12oz Lecture Series - Divisiveness in modern politics and how to slowly enslave a populace

[misteraven]

Well, last lecture thread was interesting, so going to keep things moving since you guys are all stuck at home in "quarantine" anyways.

 

If you're new to this forum or havent seen the 12oz Lecture Series - Kimberley Strassel | The Resurgence of Socialism Today, then definitely be sure to check that one out as well. 

 

Perhaps it would have made more sense to start with this one, but better late than never. I'm posting two content pieces and very much hope you're expand your mind and understanding of the current political landscape by watching / listening to both. Not to be arrogant, but you'll be doing yourself a huge favor and saving yourself a lot of frustration and grief if you take a step back for the two hours or so it'll take and regroup by taking the time to absorb and think about whats being said in these. Honestly, I'd be surprised if any of you came out the other end unmoved by the ideas and insights disclosed.

 

If nothing else, it'll qualify you to come back and participate in this thread and more importantly, better prepare you to partake in conversations that generally degrade to petty emotionally fueled debates as seems to be the trend of the day.

 

I would very much love to see those that participated in the last discussion, especially @glorydays, @Dirty_habiTand also @Jokerto jump into this one. It's really cool to see view points from all you guys. Likewise, I'm hoping @6Penniesand @Mercer jump into this since you guys have been largely absent and because personally I've very very much appreciated your intelligence and insights. Also wondering if @Hua Guofangwill resurface as he's always been an arbitrer of interesting and informed perspective and comes at this discussion with a non USA point fo view. That said, all of you guys that take time the time to listen and watch and later participate, add to this discussion and help make it interesting and fun, so check it out and join in.

 

Part 1 of 2: Christopher Caldwell | The Roots of Our Partisan Divide

 

 

Part 2 of 2: Episode-2050- A Current Look at the Great Lie of Dichotomy

 

Podcast link: https://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/the-great-lie-of-dichotomy

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

If you listen to this content and decide to take the red pill to free your mind, here's additional resources:

 

Hillsdale College - https://online.hillsdale.edu/

 

Hillsdale YouTube Channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCp5ZjtSZgURJy9EbuBCUlSA

 

Free Constitution 101 Course - https://online.hillsdale.edu/landing/constitution-101

 

Free Federalist Papers Course - https://online.hillsdale.edu/landing/the-federalist-papers

[glorydays]

I'm currently watching.

[glorydays]

@misteraven

bro, this subject needs broaching but goddamn it's difficult to put arguments into words

[misteraven]

Podcast is far easier to understand, but whats your take away? Agree, disagree... 

[misteraven]

Awww come on 12oz... Surely you guys can take some time to watch, learn and discuss...

 

Let's flex our brains for a bit and see if we can elevate each other via intellectual debate in between Smash or Trash and Dank Memes.

 

On 4/8/2020 at 9:28 AM, misteraven said:

I would very much love to see those that participated in the last discussion, especially @glorydays, @Dirty_habiTand also @Jokerto jump into this one. It's really cool to see view points from all you guys. Likewise, I'm hoping @6Penniesand @Mercer jump into this since you guys have been largely absent and because personally I've very very much appreciated your intelligence and insights. Also wondering if @Hua Guofangwill resurface as he's always been an arbitrer of interesting and informed perspective and comes at this discussion with a non USA point fo view. That said, all of you guys that take time the time to listen and watch and later participate, add to this discussion and help make it interesting and fun, so check it out and join in.

 

[glorydays]

@misteravenyou don't make this easy LOLOL 😂😂🤣😂

 

i don't like the guy

He believes that intersectionality is a repackaged and repurposed version of every civil rights movements and progressive movements of the past.

Here's the other stuff that he said that bothered me:

1) "people of color" and other protected minorities are biting the hand that feeds them because "it was the conservatives who made civil rights into law"

2) "minorities" are getting greedy by asking for more legislation to protect them.

3) "racism" and "hate" is regional, thus the laws protecting minorities should stay in those regions.

 

and that's just summaries of what he said, not verbatim. I understand the sentiment he has about how the parties today have morphed into something else, but i dont agree that the parties are now "totalitarian" and "biggots".

The thinking that the protections of minorities are inconsequential federally, is a laughable argument concerning "shoving liberal agendas down our throats".

"we accepted gay marriage, what more do they want?!" that is a very dumbshit argument.

 

I don't know where you stand on the video, but that's what i saw.

Protections for minorities, no matter how "new" the minority is, is a reaction to victims. Legislation isn't made proactively. I've never seen a law made BEFORE an incident.

I've always seen protective legislation AFTER something happens.

 

Take new gun laws. Gun legislation is fluid in this country as long as there are gun crimes that occur daily.

 

His dismissive attitude towards minorities needing protection is extremely disturbing. the guy is very verbose, but it doesn't hide how gross his position is.

 

[misteraven]

Not sure you really understood his argument. Indeed he was verbose, but its a challenging topic and he attempted to add context. He was exceedingly cautious because its a touchy subject, namely that the civil rights movement has led to the political divisiveness we see today. He was clear that he didn't thing one race should be held in lesser regard than any other, which is what you might take away of you don't listen and understand the presentation. You can understand why he's very delicate in his approach in that regard.

 

That being said, the summary is that the Cicil Rights movement led to unintended consequences. Namely that rather than follow the Constitution / Bill of Rights and elevate everyone to the same playing field of rights under the law, that we instead branched off to create a second set of rights specifically for black people. As a result of that, they were never actually treated as equals and due to the way it was engineered and subsequently exploited, that this has led to a second standard for any group that carries a grievance (real or not). Meanwhile, the bulk of the population is operating off the original set of laws. This dynamic, naturally pits one group against the other.

 

57 minutes ago, glorydays said:

Take new gun laws. Gun legislation is fluid in this country as long as there are gun crimes that occur daily.

Gun laws have little to do with gun crimes. That the way it gets framed, but there's tons of evidence that point to how the vast majority of gun laws have little or no effect at all. The goal is simply disarmament, plain and simple.

 

topic and plenty of threads on here that explore it, but welcome to have that conversation if you'd like.

 

58 minutes ago, glorydays said:

His dismissive attitude towards minorities needing protection is extremely disturbing. the guy is very verbose, but it doesn't hide how gross his position is.

He isn't being dismissive. Rewatch it and try to listen objectively. He's simply saying if we are to be equal, we should all be subject to the same basic rules and rights. Once you create a special set for another group, you sabotage the opportunity for them to be equal and open the door for unintended consequence, such as what we're seeing with political divisiveness.

 

Dude is definitely dry, but I felt his presentation had merit. Never really considered it like that.

 

Did you listen to the podcast?

 

Anyone else?

[glorydays]

54 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Not sure you really understood his argument. Indeed he was verbose, but its a challenging topic and he attempted to add context. He was exceedingly cautious because its a touchy subject, namely that the civil rights movement has led to the political divisiveness we see today. He was clear that he didn't thing one race should be held in lesser regard than any other, which is what you might take away of you don't listen and understand the presentation. You can understand why he's very delicate in his approach in that regard.

 

That being said, the summary is that the Cicil Rights movement led to unintended consequences. Namely that rather than follow the Constitution / Bill of Rights and elevate everyone to the same playing field of rights under the law, that we instead branched off to create a second set of rights specifically for black people. As a result of that, they were never actually treated as equals and due to the way it was engineered and subsequently exploited, that this has led to a second standard for any group that carries a grievance (real or not). Meanwhile, the bulk of the population is operating off the original set of laws. This dynamic, naturally pits one group against the other.

 

Gun laws have little to do with gun crimes. That the way it gets framed, but there's tons of evidence that point to how the vast majority of gun laws have little or no effect at all. The goal is simply disarmament, plain and simple.

 

topic and plenty of threads on here that explore it, but welcome to have that conversation if you'd like.

 

He isn't being dismissive. Rewatch it and try to listen objectively. He's simply saying if we are to be equal, we should all be subject to the same basic rules and rights. Once you create a special set for another group, you sabotage the opportunity for them to be equal and open the door for unintended consequence, such as what we're seeing with political divisiveness.

 

Dude is definitely dry, but I felt his presentation had merit. Never really considered it like that.

 

Did you listen to the podcast?

 

Anyone else?

I wanna try to listen to the podcast. I did approach the video with reverence to the subject. But there are direct quotes that simply imply my observations in my previous post.

And the way he was talking, it seems like he was being delicate, but i really thought he was hiding his intentions more than being delicate.

 

and to be blunt, i believe the purpose of his talk was to blame not just the civil rights movement but the people who support it also.

His example of the gay couple with adopted kids. and the kids are getting "gender fluid" lectures. He implied that the couple is getting greedy.

 

does the country's schools need to teach "gender fluidity"? i believe that understanding minorities and normalizing minorities leads to less fear of minorities.

 

So we have two options:

 

1) We can either teach various minority language rules, like "gender fluidity", in schools.

OR

2) We can continue to cast protections for minorities through legislation and law making.

 

We cannot suppress teaching and understanding minorities and their needs AND suppress the need for legislative protections for minorities.

you CANNOT have both.

 

if the public understand minorities and do not fear them, they're will be less hate crimes and less of a need to legislate protections.

Like i said, legislation for protections is reactionary and not proactive.

 

tl;dr version:

 

if we understand and normalize minorities, there will be less of a need to create legislation that puts primacy of one group over another.

Edited April 11, 2020 by glorydays

[Dirty_habiT]

11 hours ago, misteraven said:

Awww come on 12oz... Surely you guys can take some time to watch, learn and discuss...

 

Let's flex our brains for a bit and see if we can elevate each other via intellectual debate in between Smash or Trash and Dank Memes.

 

 

I honestly tried like 3 times to watch the video.  The guy is boring af to watch and I had a really hard time following out of him not being interesting to listen to.  I'll give it another shot tomorrow and respond accordingly.

[abrasivesaint]

19 hours ago, glorydays said:

but i really thought he was hiding his intentions more than being delicate

I agree with this. 
 

19 hours ago, glorydays said:

if we understand and normalize minorities, there will be less of a need to create legislation that puts primacy of one group over another.

I agree with this as well. I don’t know if gender fluidity as science is something that should be taught exactly, but it should be discussed that some people feel that way. Suppression leads to rebellion.  

 

This guy is from Massachusetts, semi-my neck of the woods. This is the type of dude that ticks all the boxes as many fathers i knew growing up in the Boston area, except he has a Harvard education. I googled him and briefly searched his history but i would be willing to guess that as a Massachusetts Republican he is religious, Christian or in the very least Catholic, and to me it shows in his arguments.

Right off the bat his argument seemed cherry picked. Specifically because he cites some study where they asked folks from the northeast whether they thought the black people in their neighborhood were treated fairly. I mean, who did they ask? Did they ask the white folk in the suburbs where they could probably count the black families on one hand? Did they ask those black families? Because i’m quite sure those answers would be different. While in the grand scheme i’m sure they’re treated just fine, but i would bet that many of those people still view them as “others.” 

I’m sure everything has some degree of negative consequences if you follow the trail far enough.. 

 

I understand you’re trying to discuss the ideas, but i’m having a hard time getting past that dudes rhetoric. I’d say he’s coming from a disingenuous position.  

I haven’t listened to the podcast but i will try to. 

 

[abrasivesaint]

Also, i wonder if he has ties to the Caldwell Vodka company, being from that area with that name. 

[glorydays]

1 hour ago, abrasivesaint said:

 

I agree with this as well. I don’t know if gender fluidity as science is something that should be taught exactly, but it should be discussed that some people feel that way. Suppression leads to rebellion.  

 

And this is the point of understanding. Gender fluidity, no matter how many liberals claim is hard set in science, is something that should be brought out into the light. The people who are gender fluid, trans, queer, and gay will not go away. But understanding them will allow the populace to move away from depending on the government for assistance and rely more on community acceptance.

 

And i have taken up on the self-reliance advice that @misteravenhas given me and i think i understand what he was trying to tell me. And i believe that open discussion of minorities and the nuances of being one should be on the forefront before relying on legislation.

[~KRYLON2~]

how to slowly enslave a state - make people believe they are doing the smart thing and they'll voluntarily give up personal liberties