TheTexan
Member

Hmmmm….

Another way to think about it, is that the word "Cow" is pretty well defined. To the extent that it isn't, we have a species/subspecies classification system to remove the ambiguity of which "Bos taurus" you might be referring to. There is no reason that "murder" couldn't be classified in a sufficient manner accordingly to remove ambiguity. The existing classifications are clearly lacking. But if the same level of scientific robustness was applied to classifying murders as we do classifying species, I am sure we could come up with a system that defines "murder" in such a way that it is scientifically rigorous to the same level of species classification. The reason people disagree about what a "murderer" is, is less about the definition, and more about the consequences, and the morality. The morality of the many different types of murder and its associated consequences is something we will be absolutely never all agree on. But there is no physical limitation in the world that is preventing us from having a shared understanding of the meaning of the words that we use. Ambiguity in the word "murder" is a deficiency in our language, but similar to species classification, it is not something that can't physically be overcome.

Everything was philosophy before it was science. Science became science because we came to a shared understanding and developed a shared framework. It is entirely possible - though extraordinarily (cannot be emphasized enough) unlikely - that in the future, we will have a shared framework that "is agreed upon by all reasonable people" that defines the words "crime" and "law" in a manner that is objectively testable within that framework. One could certainly argue that we shouldn't. And that would be a strong argument to make. To say that we can't, is technically not true. To say that we won't, is a very strong bet. One of the reasons people might reasonably reject that, is because there is no shared common definition. If there was a clear definition, built with terms that were also clearly defined, it would be more reasonable for people to agree. To the extent that there is any ambiguity in terms across different social groups (e.g., "state", or "anarchism") simply provide different words and definitions for every meaning, or simply avoid using existing words that have any ambiguity at all. Eventually every known meaning of every word would be defined and ambiguity would be near non existent (to the point of "science"). It would be a difficult language to learn certainly, and not very practical, but it's not theoretically impossible.

My thoughts exactly

Why would a Pro-Ukrainian message get a community note? At least back when I was following this (pre-Musk-takeover), it was only pro-Russian messages that got censored (post would be removed and author usually banned, certainly not a "community note")

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how he's channeling Ron Paul. Is there a clip with additional context that I'm missing? My understanding is that when Trump says that "it wouldnt have happened" under his Presidency, its because Trump believes he is intimidating and other countries are scared to cross him. And that may or may not be true, but what is true, is that the 2nd Minsk agreement was broken during his Presidency, which is what directly led to the war in Ukraine. He certainly didn't seem to care about any of this back then. Either way, I'm totally missing the Ron Paul vibe on this one.

Sure, it's clear now that you've explained it. I hope it's also clear that whatever deflections AF may or may not be guilty of, does not really have much relevance to my posts? The point still stands that when white people shoot up schools, they are universally demonized (universal minus AF who apparently deflects on the issue).

Ah, the Jews. Something we can agree on :cool:

Apparently. But in my defense, your point made very little sense - and still doesn't, and requires clarification. I'm not gonna try to decode whatever hidden meaning you were trying to imply. Just say what you meant to say.

Well I certainly agree with their first, and presumably most important point, that people should be allowed to unify based on self determination. (At the time, such unification was prohibited by Treaty of Versailles and some other treaty(s))

Ok so "white people" basically. That's not a very specific club. But I guess at the end of the day, white people as a group are ultimately responsible for everything in the world (not even being sarcastic) based on the group's wealth and influence. If you really want to get specific about wealth and influence, we could start talking about "the Jews" but I'm sure we can leave that tangent for another thread.

What deflection are you referring to, besides perhaps your own? Where have I deflected? I made a point about the black culture of violence, you deflected and tried to make it about white people, I addressed your points, and then again you deflected and tried to make it about white people again. Who's funding it? White people. Who's doing it? Black people. Who is more responsible for it? I don't give a shit but the culture of violence needs to stop and both parties need to be called out on it.

If the Jews were anything then like they are now, perhaps they were right to place at least some blame on that particular ethnicity.

Two separate foundations, as far as I can tell.

The difference is, no one is making excuses for the white kids who shoot up schools. They are universally demonized. If people universally demonized black communities culture of violence, perhaps there wouldn't be so many black thugs killing each other in the hood.

Which people is that?

Sure, music is one part of the ecosystem of violence, I guess you could call it. Rap music, prison culture, gang culture, thug culture, it's all intertwined for sure and I'm not educated enough in the history of the origins of it to say what came first but certainly all of these elements of culture serve to basically reinforce each other and maintain the overall culture of violence I was referring to. To the extent that white people have financial interests in these things, it's still not an excuse for thug violent behavior. Yes, white people condone this culture/behavior. Yes, white people profit off this culture/behavior. None of these things are valid excuses for committing violence. With that said, I absolutely agree that white people should be called out for this shit. We condone it, we coddle it, and as you have pointed out, we profit from it, and all of that absolutely should be called out. Some people have, and continue to call that out. Not enough people do, and not often enough. Regardless of the role that white people play in the black's culture of violence, it is ultimately the black's culture of violence. It is their culture, their communities, their people doing it. This blame cannot be shifted away. So yes, white people should be called out for enabling this shit. But it is black people doing it. The culture of violence needs to be called out from every angle. As you've demonstrated, people are not afraid to blame white people for it. But people should not be afraid to blame black people for it either. Both parties need to be called out for their role in promoting it. Right now only one party (white people) is being actively called out - and not called out enough.

Touche!

Appreciate the effort but I already read the whole thing on twitter/x. A lovely piece of free verse. So inspiring. NOT.

LOL. Did not see that I wonder if anyone wrote a poem about "there is no good black people" if they'd get a $800,000 McArthur Fellowship

That WAS moving, wasn’t it?

I was personally moved by this young man's words of genius. I really related to the part where anyone can turn on a TV and see several kinds of bird

I can’t tell you how truly moved I was by this young man’s “poetry.” Or, to put it another way, why the fuck is that barely literate drivel being honored as “art”? SMGDH

Black people aren't the enemy but the culture of violence that they live in and promote absolutely is. Blacks are the only subculture in America where a person can earn positive social credit by committing random acts of violence. Even the most vile, despicable white subcultures in America will look down on random acts of violence, e.g. sucker punching a grandma in the back of the head. Similar to drug addiction problems in communities (white and black), black communities have a violence problem. As a country, we ignore it and enable this behavior, when it's clearly not something that should be tolerated. People even refuse to even look at the issue because they don't want to be called out as racist, but yes - this issue is very specific to a specific race: blacks.

When all else fails, resort to an appeal to authority. Seems to me I’ve seen you yourself denounce that quite a few times. Curious.

Quite right. What's interesting about it, is that it seems to me pretty self evident that free trade creates these dependencies (or "interests"). A dependency, by definition, has risks associated with it. Which should be pretty obvious and yet some here seem extremely resistant to even acknowledging it. It's one thing to acknowledge it and say there are reasonable counter-arguments (for which there are), but its yet another thing entirely to go along pretending like these dependencies and risks don't even exist, which is what most of the free-traders here seem to do. Same thing about the direction we're headed towards a one world government. I believe it was Collins who called it a "myth". Full global economic integration is so obviously a huge step closer to global political unification, that the denial of how it brings us closer to globalism would be laughable if not so sad. I know the people on this board are capable of critical thinking, or they wouldn't be here, but it's just shocking to me how little of their critical thinking applies to the subject of free trade - and more broadly, the retention of culture and identity in general.

Hold on… Waiyt a second here. Let me re-read what I wrote… Mmmhmmm, yes, I see. After carefully re-reading my comments above, and applying just a rudimentary understanding if the English language, it’s obvious by the syntax and context that my words were directed, not at you personally, but at you own comments. So, whatever else they may or may not be, my words certainly ARE NOT ad hominem.

The above instant knee-jerk reaction is the kind of emotional response that I am referring to in post #42. It is a triggered, emotional, and predictable response that was manufactured by the globalists to demonize isolationism, sovereignty, and secession. There is absolutely nothing wrong about a society, or an individual, wanting to be left alone.

Basically what he's saying above is that people consider countries that just want to be left alone, a dangerous threat, for the sake of wanting to be left alone. I tend to agree that is how the world thinks, but it's not an opinion that someone should be proud of sharing. There is nothing wrong, or aggressive, about just wanting to be left alone, whether you are a nation, or an individual. Isolation is not a bad thing, or a good thing, by itself. It is a country's choice and it should be respected, and not feared or mistrusted. The above author's symptom is indicative of a much greater global pressure to integrate, and that is most certainly a bad thing. This global pressure is always headed one way and its towards a globalist one world government.

“I know you are but what am I?” That’s the best you got? ROTFLMFAO!!!!11