Yes, I don't understand how anyone could argue otherwise. — RogueAI

It doesn't appear racist to me. The responses of right extremists did, though. What in particular seemed racist to you?

Did you think his comments (at face value) were racist?

From my point of view, you're a voice from the outside. It's both outside and with no context in this case.

The story here is what extremists said in response to Adams. Now that is racism.

Real Estate Developer in Chief

didn't answer that because I don't see the relevance. — Baden

I take it you hadn't then.

If that helps you in some way, great. — Baden

It actually does, thanks. You didn't answer if you'd heard of Adams before this incident. Had you?

Your definition doesn't mean anything to me. If it helps you in some way, great.

And the characterization of blacks as a "hate group", whites should "get the hell away from" is clearly antagonistic at least. — Baden

I guess. It's not racism, though. Being that I am black, it's fairly important to me to keep the word meaningful.

One last question: how do you think this particular drama will end?

frank

No, at face value describing black people as a "hate group" that whites should "get the hell away from" is racist. — Baden

It's actually not. Saying that black people are not fit company for whites is racist. Saying that black people hate whites, so whites should stay away from them is not racist. Sorry, it's just not.

naivety of some posters here re this is surprising. The way Adams chose and spun that poll (even on the basis of which three quarters of respondents showed no animus to the troll slogan) as proof that black people hated whites and therefore whites should "get away" from them is transparent in its racist intent — Baden

It's actually not transparent. I think you recognize that at face value, his rant wasn't racist. You're saying your dog whistling receptors are picking up covert ill intent.

Just curious, had you ever heard of this guy before this thread?

So you think it's basically a land grab?

I don't think either of these explanations hold much water, and basically exemplify the inability that is prevalent in this thread to see the Russians as anything other than cartoon villains. — Tzeentch

Funny thing: you got the "cartoon villain" thing from StreetlightX. He stole it from me. What goes around comes around. :lol:

then there's a land corridor connecting Crimea and Russia (Kerch is a bit skimpy), and perhaps connecting Transnistria, all of Ukraine being the "best" outcome, right? And, just as importantly, hanging onto it. All (seen as) up'ing Russia's power position. Others might get in the way of such plans/aspirations (the Ukrainians certainly are). Crimea seems to have some importance to the Kremlin. And Sevastopol hosts their Black Sea fleet. — jorndoe

Why couldn't Russians just drive through Ukraine to get to Crimea? What's the benefit of national sovereignty there?

The grain incidents in the summer showed the comprehensive market share of Ukraine for all to see. Now sweep all of that (on a national level) under the Kremlin. Control and profit from "The Breadbasket of Europe". Europe's largest nuclear plant is north of Kherson south of Zaporizhzhia, various other industries, ... Might look good on Putin if he managed to assimilate that stuff. Bonus. — jorndoe

Right. And since Putin runs a kleptocracy, it would have made him richer.

Sometimes the invaders have been kind of extensive in activities (for lack of a better word). While still occupying Kherson, they emptied out the art gallery/museum there. The admin kept working there when allowed to by the soldiers. Pretty much empty now. One might hope they moved the art stuff out of the way of their upcoming shelling, right? But who knows, they didn't say, there's no paperwork, heck no piles of them having burnt it all, the stuff's in the wind — jorndoe

They'll just leave a shell behind, I know. It's amazing how quickly people can rebuild, though.

I think Mearsheimer argued that the Kremlin decided Crimea is important enough for a Russian power position to grab. Maybe that's just part of it. Anyway, never mind me, carry on. — jorndoe

But they took Crimea in 2014. I think he wanted to squash Ukrainian prosperity and block its efforts to join the EU. I think he also wanted to use the war to shore up his grip on dictatorship. He wins whichever way events roll, that's why he's kind of unbeatable. BTW, I just learned this trading strategy where you sort of buy and sell at the same time so you mitigate the losses no matter what happens. Putin's position is kind of like that.

Which actually goes against the cherished view (by some active participants here) that the war in Ukraine was only about NATO expansion. — ssu

What is it about in your view (a year into it)?

Yes, I'm not saying Adams promoted or intended to promote racial segregation, but that "woke" ideology implicitly promotes it. — Tzeentch

Maybe, but that ship has pretty much sailed since the Civil Rights Act.

Now the relations with Russia are as cold as they were... I guess in the 1930's. Finnish Prime minister Sanna Marin (a social democrat) and the Estonian president have been referred in Russian media to be "female nazi concentration camp guards". So that's where the relations are with Russia. All time low. — ssu

At least it's just the media and not Putin himself. That would inch us closer to world war.

Moreover, it implicitly promotes racial segregation, which Adams's comments are a clear indication of. — Tzeentch

Not at all. He was saying that he tried to help the black community in the past and he's extremely frustrated that all he gets in return is the sentiment that there's something wrong with being white.

It's like: "I cared about you, but you just hated me in return."

He actually wasn't expressing racism. Anyone who thinks so apparently doesn't know what racism is.

:up:

So for all practical purposes, Finland is in NATO now. Does that feel like a big shift in Finland's long term strategies to you?

Seems like (to some here) Europeans are just spineless lackeys and pawns, who should stand up against the system they themselves have been part of creating and now depend on. Bad Europeans, bad! — ssu

Are Finland and Sweden going to make it into NATO or not?

As it happens, though, you are not just an insignificant speck, you are every insignificant speck, and every sentient being for all time. So make yourself comfortable, because you're going to be here a while. — unenlightened

Woe. Unenlightened gets neoplatonic. :up:

Public property is state property. The state decides the flags, like you get to decide what flags go on your property. — NOS4A2

I understand that. I don't think they're addressing an existing problem, though. They're just stretching their bigotry muscles.

Both parties seek to ban “latinx” from use in official state nomenclature like they would any other offensive term. — NOS4A2

Why is it offensive?

But by all means, just underplay the whole thing. — Isaac

I imagine I would appear to be underplaying it. I'm not as close to it as you are.

Banning "Latinx" and the rainbow flag on public property.

Outlawing certain word combinations… is that how you personally stop believing in something? — NOS4A2

No. That was a cheap shot at certain Republicans. I guess I'm just frustrated with them.

I said believing in it is the problem. — NOS4A2

That's neither here nor there. Wounds heal on their own schedule. You can't force it by outlawing certain word combinations.

I think we all know the US is sending funds to Ukraine that could be used to fix our elderly infrastructure. No need to remind us.

why would the Russians be pursuing a strategy like that — Tzeentch

I don't think Putin is following any particular strategy at this point. He's just painted himself into a corner.

You called it a good article, that's why I asked.

To me it smells of the kind of war rhetoric that must've been prevalent before World War I, but if anything I share your worry. — Tzeentch

The article provided an interesting insight, so it was good. I don't smell any war rhetoric. The US is just waiting for Russia to exhaust itself. Putin seems happy to allow the event to tear a new butthole for Russia, so I guess the wait will be extended.

What do you think is good about it?

It talks about Europe as a "muscular geopolitical protagonist", Germany as having to reinvent itself to arm itself and Ukraine against aggression, etc. A lot of war trumpeting. — Tzeentch

Um. Good? It's just saying that we might be at a watershed moment, bringing an end to the expectation of goodwill and cooperation that was in the air at the end of the Cold War. I think that means it's a once-in-a-generation type of shift. The article mentions that Europe (and the US) tried to ignore previous aggressive actions by Russia, but this time was different. Many Europeans, especially in the east, see Ukraine's fate as being tied to their own. Thus Finland is trying to get into NATO, Germany is moving to strengthen its military position, and so forth.

It's an interesting challenge to find something good about it. Other than making the kind of drama and bloodshed we turn into art, I'm drawing a blank.

War in Ukraine has changed Europe forever. . From the NYT, good article

So we agree there are different expressions of human behavior...not a specific type of Human Nature! — Nickolasgaspar

:up:

I don't much care, either. I don't own any stock in Adams or Dilbert. — BC

The OP was primarily shocked at rightist responses to the incident. It's in the OP.

In Human Behavioral Psychology there isn't such a thing as "A" Human Nature but Human Nature has different expressions. Human behavior is affected by the environment(current and past). — Nickolasgaspar

I've expressed this sentiment multiple times in this thread. Thanks for repeating it.

Egalitarian societies score higher numbers in Societal Markers in functionality and Happiness, so they don't really fail. — Nickolasgaspar

Never said they do fail. I said egalitarian causes fail.

Again I can not stress enough the importance of Scientific Knowledge in these topics. — Nickolasgaspar

Just out of curiosity, why are you capitalizing certain letters that wouldn't generally be capitalized in English? Such as "Scientific Knowledge?" Capitalizing it in that way makes it look like you're using it as a proper name.

Scale is the issue, not human nature (or at least not directly). — ChatteringMonkey

I'll buy that.

Slavery was once considered in a similar manner. Nowadays we could never think about going back to it. — NOS4A2

Sure. As I said, I think human nature is a moving target.

The belief in and proliferation of bad ideas can be held by anyone, regardless of what they look like. — NOS4A2

:up:

I’m not sure any man can occupy a higher position over and above others if there is no such position. The failure of egalitarian causes is that they wish to occupy such positions, for whatever reason, thereby placing themselves over and above others. — NOS4A2

Egalitarian causes, like socialism and liberalism, were born out of dissatisfaction with social structures which resulted in oppression and mismanagement. Historically, these movements appeared when there was a general sense that something was grievously wrong with the status quo. It's an eye opener to learn how widespread socialist attitudes were in the late 1800s to early 1900s. Marxism is just a vestige of something that was much grander. The world we live in is the opposite of that. Socialists are generally in the minority now and so it seems a socialist cause is, as you say, attempting to force something on the rest of the population.

The problem is the existence of the State. — NOS4A2

Statehood is something that's deeply embedded in who we are as a species now. Does it have a downside? Of course. It's like our knees: they cause all sorts of problems, but we can't very well stop using them.