[Bytor Peltor]

I believe it proves how much space Our President occupies in her brain......like a mini TRUMP tower!

Out West in Vegas where the grownups lay down their cash, I find it interesting that Squa Warren and her .001% to 3% American Indian blood is holding steady at LONG ODDS to win the 2020 Election.

President Donald Trump is still the +150 favorite.

About 65 times more bets on Trump than Warren.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

doh

she’s never claimed tribal citizenship, only ancestry

(also, the cherokees are economically opposed to expanding citizenship which is why they’ve denied black cherokees)

see: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ur-birthright/

but fox news won’t let you regurgitate that

PAY UP, DEADBEAT DONNIE

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

I believe it proves how much space Our President occupies in her brain......like a mini TRUMP tower!

Out West in Vegas where the grownups lay down their cash, I find it interesting that Squa Warren and her .001% to 3% American Indian blood is holding steady at LONG ODDS to win the 2020 Election.

President Donald Trump is still the +150 favorite.

About 65 times more bets on Trump than Warren.

well good for you and your vices

[Savage Clone]

I may agree with Elizabeth Warren on a lot of things, but I can still admit she's being a complete piece of garbage on this point. She's giving fuel to The Idiot Boy King. Good job Democrats. You've always been great on screwing things up when the world has been handed to you on a platter.

[Savage Clone]

Also, Bytor, you aren't winning any points by using the term Squaw. Politics aside, your comments on race in this thread are seriously problematic. I consider you a friend and you are really digging a hole for yourself here.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

@demonyo

check this out!

i just found it but looks very promising:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...bout-race.html

OK, so the Enlightenment helped define/codify and in a sense promote racism. The point is what do we do now? No one with a serious interest in the Enlightenment (Peterson and Pinker included) are unaware of its problems - although they may not interpret them in quite the way that article does. But the point is they (and I) still prefer it to what the Liberal/Left is currently offering via the zero sum game of Intersectional politics. If rational discourse is essentially a white straight male one then all I can still think is that rational discourse remains the best way of working on that. You won't agree with that because within your discourse that's an impossible contradiction but until something better comes along in terms of actually helping us out of this mess, I'm sticking with it, even if I'm holding my nose while I do. Interesectional Politics appeals to a certain impulse because it .doesn't seek reconciliation as a way forward but rather a multitude of little micro-wars between genders races and sexualities. Enlightenment rationalism may never achieve that reconciliation either but I do believe (counter to the points in that article) that it at least aspires to it, even if only conceptually through the idea of a dialectic. The Enlightment can essentially settle on a 1-1 draw. Interectional Politics needs one group to win which by default means another group has to lose.

We're gonna have to fundamentally agree to disagree on that cos you can always point to problems within the Enlightenment (many of which I'll concede) but I'll still consider it preferable to Intersectional Politics.

Apart from that, I'm sort of more interested in the real world problems of why the Dems have lost political ground, than going into abstract philosophizing that might underpin certain points but ends up a topic on its own.

[Bytor Peltor]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

Also, Bytor, you aren't winning any points by using the term Squaw. Politics aside, your comments on race in this thread are seriously problematic. I consider you a friend and you are really digging a hole for yourself here.

Erik - thank you for your friendship here over the years. I realize I must have said something horribly offensive for you to call me out.

YES - referring to someone as Squaw when that individual is misusing a bloodline percentage was in poor taste and I do apologize! As they say, two wrongs don’t make a right.

I guess me asking (and providing video) of the CNN reporter / Democratic Party referring to Kanye as a -Dumb Negro- was out of line? I’ve never used the ‘N’ Word here as slang or in a derogatory way.....but if that is how you or anyone else here received it......offended by my question......please accept my apologies and I’m happy to go back and delete the post.

The only other time I remember you raising a point of contention was with my use of the term, hermaphrodite, several months ago.

Again, All apologies to anyone here that I have offended......probably best that I go put up my shovel.

[ilduclo]

I don’t recall allowing bitey to say anything, either....you identity special interest need to go back to your closets. We defeated your groups in the American Civil War and WW2

[demonrail666]

Your 'We' doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as them. Your 'We' couldn't even get its shit together enough to beat Donald flippin' Trump. God help us when you come up against an actual serious opponent.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

OK, so the Enlightenment helped define/codify and in a sense promote racism.

racism, male supremacy, global takeover by ethnic europeans, colonialism, science as extermination, eugenics, etc etc etc

but that is not really what i am still trying to say

what i have been saying is that the subject of the enlightenment is a male white european etc etc.

this is important!

to me all of these shortcoming do not not disqualify the enlightment, but it brings into the foreground many of its discontents and the reasons for their discontent

the problem with the enlightenment is that it has not delivered on its promises. it’s a nice club to be a member of, but in contradiction with its philosophical underpinnings, it has been, historically, an exclusive club.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

The point is what do we do now?

now we listen first, and not rush

Originally Posted by demonrail666

No one with a serious interest in the Enlightenment (Peterson and Pinker included) are unaware of its problems - although they may not interpret them in quite the way that article does.

it’s because they are white male educated affluent etc etc bla bla bla

perspectivism is a thing

Originally Posted by demonrail666

But the point is they (and I) still prefer it to what the Liberal/Left is currently offering via the zero sum game of Intersectional politics.

it doesn’t have to be an either/or.

i like pinkert as a science writer, i agree that the enlightenment has brought us real progress

but peterson seems to me too eager to preserve not just the promise of the enlightenment, but the primacy of the original club membership

Originally Posted by demonrail666

If rational discourse is essentially a white straight male one

no it’s not

the woman, the negro, the wild indian, the miscegenated, the low-born, the subtropical, haa haaa haaa, we all have proven (to whom? to massah?) capable of rational discourse.

the problem is that rational discourse has historically been used not as a pure objective clarity of thought in search of truth, but as instrumental reason to justify all manner of oppression and exploitation and outright extermination in clearly ethnic imperial enterprises.

but the same tools of the enlightenment are now are being used to undermine these oppresive structures.

maybe you want to call them absurd and lacking in logic, but it is discourse and it is within the parameters of rationality, especially when you compare it to some of the shit the great “forefathers” were spewing in their day.

like science, the enlightenment has the virtue of self-questioning and self-correction.

i’m pinning my hopes on that

Originally Posted by demonrail666

one then all I can still think is that rational discourse remains the best way of working on that.

yes!

Originally Posted by demonrail666

You won't agree with that because within your discourse that's an impossible contradiction

i do what?

you seem to be stuck in some either/or polarity and you’re missing the point of my position which is neither.

i’m for the enlightenment. i’m for the enlightenment for all.

that means that the supreme subject of the enlightment needs to change.

that doesn’t mean the end of the enlightenment project. it means the fulfillment of its promise.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

but until something better comes along in terms of actually helping us out of this mess, I'm sticking with it, even if I'm holding my nose while I do.

i don’t see anything better either. but it doesn’t have to be “the white judeochristian menzes vs. the world.” that’s very close-minded. that’s fucking tribal.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Interesectional Politics appeals to a certain impulse because it .doesn't seek reconciliation as a way forward but rather a multitude of little micro-wars between genders races and sexualities.

i still do not think we have a good workable definition here to discuss this. you’re talking from your experience in academia, i’m talking from my experience in everyday life in america, and things are being lost in translation.

but it’s okay to put this aside for a moment because i’d like to get some agreement on the premises at least.

the premise is that the enlightenment project, as it stands today, is, in spite of its universal promise, still a very ethnically charged and gendered enterprise.

can you agree with that or at least see why some can see it that way?

i think you already did but before we look for solutions to its problems we have to agree that it has some serious shortcomings

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Enlightenment rationalism may never achieve that reconciliation either but I do believe (counter to the points in that article) that it at least aspires to it, even if only conceptually through the idea of a dialectic. The Enlightment can essentially settle on a 1-1 draw. Interectional Politics needs one group to win which by default means another group has to lose.

i did not write that article and that is not my point.

the article merely provides supplementation to my point, which is/was/ as i have been repeating: WHO is the subject of the enlightenment. who is the member in that club.

please take that article as supplementation to my argument not as its main thrust. i only posted the link because, the writer having being paid to write it, having more energy and resources at hand, and just ultimately being better at it, he provides ample documentation for what i wanted to say.

but his interpretation is not mine. mine is not his.

*i am not against the project of the enlightenment*

*i am for the enligtenment*

but i am against the ridiculous claim that its project has already been fulfilled and we shouldn’t rock the boat or complain

Originally Posted by demonrail666

We're gonna have to fundamentally agree to disagree on that cos you can always point to problems within the Enlightenment (many of which I'll concede) but I'll still consider it preferable to Intersectional Politics.

again not what im saying, not stuck in this either/or dialectic

i’m for the synthesis of this temporary oppositon, and for analyzing why and where this comes from, not just blindly opposing it

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Apart from that, I'm sort of more interested in the real world problems of why the Dems have lost political ground, than going into abstract philosophizing that might underpin certain points but ends up a topic on its own.

it’s not abstract philosophizing.

in the real world, all the minorities left out of the enlightenment project are banging at the doors clamoring for access.

yes, some of those people banging at the doors want to destroy the club altogether. especially academics in the humanities. lol, the idiots.

that’s not me though.

me, i want universal admission. which we do not have right now.

that’s the real-world practical problem: extending those inalienable rights to those who have been originally and historically left out of it, shot, raped, hanged, discriminated against, bled dry, used, kept out to keep the inside “cozy and clean....”

it’s gonna be a messy process to adjust this membership though there has to be some tolerance for disorder and dissension.

[ilduclo]

the "adults in the room" tell you to go eat your vegetables. You are to be seen and not heard

[ilduclo]

 

[ilduclo]

Members of the right-wing group Patriot Prayer stationed themselves on a downtown Portland rooftop with a cache of guns prior to a summer protest, city officials announced for the first time Monday – the same day Mayor Ted Wheeler learned about it, his aides said.

That shocking revelation came Monday as Portland officials scrambled to find a way to end the repeated violent clashes between dueling political factions downtown.

Prior to the start of a scheduled Aug. 4 demonstration, "the Portland Police Bureau discovered individuals who positioned themselves on a rooftop parking structure in downtown Portland with a cache of firearms," Wheeler said during a City Hall press conference. Berk Nelson, a senior mayoral aide, later said the weapons included "long guns."

The people on the rooftop were members of Patriot Prayer, said Assistant Chief Ryan Lee, who appeared at the press conference with Wheeler and other police officials. Police officers seized the weapons found on the rooftop that day, but they were later given back. No arrests were made because the protesters had not broken any laws and all had licenses to carry concealed weapons, Lee said. Neither Lee nor Wheeler named the people who guns were seized from.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

me, i want universal admission. which we do not have right now.

I don't want to dismiss your other points by only addressing this one, but this is the crux of it. Everything I've said so far stems from me wanting universal admission too. The Enlightenment subject probably was originally conceived as a white European male, but I see nothing in actual Enlightenment theories of the subject to think he has to remain so. The core values aren't perfect by any means but I've still yet to find an alternative to them that I think will bring us closer to the kind of real universal admission I think we both want.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I don't want to dismiss your other points by only addressing this one, but this is the crux of it. Everything I've said so far stems from me wanting universal admission too. The Enlightenment subject probably was originally conceived as a white European male, but I see nothing in actual Enlightenment theories of the subject to think he has to remain so. The core values aren't perfect by any means but I've still yet to find an alternative to them that I think will bring us closer to the kind of real universal admission I think we both want.

no, it’s okay, you got the point i was trying to make. and yes. we see eye to eye there. i think we’re good so far.

the thing though is that the original concept is not just an abstraction— it’s a historical praxis. you don’t change it just by declaring the concept changed. it’s embedded in traditions, in the logic of institutions, in all sorts of social constructions.

so in our current situation i see 2 possible kinds of admission, and they are in conflict

#1 says “everyone become a white european male!” aka “kill the indian, save the man” as it was practiced in the indian boarding schools of america. (needless to say, it was a hugely traumatizing experience for its victims.)

#2, would be to expand the concept of the enlightenment subject to incorporate multiple histories, ethnicities, genders, religions, etc. etc.

#1 is what “conservatives” demand. it is the ultimate colonization and it is highly repugnant to me. a kind of... maoism of the right. when everyone is the same everyone will have equal rights. no no no no thanks.

#2 is FUCKING DIFFICULT! it’s never been done! we don’t have a model to imitate. greek democracy was limited, they had slaves. the romans extended citizenship to the conquered, but it took conquest. america goes through cyclical spams in its assimilation and rejection of immigrants and subjugated peoples, and the expansion of civil rights is being resisted at every fucking step by those who want to hoard power.

so, to achieve this sort of liberal utopia (a bit of a contradiction, that) a lot is going to have to be fought for, and negotiated, and yes, the enterprise is a perilous one. but it’s the only enlightenment worth having! we cannot go back to the old one. the cat is out of the bag. mcluhan predicted a return to tribalism and the global village and he was right. now we’re gonna have to negotiate, negotiate, and negotiate. the only way forward.

i understand and to a minor extent embody the grievances of those left out (not really, not that much, i am after all male, well educated, etc,), so i am willing to tolerate the chaos of the current debate for the sake of progress.

i think reason will survive. if it doesn’t, then it wasn’t going to survive in the first place, just like ancient athens went to shit and rome collapsed.

i mean. help me out here. i’m trying to figure a way forward, not a way back. i don’t see identity politics necessarily as an abandonment of rational ideas. i see it as a demand for redress of longstanding historical injustices. i think that once the dialectic is worked out and we define a new enlightenment subject *in practical, actual, cultural terms*, we will all be better for it.

then again maybe all devolves into a fucked up racial or religious war. in that case i’ll fight for the future alliance of federated agnostic mongrels in which everyone is cousins and don’t importune each other with religious proselytizing.

[ilduclo]

bunch of children here

 

[ilduclo]

 

Mohammed bin Salman, aka MBS, aka Mohammed bone Saw.

[ilduclo]

US involvement in the Yemen war just got deeper

https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-10-...ust-got-deeper

[Bytor Peltor]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

Also, Bytor, you aren't winning any points by using the term Squaw. Politics aside, your comments on race in this thread are seriously problematic. I consider you a friend and you are really digging a hole for yourself here.

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

Erik - thank you for your friendship here over the years. I realize I must have said something horribly offensive for you to call me out.

YES - referring to someone as Squaw when that individual is misusing a bloodline percentage was in poor taste and I do apologize! As they say, two wrongs don’t make a right.

I guess me asking (and providing video) of the CNN reporter / Democratic Party referring to Kanye as a -Dumb Negro- was out of line? I’ve never used the ‘N’ Word here as slang or in a derogatory way.....but if that is how you or anyone else here received it......offended by my question......please accept my apologies and I’m happy to go back and delete the post.

The only other time I remember you raising a point of contention was with my use of the term, hermaphrodite, several months ago.

Again, All apologies to anyone here that I have offended......probably best that I go put up my shovel.

After a day of sleep and further review of my post over the past few weeks, other than using the term, Squaw......what else are you referring to?

Token Negro = Dumb Negro?

For those who didn’t watch the video, it was a black CNN show host who said, “this is what happens when a Negro doesn’t read,” regarding Kanye West’s visit with our President. Someone else during that broadcast referenced Kanye West was being a, Token Negro.

Asking if the Democratic Party was saying that a Token Negro equals a Dumb Negro isn’t me being racist......and respectfully, Sir, I resent the implication if in fact that is what you’re referencing?

re: Token Negro = Dumb Negro

Why didn’t any Democrats come out and say this is wrong? Why didn’t any Democrats point out that it was a good thing that Kanye West was being involved, possibly encouraging younger people to do so??? Like when the musicians would promote Rock The Vote.

Just imagine if Sean Hannity said, “that’s what happens when a Negro doesn’t read” when Obama hosted a rapper at the White House......everyone here and on TV would be SCREAMING about how wrong that was.

And guess what......they would be right!

And guess what......Republicans would stand up and say that was wrong!!!

Can you see the difference?

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

Can you spell: H Y P O C R I S Y

[Savage Clone]

All I was really saying is that in these times,us white people really shouldn't be using the term "negro," and it doesn't set anyone up to listen to you when you use terms like that. That one is definitely outmoded, if not "offensive" per se.
Squaw, on the other hand, is definitely an outright slur and is seen as such.
If you want people to listen, let alone be persuaded, HOW you say it actually does count. And saying it that way, even supposedly quoting someone, only makes the other side dig in their heels.
That's really all I've got to say. I said what I said as a friend and I'm sorry you feel insulted.

[Bytor Peltor]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

And saying it that way, even supposedly quoting someone, only makes the other side did in their heels.

Supposedly?

A) you didn’t watch the video?
or
B) you’re assuming I didn’t make the quote up?

I don’t believe using the term -Negro- when referring to a quote is racist at all. Personally, I don’t see it as being any different than saying -Negro League- when discussing a time in baseball long ago. It’s perfectly acceptable to say, so & so played in the Negro League.

When I asked black colleagues I work with if they had heard what the black CNN reporter said......then I quoted it to them before playing the video, not one of them said I was doing anything wrong. Of course, this is probably due to the fact that I’ve worked with them for over 25 years and they know me as someone who doesn’t go around using the ‘N’ word.

I’m happy to apologize again for using -squaw- as a slur......but other than that, I’ll let my years of posting here at SYG represent the good history I’ve established and I’ll heed your concerns when posting in the future!