Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Paris :(Follow

#152 Dec 17 2015 at 8:41 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
The reality is that, while there was still a ton of work to do, our actions in the ME were bringing about the kinds of changes which might some day result in a more peaceful region without such hatred that the rest of the world has to suffer through its primary export, terrorism.
As long as you don't question that "might"'s percentage was about the same as "people evolved from lobster ticks," sure. It might have happened. Infinite monkeys and infinite typewriters and such.

Though it does say a lot that your reality is a hypothetical.

Edited, Dec 17th 2015 10:44am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#153 Dec 17 2015 at 9:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I like that Gbaji dusted off the same "We're the only ones who REALLY care about brown people" schtick he tried using when talking about immigration.

Foreign invasions and electric walls -- Compassionate Conservatism, folks! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#154 Dec 17 2015 at 10:04 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The reality is that, while there was still a ton of work to do, our actions in the ME were bringing about the kinds of changes which might some day result in a more peaceful region without such hatred that the rest of the world has to suffer through its primary export, terrorism.
As long as you don't question that "might"'s percentage was about the same as "people evolved from lobster ticks," sure. It might have happened. Infinite monkeys and infinite typewriters and such.

Though it does say a lot that your reality is a hypothetical.

Edited, Dec 17th 2015 10:44am by lolgaxe





____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#155 Dec 18 2015 at 8:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
If by bashing holes in it you mean not unquestioningly supporting foreign wars, well, I guess you should stop complaining about healthcare reform, too, right?


No. I mean voting for the wars, publicly declaring your support for "the troops", but then doing everything you can to sabotage the war effort itself. Oh wait? You mean when you said we needed to topple this regime that you meant we'd actually have to send troops in to do this? And they'd have to stay there and help rebuild things? And the timeline for leaving should be dependent on success and not some arbitrary date? No. You once gave a speech in front of a banner that said "Mission Accomplished" so that means we're done and should remove all of our people from the region right now!

Seriously? You honestly don't see how the Left did every single thing they could to try to make Iraq fail? Remember all the demands that we pull out of Iraq "now!" back in 2005, complete with Democrats lining up to declare that the war was lost and there was no hope, so no sense remaining, but the GOP managed to weather that silliness, pushed for a surge instead, and then by mid 2006, things turned around. You don't remember that? It took Obama getting elected and basically ignoring the country until things fell apart for it to fail. And it's still more of a success than it was back in 2005 when the Dems were demanding that we flee like scared little children.

That's what I mean by "poking holes in the canoe". People aren't dying in the ME because the US is too active there, but because we are not active enough. Obama has allowed a region that was headed in the right direction to spin out of control. I'd like to think it's just because he's incompetent (and I'm sure that's at least some of it), but a good part of this is that if things don't fall apart, then it'll look like Bush was right all along. And proving the GOP wrong is more important to the political Left than all the lives that are being lost as a result. That's the sad fact.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#156 Dec 18 2015 at 8:57 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I like that Gbaji dusted off the same "We're the only ones who REALLY care about brown people" schtick he tried using when talking about immigration.


No. I'm saying that the Left only cares about brown skinned people when they are victims of something. Which, sadly, means you have to make them victims so you can feel bad for them. This perfectly explains liberal policy across the board.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#157 Dec 18 2015 at 9:59 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I like that Gbaji dusted off the same "We're the only ones who REALLY care about brown people" schtick he tried using when talking about immigration.


No. I'm saying that the Left only cares about brown skinned people when they are victims of something.
Racist, white and privileged somethings.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#158 Dec 18 2015 at 10:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's true. I pick on Flea so I can love Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#159 Dec 19 2015 at 9:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Ohhhh, I think she pre-qualified for life at just about vow time. Smiley: tongue
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#160 Dec 19 2015 at 12:44 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I like that Gbaji dusted off the same "We're the only ones who REALLY care about brown people" schtick he tried using when talking about immigration.


No. I'm saying that the Left only cares about brown skinned people when they are victims of something. Which, sadly, means you have to make them victims so you can feel bad for them. This perfectly explains liberal policy across the board.

Bringing attention to a problem does not mean you caused the problem.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#161 Dec 19 2015 at 1:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji's way of helping people is to not give a shit about them. "Now you're not a victim! Problem solved!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#162 Dec 19 2015 at 9:56 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Jophiel wrote:
It's true. I pick on Flea so I can love Smiley: frown


Hold on a second there. Flea is black? That changes everything.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#163 Dec 20 2015 at 12:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
brown people
brown skinned people
angrymnk wrote:
Hold on a second there. Flea is black? That changes everything.

Smiley: facepalm
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#164 Dec 22 2015 at 5:07 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No. I'm saying that the Left only cares about brown skinned people when they are victims of something.
Racist, white and privileged somethings.


When your only tool is "paint people as victims based on their identity group", then it's amazing how every problem looks like racist white privilege. Police violence? Must be racist white cops causing it. Unemployment too high? Racist white business owners. Bad public schools? Racist white people are somehow behind that too. Basically, for most liberals, all unequal outcomes can be assumed to be caused by some form of white racism. And while this is just annoyingly stupid when applied to domestic issues, it's patently ridiculous when applied to something like international terrorism.

And yet, here we are having that same identity based narrative driving liberal position with regards to how to deal with people in other nations, and other societies, where there isn't a white majority in power. Yet, the square peg of brown skinned victimhood must somehow be fit into the round hole of reality. Somehow... Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#165 Dec 22 2015 at 5:22 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No. I'm saying that the Left only cares about brown skinned people when they are victims of something. Which, sadly, means you have to make them victims so you can feel bad for them. This perfectly explains liberal policy across the board.

Bringing attention to a problem does not mean you caused the problem.


But by defining that problem in the context of race, regardless of how tenuous that correlation is, and then using that definition as evidence of a "problem" having to do with race rather that the actual original problem, you are actually creating that second problem. It's how we get absurd results like people focusing on how to train cops to be more racially tolerant when the real problem is crime driven by poverty. No one's looking at the real problem, because they redefined it on the context of race. It's how we get a spokesperson for the State Department blaming an attack on our embassy buildings on a hateful video rather than looking at the actual causes of the attack.

You can't solve the actual problems if you keep redefining them as something else and then spending all your effort fighting that false "problem". Terrorist attacks are not the result of racism. They aren't attacking us because our evil white majority is oppressing them because of their brown skin or lack of Christianity or something. The idea that we should hold back on responding to terrorist attacks because those perpetrating them happen to be of brown skin, and follow a religion that is a minority religion here in the US, and thus we've been trained to see them as victims that we should be helping instead of fighting is just plain ridiculous. Yet that's what seems to be driving liberal thought on this issue. Obama is afraid to take any direct action in the ME for this precise reason. Muslim Arabs/Persians/Africans fit into a domestic minority group here in the US, and thus for liberals, to take action against them would be like attacking their identity. The very fact that Bush launching attacks into the ME gets defined in the context of racism by many liberals is what has hobbled Obama. He doesn't want to be defined that way, so he can't take the necessary action.

Which is ridiculous. But that's what liberal social ideology is: Ridiculous.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#166 Dec 23 2015 at 8:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
When your only tool is "paint people as victims based on their identity group", then it's amazing how every problem looks like racist white privilege. Police violence? Must be racist white cops causing it. Unemployment too high? Racist white business owners. Bad public schools? Racist white people are somehow behind that too. Basically, for most liberals, all unequal outcomes can be assumed to be caused by some form of white racism.

This is a fascinating illustration of Haidt's pillars of thought and how concepts like fairness and concern for harm can come into conflict with people who primarily value tribalism and tradition.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#167 Dec 23 2015 at 9:16 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
You can't solve the actual problems if you keep redefining them as something else and then spending all your effort fighting that false "problem".
Sure does deflect people from thinking for themselves, doesn't it?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#168 Dec 23 2015 at 9:18 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Reading Gbaji's replies is a bit like reading that Reddit Asks Rapists thread.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#169 Jan 04 2016 at 5:47 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When your only tool is "paint people as victims based on their identity group", then it's amazing how every problem looks like racist white privilege. Police violence? Must be racist white cops causing it. Unemployment too high? Racist white business owners. Bad public schools? Racist white people are somehow behind that too. Basically, for most liberals, all unequal outcomes can be assumed to be caused by some form of white racism.

This is a fascinating illustration of Haidt's pillars of thought and how concepts like fairness and concern for harm can come into conflict with people who primarily value tribalism and tradition.


Said statement is *also* a fascinating illustration of the pillars with regard to the difference between those who hold to all pillars somewhat equally (and thus they are in conflict/balance), versus those who place abnormal weight on just 2 or 3 of them, and largely ignore the others. For a conservative, having the pillar of care/harm in "conflict" with other pillars (like loyalty/betrayal, or authority/subversion) is not a problem at all, but is viewed as the best way to make good sound social decisions.

Which is what allows us to more easily look at an issue like Ferguson, look past the appeals to emotion based on care/harm, and see that the real problem is economic in nature. Liberals have a hard time seeing past the surface layer of "This group is being harmed, so let's attack/punish/whatever the people doing the harm to them". You see a disproportionate rate of blacks being involved in harmful encounters with police and blame this on the police. The liberal thought process stops there. Which is a problem in and of itself.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#170 Jan 04 2016 at 6:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Said statement is *also* a fascinating illustration of the pillars...

I know you're butthurt, but you should leave the analysis for someone who has read the material.

Edited, Jan 4th 2016 6:01pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#171 Jan 04 2016 at 7:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Said statement is *also* a fascinating illustration of the pillars...

I know you're butthurt, but you should leave the analysis for someone who has read the material.


And by "butthurt" you mean "capable of grasping a pretty basic sociological concept without having to have my hand held through the process", right? I love how you keep going back to the fallacious "you're wrong because you didn't read the book", while failing to do something like "you're wrong because <insert explanation of topic showing you actually understood it here>". It must burn you up to realize that someone else is able to merely read a synopsis of a work and not only understand it completely, but apply it to real world situations, while you still struggle to understand more than the surface language used and fail utterly at application in any form. Not only do you fail to apply it, but repeatedly display symptoms of the very blindness that Haidt was trying to get liberals to see in themselves.


You do understand that his objective was to try to get liberals to understand conservatives, right? We conservatives already understand Haidt's ideas, because we see it in action every day. We already know that liberals overly focus on just a few aspects of social issues and seem unable to grasp that they need to be balanced with others. We already know that our definition of liberty is different than that of liberals (I've engaged in numerous discussions about this very thing on this forum). We don't actually need someone like Haidt to come along and explain this to us. I mean, it's nice that he's gone to the trouble of applying labels to things, but we already "get" the underlying concept he's writing about. The fact that you actually read his book and still fail to get what it was about is an amazingly amusing example of the very thing he was writing about: That liberals have a mental blindspot when it comes to understanding these other pillars and why conservatives place value on them (much less place any value on them themselves).


But hey. Way to continue to prove the point.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#172 Jan 04 2016 at 10:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I know you're butthurt, but you should leave the analysis for someone who has read the material.

And by "butthurt" you mean...
...butthurt. Right. For instance, the kind that makes one spend a couple paragraphs in pouty (and erroneous) defense of material he never read but figures he can stomp his foot and insist he's right because once his second grade teacher gave him a gold star for being so smart.


Edited, Jan 4th 2016 10:06pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#173 Jan 04 2016 at 11:04 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
I wish I could discern the contents on an entire book by reading a brief synopsis like gabji does.

That's, like, a superpower, right?





<gbaji reads Bible>
Don't eat shrimp and you'll go to heaven!!!!!!
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#174 Jan 05 2016 at 8:23 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
It must burn you up to realize that someone else is able to merely read a synopsis of a work and not only understand it completely, but apply it to real world situations,
The guy who took hours of explanations to figure out how a pay chart works can somehow understand the deeper meanings of the universe by merely glancing at a paragraph written by a third party.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#175 Jan 05 2016 at 9:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Cocktail waitresses make more than fleet admirals!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#176 Jan 05 2016 at 4:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I know you're butthurt, but you should leave the analysis for someone who has read the material.

And by "butthurt" you mean...
...butthurt. Right. For instance, the kind that makes one spend a couple paragraphs in pouty (and erroneous) defense of material he never read...


Um... You're the one who keeps insisting that the only valid source of information about Haidt's pillars theory is the book he wrote based on it, and using it like some kind of sledge hammer here. I have read his own writings on his website talking about it and answering questions about it. I have read several articles written about it. I've read several papers by others in the field discussing it. The book covers a lot more ground than just the theory. I'm reasonably certain one does not have to actually read the book to understand said theory.

I'm kinda baffled you keep tossing this out there. If you think I'm misunderstanding his work, then by all means explain to the audience what I got wrong, why it's wrong, and what the correct understanding is. But you can't seem to actually do this, and instead just dismiss what I'm saying because "OMG! You haven't read the book!!!". Um... Who cares? Am I wrong? No. That's all that matters.

It's like you think that no one can have an opinion on safety and sanitation in meat packing plants unless they've read The Jungle. That's just... strange.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 339 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (339)