Don't think there's much point in trying to analyze Rittenhouse's psychology as if somehow we could find what he truly believes in his heart of hearts (probably he doesn't even know himself; most likely he's just a dumb kid with a gun and a distaste for lefties, one of many millions).

I myself am not particularly prejudiced against what are commonly called "black people", but I hold and cherish some very strong prejudices of other types, nonetheless. — Michael Zwingli

Who don't you like, Jews? Arabs? Homosexuals? The Dutch?

The bottom line here is that Rittenhouse stands in opposition to what you believe in — Hanover

I'm abstracting that out. I don't think heavily armed BLM members should be allowed police Trump (or Klan) rallies either. Their presence would also likely be considered a threat and provoke violence. End result the same. You can't do that where I come from. Be like us.

If he's not guilty (of anything) maybe you should revisit your laws as the precedent of allowing heavily armed self-styled militia onto the streets to kill people in conflicts they themselves provoke through the threat of their presence seems a bad one.

Just 'cos I've got Ebola, smallpox and leprosy (having a bad disease day) doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed down the pub. Muh rights!

We agree. Maybe somewhere people are voting for these policies, but none that I have seen. — NOS4A2

If these policies had no support, it would be political suicide to pursue them. Only it hasn't been. Why? Because regardless of what you've seen a majority of the public are still broadly behind strong anti-covid measures (e.g. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/coronavirus-polls/ ). We can reasonably infer from that they don't consider them a violation of basic human rights. Until that changes (and I'm not saying it won't), there's no reason to think those in charge are going to change track and no democratic way to make them change track, is there?

but the puerile and weak solution is to let the state dictate how to solve it — NOS4A2

You're starting to sound confused about whether fascism is the problem or the solution. We're agreed policy change needs to happen democratically or not?

More referring to the psychological genesis of the "fascism" hysteria, counterproductive as it is, seeing as such hyperbole obfuscates genuine concerns and makes you look precious and weak. A stronger foundation could be had by at least acknowledging there's a problem that governments are trying to solve here and that problem is not "How can we oppress NOS more?".

How about seatbelt fascism, another bugbear of the anti-collective collective? Wonder if we can trace the roots of this oxymoronic group back to mommy and eat-your-greens fascism?

I’m already not a part of any collective — NOS4A2

A fine sartorial ambition to be unliveried but your customary apparel suggests otherwise, no?

People's inability to resist an easy dopamine hit is more of the root problem here imo rather than social media per se.

I may be wrong but it seems to me that the issue itself may not be with social media itself, but with the way it is used and with the way our society is today. Social Media is merely a tool and like all tools created before it (like books, newspapers, movies, television, etc.), it can help or harm depending on what people want to do with it and whether or not such actions can harm others.

IMHO if the issues with social media is more of a symptom of a problem (ie since social media is a tool used in causing harm not the source itself) not the problem itself the better question to ask, what (or who) is real source of the harm or problems that are caused using social media and can anything be done about it. — dclements

Agree.

Social media is a natural extension of human sociality and isn't some monolithic good or bad thing but a reflection of how we relate to each other in modem society and similarly complex and nuanced in its forms and effects.

Apparently you can’t use emojis unless you have given money to the forum. Didn’t know this before now. — Leghorn

Neither did I.

?

Was a bit dry, yeah. :smile:

So, barring illness Trump will be the next president of the USA simply by virtue of him not being in a position to fuck things up whereas Biden will. — Benkei

Does mental illness count? Anyhow, no he won't because rabbits are cute. And my argument is just as strong as yours.

If we're going the academic route, we define our context and our aim and justify a definition that suits, usually with the aid of some authority, whether historical or contemporary. Without context, the appropriateness of any specific definition is unresolvable.

That's my guess fwiw.

The problem, as I see it, is the guy who put it up probably earned some cred in the eyes of a few in Beijing who agree. Kind of like Marjorie Taylor Green, those governor's in FL and TX, and other stupid people; they prove their loyalty to nationalist BS and are shelved until needed. Going back further, think Tea Party. I think the thread title says it all. — James Riley

Probably, though if he stepped out of line with the wrong people, it might hurt him. Image is everything. China wants to be seen as strong and the good guys.

I doubt there was much thought put into it. It was a stupid tweet that I guess the big boys in Beijing told the little guys in Baoji to disappear. I mean Baoji is relatively tiny and unimportant on a national level. Not that this type of crap doesn't tend to be popular internally. Even my own generally enlightened students in China had a willing streak of xenophobia in them. I just wouldn't take it to be reflective of party policy in any meaningful way.

Not China per se, but some local party hack. I'd take it about as seriously as the pronouncements of the Arizona Republican party.

Thank you, sir.

I think I just have a higher tolerance for strange people with strange views. I get the clutter thing, but he did attempt to explain himself when you challenged him on his weirdness. — Noble Dust

There's all sorts of weird, interesting weird, boring weird, stimulating weird, exhausting weird. You don't get banned just for being weird.

No, you can stay.

Seemed like an ok guy but not a good fit for here to be sure.

This discussion was merged into What is mysticism?

Hi and welcome! You can do that here in the lounge.

:eyes:

As @frank said.

We just get a message that the post has been flagged. That's it.



To make this world a better place, ser.

No idea. Strange days are upon us.

Et tu, Tiff. :cry:

:up:

Sounds good. Then I could drop this pretence of democracy. — jamalrob

Hanover 73 and closing in fast. Is that my footsteps you hear? — Hanover

The current implementation makes it relatively useless and somewhat confusing in my view. I vote to turn it off.

It is a bit confusing the way it's implemented. But @jamalrob's the one to talk to re leaving it or reverting.

:up:

What courage does it take to speak up for someone banned? Answer - none. — T Clark

Correct. We put the thread here partly for that purpose and also just for transparency. Not as a honey trap.

And do you not take account of defending oneself against the invective of others? — Protagoras

Yes, but when, for example, your first post in a thread involves calling someone childish names, you don't get to use the 'defending yourself' excuse.

We tend to make a distinction between behavior that's uncharacteristic and/or borne of frustration and what appears to be a modus operandi.

Jokes aside, it's a modded forum. That won't change. But you can report posters that you feel are out of line too. That's the best we can do for you.