If Mort Divine ruled the world

[rms]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/opinions/other-victim-in-facebook-killers-crime/index.html

"Old, black man gets shot. How do we steal the spotlight?"

 

[Dak]

https://amgreatness.com/2017/04/18/fundamentalist-nihilism/

Nailed it.

 

[rms]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/opinions/other-victim-in-facebook-killers-crime/index.html

"Old, black man gets shot. How do we steal the spotlight?"

NOTHING PEOPLE?

http://www.thestranger.com/features...lezal-the-white-woman-who-identifies-as-black

hell hath no fury like a black woman trivialized

 

[Einherjar86]

https://amgreatness.com/2017/04/18/fundamentalist-nihilism/

Nailed it.

These themes completely ignore obvious paradoxes: a) if the United States is so awful, why would foreign nationals risk life and limb to enter its borders illegally; and if apprehended, would not deportation seem a godsend?; b) if the American southwest still did belong to Mexico, or if it were to recalibrate itself to cultural, political, and economic norms existing in contemporary Mexico, would arrivals from southern Mexico then flee still further northward?; c) how can protestors expect Americans to continue to accept illegal immigration, when protests on behalf of illegal aliens, whether inadvertently or not, come across as hostile to the U.S., or at least hostile to anyone who might dare to ask that guests follow the laws of their hosts?

Only thing this nails is how to prejudicially misrepresent the ideas of those you political oppose. But then, I'm not surprised, given that the website's name is "American Greatness" and that it has a tab devoted specifically to conservatives, but none to liberals. Can liberals not be a part of American greatness?

Honestly, that site could be satirical if it weren't so transparent.

 

[Dak]

Only thing this nails is how to prejudicially misrepresent the ideas of those you political oppose. But then, I'm not surprised, given that the website's name is "American Greatness" and that it has a tab devoted specifically to conservatives, but none to liberals. Can liberals not be a part of American greatness?

Honestly, that site could be satirical if it weren't so transparent.

What's misrespresented? That droughts are cyclical? That larger concentrations of water consuming omnivores need larger concentrations of consistent water supples? That immigrant inflows from one cultural region to another indicate some sort of inferiority of prior condition? That acknowledging this inferiority is necessary to maintaining difference? That there are persons with zero knowledge outside of their own selfish ends, regardless of their cognitive faculties?

Inquisitive minds want to know where the misrepresentation is.

American liberals have the whole of MSM to represent their views without legitimate rebuttal; that that one site has no balance is only evidence in that bias is systemic in the web at large.

 

[Einherjar86]

I was referring specifically to the passage I quoted. Protests for immigration aren't "hostile to the U.S." although they might appear that way to people who champion this kind of "American greatness." Likewise, a country can be imperfect and yet still be attractive to outsiders. It's just an article that mistakes its own passionate political biases for rational clarity.

It's this kind of self-righteous certainty that makes me gag at conservatives.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

And for affluent minorities, is the argument that the son of an Asian-American pharmacist or the daughter of an attorney general of the United States suffers more hurt from racism than does a rural Tennessean from poverty?

That bit is just factually wrong; affirmative action discriminates against Asians more than it does whites, at least in the topic state of California where the author is a professor. Whites actually have institutional privilege over Asians in that case, in addition to any subconscious/unofficial white privilege.

 

[arg]

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The botface bit made me chuckle.

 

[Dak]

I was referring specifically to the passage I quoted. Protests for immigration aren't "hostile to the U.S." although they might appear that way to people who champion this kind of "American greatness." Likewise, a country can be imperfect and yet still be attractive to outsiders. It's just an article that mistakes its own passionate political biases for rational clarity.

I disagree.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2017-04-17/liberal-order-rigged

Cosmopolitans argue (correctly) that immigrants ultimately offer more benefits than costs and that nativist fears about refugees are often based more on prejudice than fact. The United States is a country of immigrants and continues to gain energy and ideas from talented newcomers. Nonetheless, almost everyone agrees that there is some limit to how rapidly a country can absorb immigrants, and that implies a need for tough decisions about how fast people can come in and how many resources should be devoted to their integration. It is not bigotry to calibrate immigration levels to the ability of immigrants to assimilate and to society’s ability to adjust. Proponents of a global liberal order must find ways of seeking greater national consensus on this issue. To be politically sustainable, their ideas will have to respect the importance of national solidarity.

The current reaction to immigration is primarily due to the concomitant attitude in immigration protesters (a lot of of self-righteous certainty is required to be a protestor - or money) and very culturally liberal persons that assimilation demands are bigoted rather than necessary for social cohesion. The author from the AM writeup noted that all the "Hecho en Mexico" paraphernalia displays have died down some. Having spent seven years in a border town, I know exactly what he's talking about. Refusing to assimilate/facilitating non-assimilation makes immigration a problem.

It's this kind of self-righteous certainty that makes me gag at conservatives.

Maybe you're only sensitive to it in this case because it's from the other side. It's obviously there in that article, but it's present in basically every piece of news and opinion. I tried to go back and find a particular article I read recently a piece (I thought it was Vox but maybe not) that relied on the data given here http://www.journalism.org/2017/01/1...vided-in-their-main-source-for-election-news/ that Fox News was the only biased news source because Hillary voters got their news from almost anywhere else while Fox stood out with Trump voters. Of course, the other interpretation is that Hillary voters didn't show any particular preference other than not-Fox because it's all the same message from everywhere else, right or wrong. In the latter interpretation, which is "everything is biased", it also carries that the language used on all sides carries singificant certainty.

 

[Einherjar86]

I disagree.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2017-04-17/liberal-order-rigged

The current reaction to immigration is primarily due to the concomitant attitude in immigration protesters (a lot of of self-righteous certainty is required to be a protestor - or money) and very culturally liberal persons that assimilation demands are bigoted rather than necessary for social cohesion. The author from the AM writeup noted that all the "Hecho en Mexico" paraphernalia displays have died down some. Having spent seven years in a border town, I know exactly what he's talking about. Refusing to assimilate/facilitating non-assimilation makes immigration a problem.

No, it doesn't. It only makes it a problem for people sensitive to it...

Speaking of.

Maybe you're only sensitive to it in this case because it's from the other side. It's obviously there in that article, but it's present in basically every piece of news and opinion.

I admit that I'm sensitive to it. That doesn't mean I'm imagining it.

All news is biased, sure; but not every piece of news is so dripping with discontent toward the left (which is really what that whole site is designed for).

 

[Dak]

No, it doesn't. It only makes it a problem for people sensitive to it...

A group cannot maintain functionality when it admits members or allows nonmember participants around that either A. Are disinterested in maintaining its functionality or B. Actively working against its functionality. A disinterest or unwillingness to assimilate is either A or B. Members of a group that promote non-assimilation are B. This is basic social group dynamics. I think the professors from Princeton and Brown understand this.

I admit that I'm sensitive to it. That doesn't mean I'm imagining it.

All news is biased, sure; but not every piece of news is so dripping with discontent toward the left (which is really what that whole site is designed for).

No, you aren't imagining it, and of course not every piece of news is dripping with discontent toward the left. The majority of journalists are leftists. That leftism so dominates journalism renders "normal" the discourse that myself and others (like the author of this article) find equally irritating and snide as you found his piece. That is what I meant in my comment about your sensitivity. You are relatively numb to ridiculously leftist content and irritating tone (unless it just goes full retard ala HuffPost) because it's not aimed at your perspective.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

A group cannot maintain functionality when it admits members or allows nonmember participants around that either A. Are disinterested in maintaining its functionality or B. Actively working against its functionality. A disinterest or unwillingness to assimilate is either A or B. Members of a group that promote non-assimilation are B. This is basic social group dynamics. I think the professors from Princeton and Brown understand this.

Which aspects of assimilation are you referring to? Most children of illegals learn English by going to public schools, for example.

 

[Einherjar86]

A group cannot maintain functionality when it admits members or allows nonmember participants around that either A. Are disinterested in maintaining its functionality or B. Actively working against its functionality.

Why not?

No, you aren't imagining it, and of course not every piece of news is dripping with discontent toward the left. The majority of journalists are leftists. That leftism so dominates journalism renders "normal" the discourse that myself and others (like the author of this article) find equally irritating and snide as you found his piece. That is what I meant in my comment about your sensitivity. You are relatively numb to ridiculously leftist content and irritating tone (unless it just goes full retard ala HuffPost) because it's not aimed at your perspective.

Give me a little credit. I think I can detect "ridiculously leftist content." I'm just making a comment about the transparency of media. The site you linked to is a self-righteous piece of shit that promotes national pride as reason.

 

[Dak]

Why not?

Are you being serious?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics

Richard Hackman developed a synthetic, research-based model for designing and managing work groups. Hackman suggested that groups are successful when they satisfy internal and external clients, develop capabilities to perform in the future, and when members find meaning and satisfaction in the group. Hackman proposed five conditions that increase the chance that groups will be successful.[13] These include:

1. Being a real team: which results from having a shared task, clear boundaries which clarify who is inside or outside of the group, and stability in group membership.
2. Compelling direction: which results from a clear, challenging, and consequential goal.
3. Enabling structure: which results from having tasks which have variety, a group size that is not too large, talented group members who have at least moderate social skill, and strong norms that specify appropriate behaviour.
4. Supportive context: that occurs in groups nested in larger groups (e.g. companies). In companies, supportive contexts involves a) reward systems that reward performance and cooperation (e.g. group based rewards linked to group performance), b) an educational system that develops member skills, c) an information and materials system that provides the needed information and raw materials (e.g. computers).
5. Expert coaching: which occurs on the rare occasions when group members feel they need help with task or interpersonal issues. Hackman emphasizes that many team leaders are overbearing and undermine group effectiveness.

I don't see "failing to participate" or "actively working against the group" listed. Also notice "a group size that is not too large". I think nations with participatory smaller units have found a sort of workaround, but it's certainly imperfect. Absolutely an argument for greater decentralization ie "state's rights".

Give me a little credit. I think I can detect "ridiculously leftist content." I'm just making a comment about the transparency of media. The site you linked to is a self-righteous piece of shit that promotes national pride as reason.

I'll bite. What's the most ideologically neutral news and/or commentary website/outlet you can think of?

 

[Einherjar86]

Are you being serious?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics

I don't see "failing to participate" or "actively working against the group" listed. Also notice "a group size that is not too large". I think nations with participatory smaller units have found a sort of workaround, but it's certainly imperfect. Absolutely an argument for greater decentralization ie "state's rights".

I am being serious.

Why can't a system or group whose functionality is exceptionally organized, well-supported, and historically foundational tolerate a few resistant strains?

It's a rhetorical question--the answer is that they can. The U.S. isn't in danger of not functioning because of immigration, illegal or otherwise. And pro-immigration protesters aren't throwing a wrench in the gears either. Which is why the article you posted is exceptionalist fear-mongering of an unpalatable variety.

I'll bite. What's the most ideologically neutral news and/or commentary website/outlet you can think of?

I don't see the point of this question. I thought we already established that media is going to be biased to some degree. I just appreciate media that doesn't poorly mask its "news" in pathetic appeals to American exceptionalism.

But since you asked, probably the Onion.

 

[Dak]

I am being serious.

Why can't a system or group whose functionality is exceptionally organized, well-supported, and historically foundational tolerate a few resistant strains?

It's a rhetorical question--the answer is that they can. The U.S. isn't in danger of not functioning because of immigration, illegal or otherwise. And pro-immigration protesters aren't throwing a wrench in the gears either. Which is why the article you posted is exceptionalist fear-mongering of an unpalatable variety.

No, it's not currently in danger from illegal or legal immigration, because illegal immigration has been subsiding since the incentives have been slowly and then more quickly withdrawn. However, were the borders kept as or thrown more open with concurrent incentives (which is what goodthinkful people want), there would certainly be problems.

The US is facing many serious, critical problems over the next 20-30 years that I do not believe you nor many mainly metropolitan/hyper-urbanized people grasp. The transcontinental infrastructure needs an overhaul, a demographic cliff is approaching, new international powers are emerging, and the economic paradigm which powered the entire Boomer population and global system is reaching its probable endpoint. But what we need is more dildo and vagina hats and a proverbial tower of babel of languages in response, and in response unicorns will issue forth to sprinkle fairy dust on all the problems.

I don't see the point of this question. I thought we already established that media is going to be biased to some degree. I just appreciate media that doesn't poorly mask its "news" in pathetic appeals to American exceptionalism.

But since you asked, probably the Onion.

Well that piece wasn't news, it was opinion. But news from outlets as diverse as CNN to the esteemed NYT present news as op-ed opportunities. I would have said Reuters, but even there there is a smack of progressivism. The "correct perspective" is always cosmopolitan in nature - a perspective someone who gobbles the Economist and NYT would readily endorse. Hell, even that piece I linked from FA endorsed the orientation - they just qualified it with the realization that only a relative few can actually be cosmopolitan. It is that very insight which is quite noticeably lacking.

 

[arg]

i get my news from Breitbart, the most credible source

 

[CiG]

 

[Einherjar86]

No, it's not currently in danger from illegal or legal immigration, because illegal immigration has been subsiding since the incentives have been slowly and then more quickly withdrawn. However, were the borders kept as or thrown more open with concurrent incentives (which is what goodthinkful people want), there would certainly be problems.

This "goodthinkful" element is both antithetical to functionality and a part of functionality. Resistance to systemic functionality can actually serve as a corrective to gross entrenchment.

The US is facing many serious, critical problems over the next 20-30 years that I do not believe you nor many mainly metropolitan/hyper-urbanized people grasp. The transcontinental infrastructure needs an overhaul, a demographic cliff is approaching, new international powers are emerging, and the economic paradigm which powered the entire Boomer population and global system is reaching its probable endpoint. But what we need is more dildo and vagina hats and a proverbial tower of babel of languages in response, and in response unicorns will issue forth to sprinkle fairy dust on all the problems.

All of those issues need to be addressed, I just take issue with the attitudes with which many people address them, especially conservatives; and yes, attitudes do have an impact on how we're perceived and on how people who hold those attitudes arrive at their conclusions.

Also, you can have "more dildo and vagina hats" and still address these concerns. So stop with the false choices.

i get my news from Breitbart, the most credible source

Damn, that's funny. I should have said Breitbart.