but it does seem possible to work at doing a good imitation, tontoz. If you are tempted to bray again, don't bother. I've just put you on Ignore.

[tontoz]

@ the irony of PIF calling someone a jackass.

Bye