Christianity

[Gary Childress]

If "might" is the strategy of "the extreme right wing," then how come the only people shooting and stabbing people, and the only ones burning down neighbourhoods and sacking shops, and the ones attacking the police stations and spewing the rhetoric of assassination, or barging into the schools and murdering children...are Lefties?

The people burning things down and causing trouble are often the ones who are being shit on in society.[/quopte]
Correct. But they're all Lefties, and rabid ones, too.

Look at the January 6 event at the Capitol.

Really? The undestructive wandering of a few loonies through the Capitol, with the permission of the security (who actually opened doors for them) and no injuries, at the invitation of the Dems (who deliberately refused to approve securing of the building) is to be compared with the Dem-approved riots in Detroit, Portland, Atlanta and various other cities? Or it's to offset the shooting of public officials and school children?

The old "well, the other side is bad too" only works when the frequency, seriousness and level is remotely comparable, and clearly, in this case, it isn't. It's the Left that's driving all the destruction and violence.

Is telling minorities that their college degrees are only there because of DEI programs but they're actually stupid, "violence"? Also, Trump has been pretty complacent in letting Israel do whatever it wants to Palestinians. Does that count as violence from the "right" (albeit in another country's "right").

[Alexis Jacobi]

Does not everyone "take the moral high ground".

All political stances are characterised and defined by taking of the moral high ground.

"You distort everything you are examining. " is ad hominem generalisation.

As Seeds' ideological opponent your proper function is to rebut Seeds' arguments.

(You have gone all show -offy again. Semilla indeed! )

Sr Semilla’s post is an emoted garble. I have asked him to pare down to one topic or issue and if he does so I will make an effort to respond. “You people” set up conversational situations where two camps go at each other and where the outcome is preordained. “You” have fixed views and your purpose is not to be moved. You must see this.

I examine events and conflicts from a position of greater distance. I am not necessarily on one side or the other. Sr Semillas is entirely involved with his long-established preaching and his Vision of how things should be. Every post is the same: extremely long, brow-beating, intensely moralizing.

I suggest examining this self-assumed attitude which largely infects the Left Progressive faction.

What I have said recently is that, in England, a social current is developing that takes a stand against postwar projects of multiculturalism. There is a general turn against hyper-liberal trends. As Steve Bannon says “The people have had a bellyful”. This movement is pan-European and, I point out, those who explain its roots and reasons can be accessed. I.e. you can find and read their writings yourself. Better to do this than to access digested versions (like on Wiki) or rely on secondhand versions, usually highly prejudiced.

The trend of resistance and opposition to those cultural and social projects I describe as hyper-liberal was not begun by me. I am not their spokesman. I am not their defender. My suggestion is that you sheltered, ultra-righteous assholes do better research and try to understand why this resistance is occurring.

My impression is that “you” rely largely on a predetermined vision of what is right and wrong. This vision/version is presented everywhere, and the opposing visions and versions are repressed, vilified, and presented negatively.

I did say: “You distort everything you are examining” but it is not ad hominem generalization. It is a generalization however.

The entire post in question drips with self-righteous, high-handed moralization and is slathered in emoted ideas. Such a way of seeing and presenting views and values is distorting by definition. And to point it out is not ad hominem.

And anyway I have made it very clear that we have to examine things from both sides: pure ideas but also ideas that reside in men. What is “hominem” can never be subtracted from the equation. But everything depends on how it is conducted.

I just happen to be a Master at balance and ideological equilibrium. I reward myself constantly for my excellence. (I am considering the acquisition of a Lamborghini and that is just for my work this month).

As Seeds' ideological opponent your proper function is to rebut Seeds' arguments.

Horseshit. Seeds is setting himself up as a Grand Ideological Opponent all on his own. And he wants me to play along with the game as he establishes it. I find it not only boring and predictable but I know too it will get no one anywhere.

[Immanuel Can]

The people burning things down and causing trouble are often the ones who are being shit on in society.[/quopte]
Correct. But they're all Lefties, and rabid ones, too.

Really? The undestructive wandering of a few loonies through the Capitol, with the permission of the security (who actually opened doors for them) and no injuries, at the invitation of the Dems (who deliberately refused to approve securing of the building) is to be compared with the Dem-approved riots in Detroit, Portland, Atlanta and various other cities? Or it's to offset the shooting of public officials and school children?

The old "well, the other side is bad too" only works when the frequency, seriousness and level is remotely comparable, and clearly, in this case, it isn't. It's the Left that's driving all the destruction and violence.

Is telling minorities that their college degrees are only there because of DEI programs

Wait: think about what you're saying.

What is a DEI program designed to do? Do we need them, or not?

If they aren't designed to do anything, we don't need them, of course. But if they are designed to do something, what is it that they are supposed to do?

If DEI is a good thing, it must be succeeding in bringing in people who didn't get college degrees before, right? If it's not doing that, we can cancel them all; so somebody must think it increases the chances of graduation. But how does DEI do that? Does it make people smarter? Does it enable them to pass the same tests? Or does it merely lower the standards and introduce quotas for some people, in order to create what DEI folks call "equity"?

You know the answer. The whole purpose of DEI is to make people who (for any reason you like to cite) cannot meet the normal standards meet lower standards for the same thing. And it's done on the basis of racism, of course -- those who are from certain visible minorities get the benefit of DEI; those who are not are not given it -- not because there aren't any that need it, but because of nothing more than the same racist belief you claim here is wrong.

So you see, it's the DEI people who believe the minorities are stupider, and this is their rationale for arguing that these minorities need special advantages in order to succeed. It's not "the Right." The Right thinks everybody should rise on their own merit. The Left insists they cannot.

[Gary Childress]

Really? The undestructive wandering of a few loonies through the Capitol, with the permission of the security (who actually opened doors for them) and no injuries, at the invitation of the Dems (who deliberately refused to approve securing of the building) is to be compared with the Dem-approved riots in Detroit, Portland, Atlanta and various other cities? Or it's to offset the shooting of public officials and school children?

The old "well, the other side is bad too" only works when the frequency, seriousness and level is remotely comparable, and clearly, in this case, it isn't. It's the Left that's driving all the destruction and violence.

Is telling minorities that their college degrees are only there because of DEI programs

Wait: think about what you're saying.

What is a DEI program designed to do? Do we need them, or not?

If they aren't designed to do anything, we don't need them, of course. But if they are designed to do something, what is it that they are supposed to do?

If DEI is a good thing, it must be succeeding in bringing in people who didn't get college degrees before, right? If it's not doing that, we can cancel them all; so somebody must think it increases the chances of graduation. But how does DEI do that? Does it make people smarter? Does it enable them to pass the same tests? Or does it merely lower the standards and introduce quotas for some people, in order to create what DEI folks call "equity"?

You know the answer. The whole purpose of DEI is to make people who (for any reason you like to cite) cannot meet the normal standards meet lower standards for the same thing. And it's done on the basis of racism, of course -- those who are from certain visible minorities get the benefit of DEI; those who are not are not given it -- not because there aren't any that need it, but because of nothing more than the same racist belief you claim here is wrong.

So you see, it's the DEI people who believe the minorities are stupider, and this is their rationale for arguing that these minorities need special advantages in order to succeed. It's not "the Right." The Right thinks everybody should rise on their own merit. The Left insists they cannot.

I think many blacks are right to laugh at Charlie Kirk's criticism of Michelle Obama. He said her degree was worthless, that coming from a college dropout. He didn't even try.

[Immanuel Can]

Is telling minorities that their college degrees are only there because of DEI programs

Wait: think about what you're saying.

What is a DEI program designed to do? Do we need them, or not?

If they aren't designed to do anything, we don't need them, of course. But if they are designed to do something, what is it that they are supposed to do?

If DEI is a good thing, it must be succeeding in bringing in people who didn't get college degrees before, right? If it's not doing that, we can cancel them all; so somebody must think it increases the chances of graduation. But how does DEI do that? Does it make people smarter? Does it enable them to pass the same tests? Or does it merely lower the standards and introduce quotas for some people, in order to create what DEI folks call "equity"?

You know the answer. The whole purpose of DEI is to make people who (for any reason you like to cite) cannot meet the normal standards meet lower standards for the same thing. And it's done on the basis of racism, of course -- those who are from certain visible minorities get the benefit of DEI; those who are not are not given it -- not because there aren't any that need it, but because of nothing more than the same racist belief you claim here is wrong.

So you see, it's the DEI people who believe the minorities are stupider, and this is their rationale for arguing that these minorities need special advantages in order to succeed. It's not "the Right." The Right thinks everybody should rise on their own merit. The Left insists they cannot.

I think many blacks are right to laugh at Charlie Kirk's criticism of Michelle Obama. He said her degree was worthless, that coming from a college dropout. He didn't even try.

You really should think about the question: what is DEI designed to do? See if you can answer it.

[Gary Childress]

Wait: think about what you're saying.

What is a DEI program designed to do? Do we need them, or not?

If they aren't designed to do anything, we don't need them, of course. But if they are designed to do something, what is it that they are supposed to do?

If DEI is a good thing, it must be succeeding in bringing in people who didn't get college degrees before, right? If it's not doing that, we can cancel them all; so somebody must think it increases the chances of graduation. But how does DEI do that? Does it make people smarter? Does it enable them to pass the same tests? Or does it merely lower the standards and introduce quotas for some people, in order to create what DEI folks call "equity"?

You know the answer. The whole purpose of DEI is to make people who (for any reason you like to cite) cannot meet the normal standards meet lower standards for the same thing. And it's done on the basis of racism, of course -- those who are from certain visible minorities get the benefit of DEI; those who are not are not given it -- not because there aren't any that need it, but because of nothing more than the same racist belief you claim here is wrong.

So you see, it's the DEI people who believe the minorities are stupider, and this is their rationale for arguing that these minorities need special advantages in order to succeed. It's not "the Right." The Right thinks everybody should rise on their own merit. The Left insists they cannot.

I think many blacks are right to laugh at Charlie Kirk's criticism of Michelle Obama. He said her degree was worthless, that coming from a college dropout. He didn't even try.

You really should think about the question: what is DEI designed to do? See if you can answer it.

It's designed to boost minorities into college when traditionally they came from disadvantaged backgrounds caused by years of oppression. What do you think it's designed to do?

[Immanuel Can]

I think many blacks are right to laugh at Charlie Kirk's criticism of Michelle Obama. He said her degree was worthless, that coming from a college dropout. He didn't even try.

You really should think about the question: what is DEI designed to do? See if you can answer it.

It's designed to boost minorities into college when traditionally they came from disadvantaged backgrounds caused by years of oppression.

All disadvantaged minorities? Or just some?

Two boys, both from Mississipi, say...both born to single mothers in poverty. Both equally "oppressed," in that sense. One gets DEI advantages, and the other doesn't. Why? What's the belief that's sponsoring the visible-minority boy should get lower standards than the 'white' boy? And who holds that belief: the Left or the Right?

[Alexis Jacobi]

BTW: From what Seeds quoted, Andrew Torba sounds morally reprehensive. "Conservatives" are fighting for freedom of speech so that they are free to disparage minorities. However, when someone stands up for minorities, those same people fighting for "freedom of speech" for the majority will try to censor those standing up for minorities. That's blatantly obvious in the "conservative" movements on the right.

I’d put it a bit differently. My view is that in the Postwar, perhaps also in the post-Sixties, that those view-structures I describe as Hyper-Liberal have been “marched through the institutions”. Whole sets of views, undergirded by ideological predicates, have been pushed down people’s throats. In general, these can be described as “projects of cultural engineering” instigated from the Academy.

This process can be examined. Take for one example the normalization of entire ranges of “sexual deviance”. Beginning with the normalization of homosexuality and leading into extreme versions. Now, maybe you are an advocate of these deviancies, I do not know. But that is not the point. Many people are not. Many people define sound reasons why such cultivated trends are not to their liking. And why, for example, they will not allow an academic elite to “corrupt” their children’s minds.

My suggestion is to examine what they say and why they say it. I find they have, on the whole, far better reasoning and more grounded value-sets. But I have exposed myself to their arguments by reading their books.

My object is not to defend Andrew Torba as though I am his press agent. I want to understand how he grounds his value-sets.

If the question is: On what do we ground our value-sets, then that conversation, for me, becomes one of metaphysical principles. Torba grounds his values in metaphysical principles presented by way biblical values. I tend to be far more inclined to accept the core reasoning in those assertions than I am opposed to their authoritarianism. But this is not really the issue. The issue is that people seek out grounding for their metaphysics. And this is going on widely in our cultures today.

That is what interests me: the examination of these resistance projects.

[Gary Childress]

You really should think about the question: what is DEI designed to do? See if you can answer it.

It's designed to boost minorities into college when traditionally they came from disadvantaged backgrounds caused by years of oppression.

All disadvantaged minorities? Or just some?

Two boys, both from Mississipi, say...both born to single mothers in poverty. Both equally "oppressed," in that sense. One gets DEI advantages, and the other doesn't. Why? What's the belief that's sponsoring the visible-minority boy should get lower standards than the 'white' boy? And who holds that belief: the Left or the Right?

Are you arguing that DEI is an "entitlement" that is not deserved by people from minority backgrounds who suffered hundreds of years of oppression holding them back? Are you suggesting that going to college has no effect in educating them or creating an educated class? Are you by chance suggesting that college should be available to all?

[Immanuel Can]

It's designed to boost minorities into college when traditionally they came from disadvantaged backgrounds caused by years of oppression.

All disadvantaged minorities? Or just some?

Two boys, both from Mississipi, say...both born to single mothers in poverty. Both equally "oppressed," in that sense. One gets DEI advantages, and the other doesn't. Why? What's the belief that's sponsoring the visible-minority boy should get lower standards than the 'white' boy? And who holds that belief: the Left or the Right?

Are you arguing that DEI is an "entitlement" that is not deserved by people from minority backgrounds who suffered hundreds of years of oppression holding them back?

Both are equally "oppressed," remember? Why does one get it, and the other not?

And shall we add a Chinese boy, as well, first generation escaping from a Communist regime, or an Indian boy escaping grinding poverty in Delhi? Why should they have EVEN HIGHER standards to meet than either the first boy or the second?

What is the belief the DEIers have to hold, in order to do that? Is it not obvious? It's that "white" means "just fine," and "Indian and Chinese" means "advantaged and needing to be set back," and "black" means "I can't do it without DEI"?

That's racist. But that's the Left.

[MikeNovack]

You know the answer. The whole purpose of DEI is to make people who (for any reason you like to cite) cannot meet the normal standards meet lower standards for the same thing. And it's done on the basis of racism, of course -- those who are from certain visible minorities get the benefit of DEI; those who are not are not given it -- not because there aren't any that need it, but because of nothing more than the same racist belief you claim here is wrong.

Shall we discuss this with regard to the top schools? MOST of these have a two step admittance process. The first step eliminates the "unqualified". SOME of these schools might even send out letters of "qualification" (Harvard did, at least it did back in the1960's). But being qualified for admittance didn't mean you were in because 4-5 times as many qualified as were admitted. Now OTHER CRITERIA were used, geographic location, legacy,etc.

YOUR complaint about DEI is only valid in situations where the number qualified to fillslots is less than the number of slots. As long as the number qualified is more than the number of slots DEI not necessarily lowering standards (just apply it among the qualified)

[Alexis Jacobi]

Are you arguing that DEI is an "entitlement" that is not deserved by people from minority backgrounds who suffered hundreds of years of oppression holding them back? Are you suggesting that going to college has no effect in educating them or creating an educated class?

There is something you are not taking into consideration, but talking about it rationally and cooly is not easy. The extremely consequential shifts in demographics that was “engineered” in the post-Sixties.

If you desire to understand entire ranges of resentment and resistance that is now coming to the surface (among the White population) one has to be willing to examine the engineered demographic shift that has led to the assertion about “replacement”.

If you do not take this reality into consideration — that is your prerogative of course — I think you will miss a prime motivator about why “DEI” is examined and critiqued and indeed attacked.

It has been pointed out — let me take one example — that London today is 30% White. Do you imagine that those Whites in their own lands and in their own cities welcome the demographic shift that has altered their nation’s culture? In your view must they accept and go along with it?

My point is not so much to take one side or the other, but to make efforts to see and understand what motivates people. Take the social and political stance of a man like Tommy Robinson.

If you expect no resistance to arise, I think this is naive and ignorant.

In the US today, one must take into consideration a current of reaction against the social policies (cultural engineering) that have taken place in the last 50 years.

[Belinda]

Does not everyone "take the moral high ground".

All political stances are characterised and defined by taking of the moral high ground.

"You distort everything you are examining. " is ad hominem generalisation.

As Seeds' ideological opponent your proper function is to rebut Seeds' arguments.

(You have gone all show -offy again. Semilla indeed! )

Sr Semilla’s post is an emoted garble. I have asked him to pare down to one topic or issue and if he does so I will make an effort to respond. “You people” set up conversational situations where two camps go at each other and where the outcome is preordained. “You” have fixed views and your purpose is not to be moved. You must see this.

I examine events and conflicts from a position of greater distance. I am not necessarily on one side or the other. Sr Semillas is entirely involved with his long-established preaching and his Vision of how things should be. Every post is the same: extremely long, brow-beating, intensely moralizing.

I suggest examining this self-assumed attitude which largely infects the Left Progressive faction.

What I have said recently is that, in England, a social current is developing that takes a stand against postwar projects of multiculturalism. There is a general turn against hyper-liberal trends. As Steve Bannon says “The people have had a bellyful”. This movement is pan-European and, I point out, those who explain its roots and reasons can be accessed. I.e. you can find and read their writings yourself. Better to do this than to access digested versions (like on Wiki) or rely on secondhand versions, usually highly prejudiced.

The trend of resistance and opposition to those cultural and social projects I describe as hyper-liberal was not begun by me. I am not their spokesman. I am not their defender. My suggestion is that you sheltered, ultra-righteous assholes do better research and try to understand why this resistance is occurring.

My impression is that “you” rely largely on a predetermined vision of what is right and wrong. This vision/version is presented everywhere, and the opposing visions and versions are repressed, vilified, and presented negatively.

I did say: “You distort everything you are examining” but it is not ad hominem generalization. It is a generalization however.

The entire post in question drips with self-righteous, high-handed moralization and is slathered in emoted ideas. Such a way of seeing and presenting views and values is distorting by definition. And to point it out is not ad hominem.

And anyway I have made it very clear that we have to examine things from both sides: pure ideas but also ideas that reside in men. What is “hominem” can never be subtracted from the equation. But everything depends on how it is conducted.

I just happen to be a Master at balance and ideological equilibrium. I reward myself constantly for my excellence. (I am considering the acquisition of a Lamborghini and that is just for my work this month).

As Seeds' ideological opponent your proper function is to rebut Seeds' arguments.

Horseshit. Seeds is setting himself up as a Grand Ideological Opponent all on his own. And he wants me to play along with the game as he establishes it. I find it not only boring and predictable but I know too it will get no one anywhere.

I confess i am a little prejudiced against your ideas because of the company you keep. Did not you say you go to bed with Bannon? Also, how can one be a bicycling man and a Lamborghini man? That is like being a vegetarian and not being a vegetarian.Or Jekyll and Hyde.

[Immanuel Can]

You know the answer. The whole purpose of DEI is to make people who (for any reason you like to cite) cannot meet the normal standards meet lower standards for the same thing. And it's done on the basis of racism, of course -- those who are from certain visible minorities get the benefit of DEI; those who are not are not given it -- not because there aren't any that need it, but because of nothing more than the same racist belief you claim here is wrong.

Shall we discuss this with regard to the top schools?

Here's one:

"Harvard's admissions considered race as a factor, resulting in different admissions standards for Black, Asian, and White applicants, with Asian Americans having the highest average SAT scores but facing the lowest acceptance rates and needing higher scores than White and Black applicants to be admitted. In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Harvard's race-conscious admissions policies unconstitutional, which significantly impacts how these racial groups are considered for admission." (See also "Students for Fair Admissions" https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/a ... ve-action/)

What do you want to discuss?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I confess i am a little prejudiced against your ideas because of the company you keep. Did not you say you go to bed with Bannon? Also, how can one be a bicycling man and a Lamborghini man? That is like being a vegetarian and not being a vegetarian.Or Jekyll and Hyde.

Bannon is extremely centrist, and really his position is of the original America First iteration. He is opposed to the elite corporate manipulation of the working man and on the whole his principles are those of Catholic social teaching. I assume that you have received your ideas about him from prejudiced sources? And I also assume you have not read him or listened to his talks. There is not one drop of “racism” in his America First platform, and he seems to want the best for all sectors.

You should be far more disturbed that I have read and listened to, and in some senses admired, Jonathan Bowden — far more inclined to allow and justify certain radical-right ideas more on the fascistic side (I insert that word more as one you would employ).

You see, Belinda, you are really quite sheltered and closed to the range of people and ideas coming up from ‘under the floorboards’. I am not. I have read many of them because I wanted to understand their views first-hand, not second- and third-hand.

However I have also read a great deal of the Progressive, Left and Left-Radical theorists.

Some areas I can bridge, some I cannot.