But the pursuit of equality is anti-liberal by definition, so it makes no sense that those who campaign for ever more equality should call themselves liberal. — Tzeentch

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

These are the words of a 19th Century liberal. A 20th Century liberal sounds like this:

"This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day."

I don't know of any definition of "liberal" that isn't essentially about equality of some kind.

Another way to explain it is that you can't hurt others without hurting yourself. It's an all purpose curse.

The old lady let the bastards win. She let them mold her into a bastard just like themselves. That's the trap.

You have to figure out that you're not helpless. You can take responsibility for who you are. At the very least you own that.

Still not following. Adults are responsible. Children are dependent on responsible adults. The slave mentality lurks there. It's insidious and dangerous.

But that's not what's really disappointing to me about the degree to which many blacks hate whites. It's that they're doing the very thing they condemn. They're caught in a trap. The only way to freedom is to forgive.

So what’s more important, freedom or responsibility? — praxis

I think they go hand in hand. I may have missed your point.

You could accuse Adams of covert racism. What he said wasn't racist on its face. Just saying.

Naturally. Wherever man is free, there exists inequality. The only way to make people more equal is to make them less free. The more equal people are made, the less free they are.

Moreover, the way governments make people equal is through the use of force. The more equal people are to be made, the more far-reaching governmental powers will have to be, and the more extreme their measures.

The question that never seems to be asked is what happens to all that power accumulation at the top. — Tzeentch

Civil Rights means the government is divided against itself. One part tries to protect equal opportunity, equality under the law, etc. from the other part.

It seems to me modern progressivism is best described as pursuing ideals of (what I consider) extreme equality, and anti-capitalism, probably with (some form of) marxism as the alternative. — Tzeentch

And that's anti-liberal?

Wokism is just a more racially-oriented, extreme version of the same ideals progressives hold today, and those ideals are a reaction to actual liberalism. — Tzeentch

Sort of. Democrats became fairly passive, so it was a call for vigilance.

To call oneself an anti-liberal however doesn't look very good, so the modern progressives kept the tag "liberal" while pursuing ideals which are profoundly anti-liberal. — Tzeentch

What ideals are you talking about?

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.