The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm going to attempt to kill with silence the (repulsive) article that Marokai linked to and explain what I mean about the Hitler thing. Understatement isn't always a bad thing--famously it's key to some forms of comedy, to name the most obvious example--but when it's deployed with the kind of glurgy earnestness that it was in this case, it's hard not to suspect that this person is minimizing Hitler's atrocities by talking about them in the same terms as obviously much more minor problems. Furthermore it's hard not to come to the conclusion that a discourse of oppression entirely centered around concepts like 'privilege' is completely insufficient to discuss much of anything seriously and implicitly encourages this kind of vapid thinking. This is a generation of activists who can be confronted with the example of a regime that killed millions and millions and millions of people and without a hint of irony describe the man at the center of it as having 'believed in privilege'. The profound lack of historical awareness (and awareness that a difference in degree can be so enormous as to become a difference in kind) inherent in a statement like that doesn't come from nowhere. Personally I think that the quote in DC Al Fine's signature, despite its unfortunate source, has it more or less right: It comes from a pathological desire to avoid anything smacking too much of a serious belief system--a belief system like Judaism or Christianity or Marxism that provides some of the language with which these sorts of things were traditionally discussed and through which they were traditionally understood--in favor of a constant reaffirmation of not being that [small-c] 'conservative', not being that 'old-fashioned', not being that 'boring'. 'Don't trust any episteme over thirty', dontcha know.

[Simfan34]

There's a stereotype of Canada, that Canadians don't know what their national culture is, except that they're not the United States.

There's a stereotype of Americans, that Americans think everything has to do with them and that everyone is defined by them.

I don't object to America's existence any more than I object to Canada's, but I do object to the way they act when they travel abroad.

Yes, but the thing about Canada does not seem wildly off the mark, either.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

His analysis won't get him hired by Nate Silver, but I can think of several posters more annoying. If he, or anyone else, gets stuff wrong: teach them, don't bash them. If you're as smart as you seem to think you are, then you'll turn a subjectively annoying poster into a good one, instead of chasing someone away.

Famous Mortimer, you seem to represent some of the worst of the internet: snobbery and putting down rape victims as fakers. The snobbery part is prevalent too often, and it's not noticed as much as it should be. I'm talking about calling people "the worst" instead of trying to help them, or even ignoring them. Where you feel that you're so important and the other person (Kingpoleon, in this case) is so bad that everyone needs to hear your opinion of how bad this person is. The putting down of rape victims is simply awful. Cut that out, please. I guess the silver lining is that, to be careful, you're really sure about asking for consent--but the motives are all wrong. Assuming that a person, when they talk about a terrible thing that happened to them, is lying just to get attention is, well, a very idiotic position to take.

Now, that's as far as you should go with the critique. I didn't make sweeping accusations about you (I said you seem to represent the internet's worst)--why? Because you're a person, and I don't know you. All that I did was tell you what you're doing wrong and why it's wrong--and now I'm telling you how, in my opinion, to get better. All you're doing is attacking the who of Kingpoleon--which is a line you shouldn't cross on the internet.

Let's keep it civil, everyone. Critique with the intent of making someone a better poster, yes, but never insult with no apparent intent except making someone feel bad.

I guess you didn't ask for my advice, but I gave it. Take it with a grain of salt if you like. But cut out the rape defence, please.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

A disappointment.

Yeah, I really expected him to get rid of the whole "God" thin. It's such a downer.

[Badger]

There's a stereotype of Canada, that Canadians don't know what their national culture is, except that they're not the United States.

That's was AAD reminds me of.  More than any other identity, they define themselves as not Dave Leip's Atlas.

Of course, that's where the analogy breaks down.  Last time I checked, Canadians are too polite to drive down to the US for the sole purpose of telling us Americans how superior they are.

I don't object to AAD's existence any more than I object to Canada's, but I do object to the way they act when they travel abroad.

Thank you for posting this directly into the gallery .

[Јas]

Lately I have been thinking there is one thing that could hurt him and that is The Bible. After getting criticism for his performance at a values summit last month he has started touting how The Bible is his favorite book and how it is "The Best!"  It seems to me that he has opened himself to have a Sarah Palin with Katie Couric or Herman Cain "Libya Brain Freeze" type of moment with some informed journalist asking him some basic questions about Christianity/The Bible. Because I am fairly certain that he knows j--k sh-t about the Bible. If he completely embarrasses himself talking about God, how well will he do with the base of the GOP?

Hm...I take that as a challenge to write what I would say if I were Trump asked about the Bible.

"Take David. Total outsider, the kid wasn't part of the establishment, wasn't part of the court, he was a shepherd boy! Yet he could tell that things were going wrong in Israel. Losing wars, budget wasn't lining up, everything was just going to hell, and the people in the government didn't have a clue. King Saul...nice guy, right? Saul? Love him, but he was a loser. A total disaster. So David goes to the court and everyone loves the guy, he even negotiated the king's daughter as a bride...someone's clearly read The Art of the Deal, am I right? Israel's threatened by the Philistines, so David, totally naked, goes up to the biggest, toughest of the Philistines and knocks him dead. That's how you negotiate! Take the biggest, strongest enemy and destroy him publicly...who's going to screw you after that? There's a great statue of this...Michelangelo's David...you seen it? This guy's seen it. Powerful stuff...and David had nearly as luxurious hair as I do! I thought about buying that statue once, but I don't have the right building to stick it in yet. Maybe the White House, eh? So David becomes king. People love him, God loves him, Israel's enemies hate him. Did he have a soft spot for beautiful girls? Don't we all? So yes, story of David is really inspirational stuff."

[politicus]

This may not be an effortpost, but it is always nice to see someone answer a question that is normally simplified into absurdity in a rational and accurate manner:

I have to say other. I'm taking the question literally and separating it from the question of when do human rights begin.

During the first 15 days after fertilization the cells of the zygote remain undifferentiated. It is in this period that the zygote can split in two forming identical twins. A split does not always result in twins, since undifferentiated cells can come loose from the zygote and not develop further. Around the 16th day the cells of the zygote differentiate into three layers (segmentation) and twinning becomes impossible. It is also by the point of differentiation that most non-viable genetic combinations (including interspecies zygotes) fail to survive.

The question of human identity involves an individual. Identical twins are two persons and have two identities. Before segmentation one cannot say with any certainty whether an individual exists or if there will be more than one. If human life begins at fertilization, when does life begin for an identical twin? One can't say that a second individual occurs when cells split from the zygote, since that often doesn't result in a twin. It is only when both parts of a split zygote become segmented that one can say that two individuals exist. So, it seems the earliest point one can identify a new human individual is at segmentation.

[DC Al Fine]

You know, the fact that she's an extreme socon and a Democrat doesn't surprise me so much in that part of the country, but the fact that she's an Apostolic and a Democrat DOES. Actually even if she was a Republican I'd be surprised that an Apostolic is holding public office, especially one like that.

For those unaware, Apostolics are a Pentecostal denomination that are mostly found only in Appalachia and the Upper South and yet for whatever reason also North Dakota, (there's a non-negligible population around Bismarck, I know the chiropractor I went to in high school was one, and the receptionist, his daughter was recognizable as one), that basically shun alcohol and tobacco, jewelry, tattoos, most modern clothing and forbid women from wearing pants (they view this as equivalent to crossdressing like men wearing dresses), and their women wear their hair waist long while men are prohibited from having long hair, if you ever thought she was dressed a little odd and archaicly that's why (and notice her hair in the pic above.) They also heavily discourage though I don't believe actually "ban" owning a TV and watching movies. Much like Jehova's Witnesses they tend to be very "anti-worldly" and having one be in charge of record keeping for a county is an odd position. Although worth noting part of the reason why they hold to that is that such jobs could put someone in a position where they must be an accessory to sin...which brings up a valid point here. By the logic of her church she should've resigned as soon as the Supreme Court decision came if not sooner. Though I'm sure her local congregation support her and all.

BRTD adds some interesting information on the Kim Davis case.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

But, what about "xyz?"  How can you be upset about "xyz" when nobody cares that much about "abc?"

This instinct to diminish tragedies is really crappy overall.  If each of us took on all the sadness of entire world, in all of history we'd all be crying for the rest of our lives.  There's too much tragedy, too much violence and senseless hatred all around.  This so much about keeping score and portraying America as the permanent victim or permanent bad guy. 

Are you going to tell a Syrian refugee, "pipe down with your sob stories, there were more casualties in the Second Congo War!" ?  And, that's the point.  These all human beings, and yet, most of us here are Americans and most of us remember 9/11 2001 vividly.  You care more about the tragedies closest to you.

Just don't try to diminish people's normal emotions.  You don't have to care yourself.  But, for many of us, this was like a death in the family.  I'm from New York, my dad worked at the World Trade Center on a high floor until the late 90s, these were my people.  The type of people I work with, and ride the subway with and they could have been my friends and my family in those towers or on those planes. 

Do I feel the same way about Salvador Allende's bodyguards?  Frankly I don't.  I don't begrudge you for caring about Chile, or about your grandparent who died, or your dog who died.  So, if you don't have anything nice to say, just cram it up your butt.  These threads are pointless.

[The Last Northerner]

On 'Westerners' perception of violence.

Well, I was phrasing my point in a somewhat unserious manner. However, I do believe that, while nowadays a lot of people are absolutely swamped in sexual stuff, whether it be online pornography, or 'artistic' depictions of sex or even simple discussion of sex, humans (in the West primarily) are ever more cut off from any kind of understanding and acceptance of violence and death. Things were different back in the day of course; most men would have fought in some military conflict, and those who hadn't would likely know someone who did, as was the case for women (although of course some women actually did fight in conflicts). Also, many families would know the trauma of losing a close loved one, whether it was from war, or, just as often, disease. Figures of authority weren't so inclined to shirk away from the rather harsh reality of life, which is that many people die, and not all of then for good or noble reasons.

Now, I'm not saying that the decline of military conflicts and falling rates of infant mortality and fatal illness in the West are bad things; I am very happy not to have been almost worked to death in a Japanese POW camp like my grandfather, and to have not died in the cradle as so many more babies used to do. I believe changes in these areas have been positive advancements. On the other hand, I believe that the decoupling of human life, for many people, from the regular experience of death and violence has not been a good thing either. I mean, take, for example, that photo of a dead Syrian child that caused so much fuss a few days ago. This, of course, is partly an example of the general awfulness of a lot of tabloid journalism, as with it's frankly cringe worthy coverage of the deaths of Princess Diana and Jade Goody respectively (I imagine you may not have heard of Jade Goody; consider yourself lucky). However, the reactions of many people to that photo were as, kf not more cringe worthy than the coverage itself. I mean you just had this ridiculous, never ending outpouring of online grief and, to quote Shakespeare, clamorous whining, from many people, over the fact that one child had died. I mean, when I saw that photo, I briefly felt sorry for the child and it's family, but then, you know, I moved on with my life, because I didn't know the kid and there was nothing that I could do to bring back the child anyway.

Some people, as I said before, thought rather differently, and launched themselves into this bizarre online campaign called 'refugees welcome'. I mean, let me be clear, migrants have been dying in droves for the past few months; in fact they've been dying on these types of journeys for decades. Yet of course because you didn't have photographers going around, snapping photos of dead children and pasting them onto news websites, the vast majority of westerners were protected from having to confront this sort of thing; living in their cosy, cosseted world in which violence and death only happen in far away places and in the movies. Then, the image of one dead child drives these people into a frenzy. My own simple view is that behaviour like this is pretty, well, pathetic and pointless, just as it was over the death of that goddamn lion (although that was even more ridiculous). People need to learn to accept and deal with the continuing issue of death and destruction in this world, and to learn, if need be, how to control their emotional response to these things. People should be wailing and gnashing their teeth (in 8 hopefully) when a loved parent or spouse dies, no when a lion or a child that they'd never met bites the dust. As I said at the start of my post, this is difficult for many because of their usual isolation from these issues (and of course because of the decline in any coherent belief in life after death, but that's a topic for another post). But people need to try, not least for the sake of my Facebook feed not being overrun with stomach churning paeans to the aforementioned dead lion or child from 'x, studies Sports Science and Colonic Irrigation at the University of Y Met'.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I would have used a more strongly-worded language, but this still nails the point:

Is increased vote turnout nmeven a good thing? Generally people who dont vote would be less likely to even be aware of the issues, so why is it good if they do vote?

Well that's not really the point of a democratic election. Most voters, whatever the turnout are not "wonks" (thank god). They won't be able to give a concise description of the latest tax reform proposals or whatever. But the point of representative democracy is to convert the gut feelings, the raw emotion of a populace into tangible action by the people they chose to elect. Sure most people who don't vote (as well as most people who vote) are not Economics majors or even know much about politics; but they do understand their own lives. They know if taxes are too grinding; and they know if their neighbourhood is poorly organised; and they know if their boss treats them like crap. That is why we should raise turnout - because at the end of the da, no matter how little Vox articles a person has read, they deserve agency.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

First of all, you can't ban parties just for being "extremist" or distasteful. That's a standard way too arbitrary to be enforceable. It's also quite hypocritical to state that all political speech is protected under law, but that parties can be banned just for political speech. Now if the country doesn't have a protection for political speech, you can set a non-arbitrary standard, but it generally doesn't work. For example just look at Germany which has the toughest anti-Nazi laws in the world, yet the NPD is one of the parties mentioned. All they have to do is not say they are a neo-Nazi party or use the swastika.

Second of all banning parties never works. Can anyone cite an example in history where it did? All it results in whack-a-mole, the banned party just reforms under a different name and we're back we started. Look at how Belgium banned Vlaams Blok and they just came back as Vlaams Belang. Or how Turkey used to ban a Kurdish nationalist party every couple years only to see them reform. Or Thailand after every election. It's not like banning a party will make its members think "Ah dammit, now we can't participate in the political process. Guess we'll quit voting and drop out."

Now if the party actually is basically just a front for a violent criminal organization like Golden Dawn, well then yes the criminal aspect should be cracked down on (and note how most of Golden Dawn's leaders have been arrested). And seeing how extremist parties often tend toward this it often renders the question moot most of the time. But banning parties just for political reasons is something that's never going to be effective.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Crabcake is on a roll:

I don't really grasp Cassius's point to be honest. Humanity is a sentimental beast, and almost all social reformers throughout history have used the image of the poor dead, destitute or dying child as a symbol for their cause - the Victorian middle-classes of course being a prime example for almost sickly depictions of the innocent child being destroyed by the wickedness of social ills (Dickens being the master of course). We don't like children dying or losing their innocence; and the idea of a photo of a drowned child not plucking our heartstrings seems baffling. After all, the public opinion before the photo was decidedly negative towards the refugees; so people almost want to atone for their own failings. (Just like Victorian philanprophists fell over themselves to "give back to society" once they were sufficiently shamed by Tiny Tim being a mawkish fool). A dead child can only represent a victim, and we are emphatic enough to link the face of the dead boy with the own children we have in our families. Is such a reaction a bad thing? Maybe it's hypocritical (and a bit bandwagonish) but I find it comforting, that even in these uncertain times people still have not lost that emphatic touch. Maybe when we are all automatons we will be able to freely gaze on the death of children and think "well that's sad and all, but part of the real world". But we aren't at that point in society yet, and (apologies to disagree with Cassius) I will be very sad when that day comes.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

The Austrian broadcaster ORF today said in their main evening news show that more than 80% of Hungarians (!) backed the tough new isolationist policies of the Orban government on the border.

Yet another central European country that wasn't properly de-Nazified (de-Horthyfied?). Very sad.

Now this is too much. Four decades under communist rule and 1956 wasn't enough for you?

The Soviets did not do proper denazification. They screwed them up - certainly, true. But ideologically they were far too close to being Nazis themselves.

I would begin angrily flapping my arms at this if I did not know you better. In lieu of that, might I ask in what ways were Soviet denazification efforts in the Eastern Bloc insufficient?

That is, actually, very easy. The Soviets never, really, explained, what was it that was wrong about the Nazis. In the internal Soviet discourse the Nazis were bad because they attacked the Soviets: - a point which might, arguably, be lost on the Hungarians - and I do not blame them, actually. The Soviets could not properly denazify because doing that would be... anti-Soviet. You would have to explain why the Nazis were evil - but on most of those counts they were not substantially different from the Soviets. Hungarians were pretty much told that what the Nazis did wrong was to start and lose a war, and that their own leaders were wrong in betting on a wrong horse. That the victors' justice was heavy-handed was no denazification, but simple revenge.

In a certain sense, the Berlin Airlift was, by itself, a much more efficient denazificaiton measure than anything the Soviets would dare to do.

Unfortunately, commenting on the rest of your post, according to some participants of these boards, would mean trolling. So, I am forced to hold off, while thinking of that boy Motl, son of a cantor in Kasrilovke.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

He doesn't seem insincere to me.  His problem is that he's morphed his voice into a sort of stilted stentorian, debating voice like he's addressing the Roman Senate.  Ted Cruz has basically spent more time talking about Constitutional law and the perils of liberalism than he's talked about anything else.  So, his real personality seems like a put-on.

Marco Rubio has a bit of the same problem.  They each have like 4 vocal intonations that they use like they have a fastball, change-up, curve ball and slider.  So, just vocally, it sounds like a kid playing a xylophone, while a more skilled speaker sounds like someone playing the piano.

[Figueira]

This is one of the best posts I've seen here in a while.

"Does an ethnic group have a right to a national homeland?"

No.


No ethnic group "deserves" anything. If an ethnic group can "deserve" a state, then you can also say an ethnic group "deserves" punishment for something.

The end result is Segregation. A splintered world with a country for each arbitrary ethno/cultural group. Divide them all up by the groupings that some currently use to classify people, according to some arbitrary criteria. Judging which groups of people do or don't have "legitimate" reasons to have a country. Declaring that some ethnicities and religions couldn't and shouldn't share the same country, because of the >1% violent extremists. Declaring it's a fool's dream to have countries not based on one specific ethnicity/culture/religion. Saying that some ethnicities and religions (defining and judging thousands or millions of individual humans by their association with these classifications) have to live separately until they "learn to play nice." ...

That would be a defeat. A defeat for human rights, a defeat for liberal democracy, a defeat for secularism and interfaith harmony, a defeat for multiculturalism, a defeat for individualism, a defeat for viewing humanity as one people.

You shouldn't establish new states simply because an (or each) ethnicity "deserves" its own state. If one state isn't being multicultural/secular and is oppressing some people, and those people then want to declare an independent state, yes definitely let them and support them. But not because they as an ethnicity "deserve" a state. No ethnicity deserves anything. Their new state should strive to be secular and multicultural, not just replicating the same kind of environment as the country they're trying to secede from, just with a different ethnicity.

We should have countries that aren't officially affiliated with any one segment of the population, but with humanity in general. Allowing all who live in each country to be treated as equals and fully belonging, where no one is discriminated against or excluded. A government/state/country that belongs to a place, not to one particular subgrouping of humanity.

Do you know the path of those who believe that an ethnicity/culture/religion can collectively "deserve" something as an ethnicity/culture/religion? Do you see that such a view would be against individualism, and could swing the other way, saying an entire ethnic/religious/cultural group can "deserve" punishment, or don't "deserve" independence, etc.?

Like I said, if a country is affiliated with one particular group and oppressing another particularly group, and that oppressed group wants independence, I am fine with it. But their new country shouldn't then be affiliated with a particular group either.

For example, Massachusetts versus Rhode Island in colonial times. Puritans felt oppressed in England, so some came to the New World and founded Massachusetts. But as they implemented their theocratic Puritan society, other people felt oppressed under them too, and some were even exiled. One was Roger Williams, who then founded Providence (which became the capital of RI). But instead of repeating the cycle yet again, Roger Williams chose to make Providence a safe haven for people of all creeds: all forms of Christianity, and even Jews, were welcome, and everyone was told they could follow whatever religion they wanted. (Williams even made peace with the Native Americans, legally bought the land from them, and attempted intercultural dialogue and wrote the first Native American dictionary.) Follow the example of colonial Massachusetts and continue the cycle, or follow the example of colonial Rhode Island and break free of the cycle? That's what I'm talking about, when I say no country should be affiliated with a particular culture/religion/ethnicity/whatever.

[politicus]

This is one of the best posts I've seen here in a while.

"Does an ethnic group have a right to a national homeland?"

No.


No ethnic group "deserves" anything. If an ethnic group can "deserve" a state, then you can also say an ethnic group "deserves" punishment for something.

The end result is Segregation. A splintered world with a country for each arbitrary ethno/cultural group. Divide them all up by the groupings that some currently use to classify people, according to some arbitrary criteria. Judging which groups of people do or don't have "legitimate" reasons to have a country. Declaring that some ethnicities and religions couldn't and shouldn't share the same country, because of the >1% violent extremists. Declaring it's a fool's dream to have countries not based on one specific ethnicity/culture/religion. Saying that some ethnicities and religions (defining and judging thousands or millions of individual humans by their association with these classifications) have to live separately until they "learn to play nice." ...

That would be a defeat. A defeat for human rights, a defeat for liberal democracy, a defeat for secularism and interfaith harmony, a defeat for multiculturalism, a defeat for individualism, a defeat for viewing humanity as one people.

You shouldn't establish new states simply because an (or each) ethnicity "deserves" its own state. If one state isn't being multicultural/secular and is oppressing some people, and those people then want to declare an independent state, yes definitely let them and support them. But not because they as an ethnicity "deserve" a state. No ethnicity deserves anything. Their new state should strive to be secular and multicultural, not just replicating the same kind of environment as the country they're trying to secede from, just with a different ethnicity.

We should have countries that aren't officially affiliated with any one segment of the population, but with humanity in general. Allowing all who live in each country to be treated as equals and fully belonging, where no one is discriminated against or excluded. A government/state/country that belongs to a place, not to one particular subgrouping of humanity.

Do you know the path of those who believe that an ethnicity/culture/religion can collectively "deserve" something as an ethnicity/culture/religion? Do you see that such a view would be against individualism, and could swing the other way, saying an entire ethnic/religious/cultural group can "deserve" punishment, or don't "deserve" independence, etc.?

Like I said, if a country is affiliated with one particular group and oppressing another particularly group, and that oppressed group wants independence, I am fine with it. But their new country shouldn't then be affiliated with a particular group either.

For example, Massachusetts versus Rhode Island in colonial times. Puritans felt oppressed in England, so some came to the New World and founded Massachusetts. But as they implemented their theocratic Puritan society, other people felt oppressed under them too, and some were even exiled. One was Roger Williams, who then founded Providence (which became the capital of RI). But instead of repeating the cycle yet again, Roger Williams chose to make Providence a safe haven for people of all creeds: all forms of Christianity, and even Jews, were welcome, and everyone was told they could follow whatever religion they wanted. (Williams even made peace with the Native Americans, legally bought the land from them, and attempted intercultural dialogue and wrote the first Native American dictionary.) Follow the example of colonial Massachusetts and continue the cycle, or follow the example of colonial Rhode Island and break free of the cycle? That's what I'm talking about, when I say no country should be affiliated with a particular culture/religion/ethnicity/whatever.

There is a lot of exaggerations and strawmaning in it, so I can't see why it qualifies as a good post. It is easy to argue against something if you make a caricature of it. A good post require that you argue against your opponents actual positions.

Just to take an example the idea that there could be no non-ethnic states in a world where ethnic groups had a right to a state is quite foolish and obvious hyperbole. The idea is that all ethnic groups have a right to somewhere on earth (a state or autonomous area) where they are in control and constitute a majority, not the dissolution of non-ethnic countries or that everybody should live in the national homelands.

It also implies that there would be no room for minorities in states that constituted a national homeland, which is also very hyperbolic. A national homeland require a solid majority, not ethnic cleansing.

[Figueira]

But considering demographic changes that often occur, ethnic cleansing might sometimes be necessary to maintain that solid majority, which is why I find your views problematic.

[politicus]

But considering demographic changes that often occur, ethnic cleansing might sometimes be necessary to maintain that solid majority, which is why I find your views problematic.

It still constitutes a clear exaggeration. There are others, like the view of ethnic groups as something constantly floating and arbitrarily defined, whereas ethnic identities are generally quite stable over time once established - and it is logical that nation states and autonomy should only be given to established and well defined ethnicities.

There is no point in discussing the subject here, lets do that in thread later, but this post is clearly not gallery material with the amount of hyperbole and strawmaning in it. It is a decent first draft, but should have been revisited and rewritten after a self critical evaluation of the arguments presented to get to that level.

[Figueira]

But considering demographic changes that often occur, ethnic cleansing might sometimes be necessary to maintain that solid majority, which is why I find your views problematic.

It still constitutes a clear exaggeration. There are others, like the view of ethnic groups as something constantly floating and arbitrarily defined, whereas ethnic identities are generally quite stable over time once established - and it is logical that nation states and autonomy should only be given to established and well defined ethnicities.

There is no point in discussing the subject here, lets do that in thread later, but this post is clearly not gallery material with the amount of hyperbole and strawmaning in it. It is a decent first draft, but should have been revisited and rewritten after a self critical evaluation of the arguments presented to get to that level.

I still think it was a great deconstruction of your argument, although it makes sense that you wouldn't agree. But I agree that we should discuss it in the actual thread rather than here.

[politicus]

But considering demographic changes that often occur, ethnic cleansing might sometimes be necessary to maintain that solid majority, which is why I find your views problematic.

It still constitutes a clear exaggeration. There are others, like the view of ethnic groups as something constantly floating and arbitrarily defined, whereas ethnic identities are generally quite stable over time once established - and it is logical that nation states and autonomy should only be given to established and well defined ethnicities.

There is no point in discussing the subject here, lets do that in thread later, but this post is clearly not gallery material with the amount of hyperbole and strawmaning in it. It is a decent first draft, but should have been revisited and rewritten after a self critical evaluation of the arguments presented to get to that level.

I still think it was a great deconstruction of your argument, although it makes sense that you wouldn't agree. But I agree that we should discuss it in the actual thread rather than here.

Not sure you know what that word means.

It even misunderstands what is meant by a national homeland and equates it with a nation state, despite earlier mentioning of regional autonomy as an alternative solution, so even the definition of what he is trying to argue against is flawed.

Anyway, it is best only to put posts in the gallery where you disagree (wholly or partially) with the content, that way you can evaluate the skill used more objectively. If you agree with something you tend to view the arguments in too positive a light. We so-called "simple truths" mine is a testament to that.

[Figueira]

But considering demographic changes that often occur, ethnic cleansing might sometimes be necessary to maintain that solid majority, which is why I find your views problematic.

It still constitutes a clear exaggeration. There are others, like the view of ethnic groups as something constantly floating and arbitrarily defined, whereas ethnic identities are generally quite stable over time once established - and it is logical that nation states and autonomy should only be given to established and well defined ethnicities.

There is no point in discussing the subject here, lets do that in thread later, but this post is clearly not gallery material with the amount of hyperbole and strawmaning in it. It is a decent first draft, but should have been revisited and rewritten after a self critical evaluation of the arguments presented to get to that level.

I still think it was a great deconstruction of your argument, although it makes sense that you wouldn't agree. But I agree that we should discuss it in the actual thread rather than here.

Not sure you know what that word means.

It even misunderstands what is meant by a national homeland and equates it with a nation state, despite earlier mentioning of regional autonomy as an alternative solution, so even the definition of what he is trying to argue against is flawed.

Anyway, it is best only to put posts in the gallery where you disagree (wholly or partially) with the content, that way you can evaluate the skill used more objectively. If you agree with something you tend to view the arguments in too positive a light. We so-called "simple truths" mine is a testament to that.

I'd be happy to discuss the actual argument in the actual thread.

As for your last paragraph, I'll keep that in mind in the future. However, I still think it was a good post, and it's a bit too long to be considered a "one-liner."

[politicus]

Curious what French posters think about this long American Interest article on the Right's history.

It's not too bad a summary, but very simplistic in several ways.

First of all, it's very debatable to say that France is "culturally left-wing" (although I understand why it could seem so to an American public). Politically, the Republican and Radical left enjoyed dominance from 1876 to 1919, but it had stopped being "left-wing" by the first decade of the 20th Century already. Interwar political life saw radicalization on both sides, but no real prevailing side (even the famous "Popular Front" only lasted for a year and half). The 4th Republic saw wild swings in both directions and, as the article notes, the right governed undisturbed for 23 years at the beginning of the 5th Republic (which, by the way, has still not lasted as long as the 3rd one). Intellectually, it's more debatable - of course, like in other European countries, communism dominated academia in the postwar years - but not nearly as clear-cut as the article makes it out to be.

To me, the key characteristic of French politics since roughly the mid-1970s has been conservatism - in the literal sense of the world. Political discourse is very much oriented toward the past and the need to "preserve" things that made France great in the good old days. This, to me, is the reason was France was relatively hostile ground for neoliberalism: the left was able to frame the issue of the Welfare State as a heritage that needed to be preserved from the assault of the radical right. Chirac led a very right-wing (and openly inspired by the Thatcher example) government in 1986-1988. This allowed Mitterrand to present himself as a reasonable elder statesman promising not to upset the existing balance in either direction, allowing him to crush Chirac in the 1988 election. Jospin's 1997 victory wasn't so different, as it built a lot on protest against now-President Chirac's economic reforms. French people generally fear change and want things to stay as they were back when (they believe) everything was going well.

Still, eventually neoliberalism more or less got its way during the 2002-2012 era of right-wing dominance (especially Sarkozy's presidency). And Hollande, since 2012, is largely continuing the same supply-side and anti-welfare policies (while left-wingers enacting right-wing policies is nothing new in many countries, the French left had until now largely resisted 'third-wavization', so this is a significant change in course). This means that France's fear of change and urge to preserve is increasingly focusing on issues of immigration and globalization. Both the right and left played their part in heightening these issues, but the key turning point to me is Sarkozy's 2010 speech in Grenoble. After this point, he fully embraced the FN's rhetoric on immigration, Islam and crime, and his policies toward the end of his term already bordered on State xenophobia (for example, there was a ministerial decree directing businesses to hire French workers over foreigners with the same competences). Talking about the "White race" is only the logical conclusion of this drift, which is encouraged by the fact that the right and FN are united in opposition against Hollande. Honestly, I see little to no difference between them on immigration issues at this point (though there are still huge differences in European and economic policy).

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I gotta stop reading through old threads, but this deserves recognition as a classic post. This thread was so bad.

I just want it to pop soon. It'll really screw over lots of suburbanites when it does.

Dolt

If the housing market where to *collapse* (like it did over here in the early '90's) it isn't just suburbanites that get effected; the overwhelming majority of Americans live in households that own their own home. Every single one of those families gets hurt (often very badly) and it could well plunge the entire economy into a pretty bad recession. And if the U.S economy has a bad recession, the rest of the world has a worse one.
Besides do you know what sort of family gets hurt hardest by a housing market collapse? Without putting too fine a point on it, it isn't rich people.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

AL PREDICTED THE FINANCIAL CRISIS, IS HE THE VINCE CABLE OF ATLAS