Page 1 of 3

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:14 pm
by farjean2
This article seemed particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, when it comes to dehumanizing the enemy and the War of Independence. It just happened to be a war of Christian against Christian so how was that justified......

Very interesting reading on the subject....

http://www.distant-clansman.com/the-swo ... ttlefield/
To reconcile the killing, and therefore defeat, of the enemy with moral and religious doctrine required that soldiers were readied to believe that they were not killing human beings; what is mere extenuating circumstances existed whereby God granted permission to kill.[7] Psychology calls the process of circumventing moral and religious laws on killing the process of dehumanization. It is a trick of the mind employed to a great extent in all recorded wars. The pre-revolutionary and revolutionary decades in America were no different. The pulpit was frequently used as a platform for demonization and dehumanization of the enemy, with such common analogies attributed to Great Britain and her soldiery as Satan, beasts, savages, haughty tyrants, and the whore of Babylon.[8]
If you are looking for exalted language to dehumanize the enemy, the Bible is hard to beat.

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:46 pm
by drumminj
soldiers were readied to believe that they were not killing human beings;
Makes me think of the BlackMirror episode, for those who have watched the series on Netflix ("Men Against Fire"). Very relevant to this comment...

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:02 am
by Mountaineer
Desert wrote:
Mountaineer wrote:Thank you Xan for that post. It demonstrates how people can fool themselves, or ignore what is in front of their own eyes, in the pursuit of self-happiness. The comment about using language to disguise reality reminded me of how those in the "greatest generation" that I personally knew commonly referred to the Japanese people as "Japs" and showed me Army posters of the Japanese soldier with thick glasses and buck teeth. I'm sure it was intended to dehumanize those we were fighting. Likewise, the German people were referred to as "Krauts" for likely the same reason but with not as much denigration since the Germans were white and the Japanese were those "others". Making the unwanted "other" appear small, unimportant, unworthy, a threat, and different in the eyes of the self-righteous masses has always been a strategy of ruling class - and I must say has been fairly effective. But back to the founding fathers, it was wise indeed to base our nation on the rule of law and point out where that law came from. At that time in our history it probably would have been far more difficult to drum up support to demonize 'God the Creator and the souce of the rights that were espoused' that a mere 'king and his tyranical proclamations'. When one reads the words of the Declaration, it is disappointing but not surprising to see who is being demonized by today's ruling class of Hollywood, Entertainers, Sports Idols, and most celebrities as well as the normal politicians.
Mountaineer, the people groups being demonized today are immigrants. Red, Brown, Yellow, Black and ... ok, not white. The U.S. just elected a president who ran on demonizing the great "other." Bannon and his ilk built their media empire on blaming immigrants for our problems. I do admit that immigration is a problem. But the demonization we're seeing now is ridiculous and very non-Christian. This administration would be too busy deporting the Good Samaritan to stop and listen to the parable. Christians feeling bad for Trump need to sit and read ... and re-read Matthew 25:31-46. I can understand secular folks backing this guy, but Christians who actually believe the Bible are without excuse.
Desert, I agree with your view (it fits with number 3. below); I just think the problem is much bigger than immigration or Trump - the problem is us - immigration or Trump's tweets are just handy targets to take the focus off the root problem. I would also add to the current list of the demonized 1. the law, 2. Christians, 3. those who have a different worldview than the demonizer. I think 1. is the most significant for the United States because if we continue down that path (e.g. making law from the judicial bench or ignoring the law rather than upholding the law) we are headed for the demise of our country. Re. 2., Christians have pretty much been demonized since the beginning - not really much new there and Christianity will survive. Re. 3., I also think this has been the case for most of human history - it seems there is a brief respite every once in a while, but ultimately the tribal nature takes front seat once more. For me, one solution is to have an external source of truth that a majority of people are willing to uphold; for most of our US history that is God of the Bible (even the Diest Jefferson subscribed to Biblical principles), for the secular that is the law, for much of our history it was both. Now we are throwing both God and law under the bus at a fairly rapid rate. When sinful man (as evidenced by number 3.) throws out external truth for his own corrupted view of truth, basically there is no longer a truth that holds the nation together. I think we can have our best days ahead of us, but only if God OR law OR both are once again valued highly. I think that is what our founding fathers thought too, and those thoughts resulted in the beauty, wisdom, and logic of the Declaration. It's been a mostly good ride (even with all the warts, better than most realistic alternatives I can think of from history).

Edit: After reading l8's post below, I should have clarified that I think the "immigrant" problem is an "illegal immigrant" problem and I took Desert to mean the same thing (pardon me if I misread your intent, Desert) - thus my view that number 1. in my post above about law being the most significant. Being a good Samaritan is being respectful of all humans and kind to them just because they are human; being a good Samaritan means helping people hear the Gospel as well as tending to their physical needs, it is not discounting their misdeeds. One who breaks the law is accountable for the consequences. Illegal acts should not be tolerated whether committed by a legal or illegal immigrant or a citizen, even though on an individual by individual case a judge might choose to show mercy.

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:46 am
by dualstow
drumminj wrote:
soldiers were readied to believe that they were not killing human beings;
Makes me think of the BlackMirror episode, for those who have watched the series on Netflix ("Men Against Fire"). Very relevant to this comment...
Totally.

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:09 am
by dualstow
Simonjester wrote:
Desert wrote:
Mountaineer, the people groups being demonized today are immigrants. Red, Brown, Yellow, Black and ... ok, not white. The U.S. just elected a president who ran on demonizing the great "other." Bannon and his ilk built their media empire on blaming immigrants for our problems. I do admit that immigration is a problem. But the demonization we're seeing now is ridiculous and very non-Christian. This administration would be too busy deporting the Good Samaritan to stop and listen to the parable. Christians feeling bad for Trump need to sit and read ... and re-read Matthew 25:31-46. I can understand secular folks backing this guy, but Christians who actually believe the Bible are without excuse.
i haven't heard anyone demonizing immigrants ...illegal immigrants ...sure and rightly so.. the only consistant demonizing i see is by the open border crowd demonizing the anti "ILLEGAL immigrant" crowd as being racist by confusing and conflating immigrant and illegal immigrant as the same thing..

i also have a hard time seeing the illegal immigrants who are committing additional crimes after entering the country illegally, the ones who are getting priority deportation because of their criminal activity, as being good Samaritans..


You really haven't heard anyone demonizing immigrants?
Even in the administration itself, the language Trump used to equate Mexicans and rapists- it could scarcely have been any stronger. A few of us can go back and say, well, technically he was only referring to illegals and criminals when he made this comment and that comment. But, the reality is that there is an uptick in hate that is impossible not to see or hear.

I want criminal illegals deported as quickly as anyone does. While acknowledging that hard-working non-criminal but illegal aliens serve a purpose in our economy, it's unfair to all those who go through the system properly. (And I argue about this with friends whose stance is that some have no choice but the illegal route).

I'll go one step further: if a small country in eastern Europe wants no immigrants, illegal or otherwise, that's their right. Maybe their fears of having their culture overwhelmed has some basis in reality and are not unfounded. If they want to keep out only certain groups and not white Christians, well...not every country is built on the British model or the U.S. model or the Canadian model. If they want a certain group out, and I'm in that group, I don't know that I'd want to be one of the ten people in that group living there anyway.

In the U.S, though, all kinds of people are being demonized. Kids were telling their darker-skinned classmates "You'll be gone when Trump is elected." Headstones are being desecrated in Jewish cemeteries that date back to the 1800s. There is even a huge surge in the black separatist movement (Blacks who hate non-blacks). Not to mention the alt-Right's growth around the world. It's all documented at the Souther Law Poverty Center. Mexicans, Muslims, all kinds of immigrants are being demonized on a daily basis.

I'm not sure how you can not see that, or see it and believe it has nothing to do with the new administration.

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:14 am
by Xan
I think it depends where you get your news. If you get it from the Southern Poverty Law Center, then anybody who doesn't toe the PC line is a "white nationalist" and gets on the blacklist. All the stories will advance that narrative.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of stories of unprovoked violence against peaceful Trump supporters, which you'll hear about if you get your news in some places and not others.

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:23 am
by dualstow
I think that's true that it depends on where you get your news, but the SLPC is really fact-based. It's not the ACLU, whose mail goes right in the trash after entering my home.

I haven't looked at each and every group in the SLPC's hate map -- there are hundreds -- but I don't think they casually put someone on that list. https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:32 am
by Xan

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:52 am
by dualstow
dualstow wrote: I did find one troubling line in that article.
( Carl M. Cannon, author reprinted at pamelageller dot com) This episode prompted the FBI to drop the SPLC as a resource for hate crime cases (end Cannon quote)
This is below the paragraph about the shooter who wanted to kill Christians at the Family Research Council. I'll defintely definitely want to explore that further.
Consider it explored:
Conservative news outlets are hyping a minor website change to suggest that the FBI is distancing itself from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) ... in response to criticism from anti-gay organizations. But the FBI has issued a statement debunking that narrative and continues to publicly touts its partnership with SPLC on its website.
from: No, The FBI Hasn't Ditched The Southern Poverty Law Center
https://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/03/2 ... y-l/198645

Continues:
Bedard's report has been touted by a number of right-wing media outlets, including The Daily Caller, Breitbart, WorldNetDaily, and The Blaze, which have framed the change as evidence that the FBI is ending its relationship with SPLC in response to criticism from right-wing anti-gay groups. It's also being celebrated by a number of extreme anti-gay organizations - like the Family Research Council (FRC) and American Family Association (AFA) - that have long resented SPLC for labeling them "hate groups." (Contrary to Bedard's report, those groups have been labeled "hate groups" for peddling falsehoods about LGBT people, not for "favoring traditional marriage."

But the claim that the FBI is ending its relationship, or even its website's relationship, with SPLC in response to right-wing outrage is false. As Good As You's Jeremy Hooper noted, the FBI continues to list SPLC as a partner in the fight against hate crimes on its website.

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:50 am
by dualstow
I'm on your first link now, The Washington Post piece by the Center for Immigration Studies guy.

My general take, so far remains:

- I don't see any evidence of the SLPC inciting violence, and it appears that they wouldn't put someone on the hate list for simply refusing service to gays. They have to say something about homosexuality being a mental illness. There are standards.

- I think it's fair to label the SLPC a liberal organization. If they didn't list all those Black hate groups and Black supremacist groups, I'd say, hey, something's wrong here. They're being selective about who goes on their list. But that's not the case. They're not a *blindly* liberal organization.

- I'll go so far to say that it's not that much of a stretch that the SLPC could, if they read some of my posts here, classify me as hateful along with Reub and a few others. Specifically, some of my posts in those Religion of Peace threads. (And if that happens, you won't find me linking to their website anymore. O0 )

But, a distinction should be made. There are things about Islam that make me uncomfortable. There are enough people who want to kill us in the name of Islam that we can't keep saying, "We'll they're not *real* Muslims." Because of all the real, tangible terrorism (read:bombs) and all the incitement from people like the recently deceased Sheik Abel-Rahman, I tend to be more on guard, to think more about that than I do the peaceful Muslim majority.

However, I recognize that this is my issue. I need to work on my own bias, not to go around saying all Muslims should be deported. It's very similar to how I got into trouble with Curlew, how he misread my personal feelings as a general statement about rural areas, leading to his abrupt departure.

If someone says they don't want to associate with gays, I don't think they're going to end up on the SLPC's list.
If they say that homosexuality is an illness, or a mental illness, they're probably going on the list.
Makes sense to me.
Should Hirsi (sp?) Ali be cited on the website for saying that Islam is a religion of hatred? I don't know. That's a trickier one.

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:16 am
by Xan
Dualstow, I really appreciate your taking the time to go through those links and offer your opinions.

I'm still not at all comfortable with the SPLC's role as an arbiter of what's hate and what isn't.

And, I must say, I'm not at all clear on why you're drawing your own personal line where you're drawing it. Saying you don't want to hang out with homosexuals is okay, but saying that they have an illness is "hate"? I could see how saying "they should all be exterminated" would qualify. But one doesn't lead to the other. People with bipolar disorder have an illness, and saying so doesn't mean I hate them. Quite the opposite: if I were to say that they DIDN'T have an illness, that what they were going through was their own problem and they could just tough it out, then THAT would be pretty hateful.

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:32 am
by dualstow
I see your point. But, bipolar disorder *is* an illness.
Well, look, I guess I would have to file that in the same dept as if I were to learn that Mountaineer were privately praying for my soul so that I wouldn't go to hell. It would be well-meaning, but...

Homosexuality is still a mystery in that we don't know where it comes from. But scientific studies do not point to it being a mental illness. One could say they're waiting for the science to catch up, but that could be done with anything.

Outside of science, if someone wants to believe that it's an illness, I don't know that it should be promulgated, unless one is going to go whole hog and follow Leviticus' rules on eating shrimp and injunctions against wearing..whatever. The bad fibers. We don't stone people to death anymore in this country. Why are we picking and choosing what God really meant?

I guess what really matters is rights and the upshot of those beliefs. If someone is violently insane, we restrain them. If someone has a heroin addiction, we either arrest them or treat them -- ongoing debate. If we think homosexuals are ill, we do what? On the light end, maybe we deny them marriage and the benefits that go with such a union, including tax breaks. On the heavier end, there was a documentary recently about kids who get sent off to camps to be "rehabilitated." The reality is that they were being beaten and abused. I think it was in Arkansas.

We should let them live their lives.

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:34 pm
by Libertarian666
dualstow wrote:I think that's true that it depends on where you get your news, but the SLPC is really fact-based. It's not the ACLU, whose mail goes right in the trash after entering my home.

I haven't looked at each and every group in the SLPC's hate map -- there are hundreds -- but I don't think they casually put someone on that list. https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map
The splc makes snopes look fair and balanced, which is saying a lot. They are the epitome of sjw insanity.

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:45 pm
by dualstow
That's an unsubstantiated charge, tech.
The rioters, including students, professors and outside agitators are the epitome of SJW insanity, in my opinion.
There's no shortage of insanity of both sides. On your side there was Pizzagate.
But, the SLPC, with its Hate Map, reprints its members own words. And it does not in any way incite violence.

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:02 pm
by Libertarian666
dualstow wrote:That's an unsubstantiated charge, tech.
The rioters, including students, professors and outside agitators are the epitome of SJW insanity, in my opinion.
There's no shortage of insanity of both sides. On your side there was Pizzagate.
But, the SLPC, with its Hate Map, reprints its members own words. And it does not in any way incite violence.
I don't know what you mean by "my side". I'm an anarcho-capitalist.

As for documentation for the bias of the splc, I'll get some for you when I get home tonight. It's not hard to find but I'm on my phone right now, which makes the research clumsy.

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:48 pm
by dualstow
Sorry, I just meant tending to rely on conservative-leaning news sources.

I look forward to reading your linked texts later, no matter where they come from.

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:27 pm
by Libertarian666
dualstow wrote:Sorry, I just meant tending to rely on conservative-leaning news sources.

I look forward to reading your linked texts later, no matter where they come from.
The splc says that Charles Murray is a white nationalist extremist because he (correctly) points out that the primary cause of the underperformance of blacks is caused by their lower average iq. Is that enough evidence for you to see that they are ideologues, not unbiased researchers or whatever it is that they claim they are?

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:48 pm
by Xan
Libertarian666 wrote:
dualstow wrote:Sorry, I just meant tending to rely on conservative-leaning news sources.

I look forward to reading your linked texts later, no matter where they come from.
The splc says that Charles Murray is a white nationalist extremist because he (correctly) points out that the primary cause of the underperformance of blacks is caused by their lower average iq. Is that enough evidence for you to see that they are ideologues, not unbiased researchers or whatever it is that they claim they are?
I believe it's already been determined here that asserting that anything is suboptimal about anybody qualifies as "hate".

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:02 pm
by dualstow
Libertarian666 wrote:The splc says that Charles Murray is a white nationalist extremist because he (correctly) points out that the primary cause of the underperformance of blacks is caused by their lower average iq. Is that enough evidence for you to see that they are ideologues, not unbiased researchers or whatever it is that they claim they are?
Heh. It's a false premise. I think they call him a white nationalist because of this part
According to Murray, the relative differences between the white and black populations of the United States, as well as those between men and women, have nothing to do with discrimination or historical and structural disadvantages, but rather stem from genetic differences between the groups.
Isn't that kind of the definition of white supremacy? If he had said they have lower IQs because we effectively bred slaves for their brawn but that this could be fixed with better testing or educational advantages, it would be an uncomfortable but possibly true assertion that "the underperformance of blacks is caused by their lower average iq."

I haven't read the Bell Curve. I take it you have. Is this really what he says? That Blacks have lower IQs because they just do? And that this is the cause of their underperformance? I would think that there would be a multitude of factors. A lot of blacks have been incarcerated -- let's simplify and say that they earned that incarceration. It's harder to perform once you've been an ex-con. Harder to get a higher level job.

Does Murray think that these lower IQs are going to stay down or what?

I'm just asking these questions because I'm curious. I already agree that the quoted paragraph at the top and his connection to Nazi sympathizers (also mentioned in the Murray entry) pretty much fit the bill for white nationalism.

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:13 pm
by dualstow
I believe it's already been determined here that asserting that anything is suboptimal about anybody qualifies as "hate".
Oh, c'mon now Xan. O0
The devil is in the details.

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:20 pm
by farjean2
dualstow wrote: According to Murray, the relative differences between the white and black populations of the United States, as well as those between men and women, have nothing to do with discrimination or historical and structural disadvantages, but rather stem from genetic differences between the groups.
Do you not think there are genetic differences between men and women?

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:22 pm
by dualstow
I do think there are genetic differences between men and women.
???

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:27 pm
by farjean2
dualstow wrote:I do think there are genetic differences between men and women.
???
Yeah, me too and I love them. But it's not possible there could be genetic differences between races?

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:41 pm
by dualstow
farjean2 wrote:
dualstow wrote:I do think there are genetic differences between men and women.
???
Yeah, me too and I love them. But it's not possible there could be genetic differences between races?
Maybe I've been too terse with my responses. When I said that tech's premise was false, I meant that he said this was all based on the underperformance of blacks being linked to their lower IQs. They may very well have lower IQs on average, I don't know. They might. But the SPLC quote I pasted was that Murray said differences between groups had "nothing to do with discrimination or historical and structural disadvantages."

If that's not what Murray said, than the SPLC is putting words in his mouth and they are biased, like Libertarian666 said (though not for the reason he said so).
If it is what he said, than he does not appear to believe in -- I'll steal a phrase from the wiki pages -- the malleability of intelligence.

This is the crux of the matter, the malleability of intelligence.

I'm not some bleeding heart, saying that black kids who shoot up a Korean corner store should be given a pass because they were economically disadvantaged. But, I *am* saying that if they have lower IQs, maybe it has something to do with external factors. Factors that could be changed.

Do you believe in the malleability of intelligence and that blacks given the same upbringing and educational advantages will eventually have IQs and performance levels comparable to whites OR that they're you know, dumb niggers. And they always will be. Which one? Because it's got to be one or the other.

Now, before I started typing this, I was peeking into the wiki page on 'The Bell Curve'. Poor substitute, I know, but it's there, it's free, and I'm curious. What I see is that Murray does in fact mention external factors. This is a strike against the SPLC and a plus for Murray, but I want to hear tech's thoughts on that.

There is also a lot of criticism of and support of the way the book's authors read their data.

More later. My cat wants me to throw her toy around for a bit.

Re: Declaration of Independence

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:02 pm
by farjean2
dualstow wrote:
farjean2 wrote:I do think there are genetic differences between men and women.
???
This is the crux of the matter, the malleability of intelligence.

Count me a believer in the malleability of intelligence. At age 67 I don't think I will be getting any smarter but I'm fascinated by the subject of neuroplasticity which says your brain isn't actually set in stone after a certain age like people used to believe.

Did blacks, whites, Asians, Jews follow different evolutionary patterns that either left them overall worse or better as a group to compete and survive in the 21st Century? Of course they did. Did they all guess the same? Of course not, They all depended on the input available to them. Some lost and some won. It's called "Life is a Bitch and then we die".