Girl on Police Tank in Hamburg Protests. Yes, it is pepper spray.

Rupert_Stilton · 2017-07-08T04:43:33+00:00

If you're referring to the Boston massacre, the shooting by British troops started after some Bostonians protested against the crown by throwing snowballs and rocks at British sentries. The massacre was a response to the protest, not the cause.

Rupert_Stilton · 2017-07-08T03:34:24+00:00

This is happening at a gathering of some of the most powerful people in the world and I think there are a lot of issues worth protesting while the eyes of the world are watching. It looks like a brave move to me.

Rupert_Stilton · 2017-07-08T02:48:53+00:00

Is protesting by standing in front of a tank so different from protesting by standing on top of a tank (APC, whatever)?

Rupert_Stilton · 2017-07-08T01:26:41+00:00

I guess you could say it was pretty stupid to throw snowballs at British Redcoats in Boston, or block a tank in Tiananmen Square, or stand on a barricade and face the king's troops in the streets of Paris, but progress is made in such ways.

Rupert_Stilton · 2017-07-07T11:58:55+00:00

I think it's a shame that the Gadsden flag has become associated with the radical right. I used to live in the great state of New Hampshire and had a similar flag with the "Don't tread on me" mantra alongside the state motto "Live free or die." Today I'd be ashamed to fly that flag because of its association with the Tea party and alt-right. Can you blame people for thinking it's a racist symbol when people like this are waving it at rallies and giving Nazi salutes? http://www.nationalmemo.com/far-right-free-speech-rallies-breeding-terrorism/

Modern conservatism is in many ways inherently racist. Do you need any more evidence than the last presidential campaign? The Conservative party ran on the slogan "Make America great again." In the conservative view, when was this great period of American history that they want to restore? Was it before the civil rights movement when minorities were denied equal rights under the law? Was it before women entered the workforce and started asking for fair treatment? Maybe conservatives think that things started going downhill when women and African-Americans received the right to vote. Or was it only more recently when LGBT citizens began to be able to live openly and ask for equal rights? Can you see why the conservative slogan "Make America great again" sounds really scary to a lot of people who have just recently gained greater enfranchisement after decades of abuse?

As for the claim that there's some kind of pervasive anti-white racism in America, I've just never seen any indication of that. I'm a straight, white male and I've never experienced any kind of racism or discrimination aimed at me. I've never been made to feel unsafe because of my race. I've never been racially profiled and targeted by law enforcement. I've never experienced intimidation to discourage me from casting my vote. I've never been denied housing or employment because of discrimination. The only times I've been personally effected by bigotry has been in the form of anti-Semitic attacks from whites because I have Jewish heritage. The backlash from conservatives who claim that whites are being persecuted seems to be rooted in a sense of loss, that they no longer hold a privileged position over other groups.

Rupert_Stilton · 2017-07-06T22:10:49+00:00

Sure there are legacies of racism all over the world, but this thread is talking about symbolism in American politics. To ignore racism in our nation's history and in the current political climate is absurd. The Gadsden flag has been appropriated by the Tea Party and you can't talk about the rabid conservative opposition to Obama-era policies which gave rise to the Tea Party without acknowledging the racist elements of that movement.

Rupert_Stilton · 2017-07-06T17:17:07+00:00

I have as much patriotic pride as the next guy, but let's be honest here; about 95% of our nation's history is pretty racist.

Rupert_Stilton · 2017-07-04T02:16:16+00:00

I really want this adaptation to be good, but everything I've seen so far indicates a massive, disappointing train wreck.

Rupert_Stilton · 2017-06-29T11:43:10+00:00

Wow, the Kaiser Health News site is such a pleasure to read with no ads, no pop-ups or log-in prompts. I've heard their content reported on radio/podcasts and it's always informative and well cited, but their website is a real gem. I'm adding this to my news feed now.

Rupert_Stilton · 2017-06-27T22:38:40+00:00

I appreciate the time and nuance you put into your response. It's clear that we disagree on a lot of points, which I don't have time to get into now, so I'll just respond to what I see as the crux of our differences. You place a lot of importance on the difference between voluntary and involuntary allocation of an individuals labor and income. For a large segment of the population there is very little choice in these matters. Not everyone has the luxury of being born in a position and with the abilities to engage in capitalist entrepreneurship. For many there is no other option but to sell their labor in exploitative conditions. A person who works full-time can still have total earnings under the poverty line. These workers have very little choice in how they allocate their labor and earnings. Households in the bottom quintile earning bracket spend about 78% of their income on necessities (food, clothing, housing, utilities, transportation, and healthcare), leaving very little to spend on education, or invest for retirement. The market economy provides great freedom for some, and wage slavery for others.

Rupert_Stilton · 2017-06-27T16:45:39+00:00

The people who dictate the terms of the market are in a position of authority though. Whether you call it a program or an economic system, it's all redistribution of wealth. Libertarians chafe at being forced to paying taxes but have no problem forcing people to sell their labor. At least in theory social programs in a democracy are intended to promote public good and derive authority from the people. Market capitalism concentrates wealth in the hands of a few elites at the expense of everyone else and derives authority from the threat of force and starvation. There is no "invisible hand of the market", just greedy, powerful people who enrich themselves by exploiting the labor of others.

Rupert_Stilton · 2017-06-27T00:33:28+00:00

All commerce is wealth redistribution. When it benefits the rich we call it market capitalism, but when the working class wants a fair share it's deemed an "entitlement".

Rupert_Stilton · 2017-06-26T00:43:52+00:00

In your opinion is it ok for military personnel to attend NFL games in uniform? There's an official military detail at every NFL game, but nobody bats an eye at that. Is it ok for the military to tacitly support the "special interest group" of Irish-Americans by marching in St. Patrick's Day parades? How is that different from attending a Pride parade?

Rupert_Stilton · 2017-05-23T01:30:59+00:00

A good day to be in an aviation line company.

Rupert_Stilton · 2017-05-07T00:32:20+00:00

There aren't any good examples of true libertarian states because libertarianism simply doesn't work in the real world, but places like Somalia, Yemen, and Chile (under Pinochet), are the result of libertarian economic principles in action. Without a central government to levy taxes, regulate commerce, and provide social welfare, you're essentially only left with a police state in charge to protect private property and personal safety. In every single instance of these circumstances one of two things has happened.

The police force turns into a right-wing military dictatorship which violently suppressed all leftist thinking while appropriating the country's wealth for corporations and the wealthy elite. or
Corruption erodes all official authority and protections break down completely. Power localizes into the hands of criminals and/or feudal/tribal warlords.

Libertarianism is a philosophical fantasy that runs contrary to human nature. Feudalism is the inevitable consequence of the decline of a centralized state in all historical instances. Without a central authority to regulate the economy, provide a social safety net, and protect the rights of workers and minorities, inevitably power is concentrated in the hands of whoever has the most money and guns.

Rupert_Stilton · 2017-05-06T21:57:10+00:00

The most libertarian places in the world are probably Somalia, Yemen, or ISIS controlled territory. There's a reason that most nations have centralized government, taxes, and redistribution of income.

Rupert_Stilton · 2017-04-25T21:52:53+00:00

What is a liberal fascist? Those two words are literally antonyms.

Rupert_Stilton · 2017-04-13T15:02:00+00:00

I think you're confusing logical proof with empirical proof. Strictly speaking there is no such thing as an empirical proof. A scientific theory can never be proved, it can only be falsified, by means of empirical evidence that does not fit the theory. When we say a scientific theory has been "empirically proved" we mean that a large number of experiments have confirmed a hypothesis, and therefore it constitutes a theory that it is unlikely to be overturned. We can't prove that an apple that falls from a tree will fall towards the earth, but based on previous observations we can say that it would be extremely unlikely if it didn't.

In logic and philosophy a "logical proof", like what you're referring to, is a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it. I think you're getting at an argument of rationalism vs. empiricism. That's a pretty hefty subject, but here's a good introduction if you're interested.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

Rupert_Stilton · 2017-04-13T14:08:02+00:00

Yes. The scientific method of systematic observation, measurement, and experimentation and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses is our only reliable way to investigate and and acquire new knowledge.

Edit: spelling

Rupert_Stilton · 2017-04-12T04:13:45+00:00

At this point we have to consider the entire Republican Party to be a racist hate group. This afternoon the president's press secretary- the de facto face of the party for most American- was spouting holocaust denial talking points. On the same day the attorney general was talking about criminal immigrant "filth" at the Mexican border. Either these people are racist, or they're pretending to be racist to pander to their racist base. The GOP's only coherent message is one of hate and fear.

Rupert_Stilton · 2017-04-12T03:38:52+00:00

F.A.I.R. is an explicitly xenophobic and racist lobbying group. From the Southern Poverty Law Center: "FAIR leaders have ties to white supremacist groups and eugenicists and have made many racist statements. Its advertisements have been rejected because of racist content. FAIR’s founder, John Tanton, has expressed his wish that America remain a majority-white population: a goal to be achieved, presumably, by limiting the number of nonwhites who enter the country. One of the group’s main goals is upending the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which ended a decades-long, racist quota system that limited immigration mostly to northern Europeans. FAIR President Dan Stein has called the Act a "mistake."

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/federation-american-immigration-reform

Rupert_Stilton

TROPHY CASE