I have no views on the extent to which Sam is or isn’t bigoted.
But he continues to shamelessly promote obvious and long-debunked bullshit, and for that he should never be taken seriously on any subject.
Given Sam_Stone’s ignorance of actual facts, I couldn’t be sure that he actually knew that and thought it was something innocent; while the Trump campaign was regularly communicating with Russia and Russia was working to get Trump elected, Baby Trump was having meetings about how to pay back Russia for the help.
Ooh, secret messages! Undetectable ones!
I’ll bet your newsletter is a hoot.
Yes, this is my point. And by his posts, Sam seems unaware and even uninterested in this aspect of society.
Given your inability to read, I’ll make allowances for the fact that you never noticed that I said exactly what the Magnitsky act was several posts before yours,
But thanks for playing,
Do you think Jim Crow society sent messages about inferiority? Do you think white people were consciously aware of all these kinds of influences? If not, do you think all these influences have entirely disappeared?
The more a person mocks arguments instead of trying to understand them, the more ignorant a person will be. It’s a choice for sure, Sam.
What if the more you understand them, the more you realize they need to be mocked?
I’m sorry, aren’t you the guy that gulped onto Trump’s lie-baited hook and grinned as he clubbed you with an oar?
I think I am an individual, and not a ‘white people’. As such, it’s my responsibility to deal with other people fairly and without prejudice. PERIOD.
The minute you start separating people into racial factions and pit them against each other, you are increasing racial strife and racism. It was true when Jim Crow did it, and it’s true when modern Progressives do it. For example, by demanding that blacks be graded differently because they can’t compete with ‘white’ course material.
I agree! And a critical part of this is to try one’s best to recognize and address bias and prejudice in broader society, which may have some influence even on well meaning people.
You’d have more credibility in this if you didn’t uncritically believe many untrue things without much reflection. It’s not really fair to then complain about others uncritically believing the worst about you even if it is not true.
You are an individual that chickens out from inconvenient posts. We know. Who’s more foolish, the foolish liars or the fool who follows their lies?
I’ll make the generous assumption that you’re sincere in these beliefs. One might wonder, then, why you aren’t a progressive liberal, even in the more liberal (compared to the US) Canadian political context, since taken at face value these seem to describe liberal ideology.
And the most charitable answer I can come up with is that these very broad generalizations can be applied to any political ideology with the appropriately creative interpretation that is politically correct for any desired ideology. It all depends on where you choose to draw the lines around these nebulous and superficially well-meaning concepts, and you, Sam, choose to draw these lines in some very strange places indeed.
Based on your previous ramblings and general political outlook, for instance, one can safely assume that in your ideology “maximum freedom within the constructs of a civil society” means maximum freedom for corporations to exploit customers and workers alike, to trash the environment, to impair public safety – all aided by minimal regulation and ineffectual, impotent small government. Also, of course, maximum freedom for everyone to arm themselves to the teeth, again with minimal regulation.
“A social safety net that helps the truly in need without becoming a crutch”? Give me a break. You have about as much interest in a real social safety net as your kindred Republicans. The “crutch” business wasn’t even necessary to throw in, but it certainly emphasizes how social assistance must be at a starvation level. I’m certain that in the 19th century you’d have been a big fan of Dickensian-era workhouses, which in many ways were worse than prisons. In fact you probably still are.
Or how about “a government fhat lives within its means”? This is rather ironically known as “fiscal conservatism”. Ironic because in modern history, it’s traditionally been Republicans who have created the biggest deficits and contributed most to the national debt. In Canada, which is far more leftist/progressive than the US across all political parties, management of deficits and the national debt has been far more responsible than in the US. Furthermore, since self-professed “conservatives” believe in the lowest possible taxes (applied in the most unfair and reactionary way possible), I shudder to think where the savings commensurate with the government living “within its means” are going to come from. I rather strongly suspect that it would come from things like starving the poor, and drastically cutting down or entirely eliminating public health care.
In short, your professed “enlightenment” is either delusional or a fraud, or both.
I was clarifying my point, moron. Still haven’t addressed the facts and reports presented, I see.
Oh, they’re not so secret at all.
And he didn’t say “can’t detect”. He said “don’t detect”. Although “choose not to” is more accurate for some. None so blind, yadda yadda yadda.
It seems to me that Sam’s world view is one more synonymous with a Libertarian or Objectivist (Randian?) social utopia. I can understand why he might describe it as "l"iberal, but it’s much closer to what we understand as "c"onservative with respect to American & Canadian politics. I think Sam’s objection to progressive politics stems not so much from a bigoted mindset of a Trump/GOP supporter but an ideologue who imagines social disparity based on racial bias is a problem that is being ginned up by “woke” politics. And I kind of see the desire to believe that because it obviates the need for the kinds of progressive ideology and policies he finds objectionable from his libertarian/conservative mindset. To the extent I’ve correctly characterized Sam’s views, his are idealistic and impractical, but I’m not sure that they are necessarily based on bigotry/bias.
I think you seem to be saying that you see your sole responsibility for fighting the Jim Crow system (and its more subtle cousins) lies in not personally conforming to and promoting the behaviors that it inherently makes the path of least resistance.
Am I close?
I think you’re on the right track. I know a lot of "c"onservative folks in Alberta, and much of their right-wing viewpoints come from a place of ignorance, rather than outright bigotry. They’ve generally been fed so much complete and utter bullshit for decades, that they can’t conceive of any other viewpoint.
Your massive over-self-confidence precludes your ever reaching that point. You need to develop some humility before you can even begin to understand the arguments you find so offensive/threatening.