The New Hate?

[JimLes]

I'll try one more time:

Look up the history of labor disputes. That's politics on the ground floor, and it'll give you everything you just listed.

We're talking about modern politics here, or at least I thought we were. If we're talking about historical politics, then yes, of course, labour disputes qualify. But so does the American Revolution and the Civil War.

 

[babe]

I have a few questions about this sentence.

1) Are you familiar with "Gone with the Wind?"
2) Is it your contention that females were so dominant during the mid 1800's in the South that men needed a hero to emancipate them from the overall culture?
3) Did you read this interpretation of the work somewhere? And if so, can you tell me where so that I may acquire copies for my amusement?
4) Do you believe that the primary problem with Southern culture is that it gives too much power to female dysfunction?
5) Is this the most accurate depiction of Southern culture in modern media?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz9rQsutfuo

Well, obviously you're too wrapped up in your special sensitivities guided by political correctness to just pass on some blatant sexist humor to tolerate the lower classes of folks like me. I've had my share of women in my life who are all wrapped up in their need to get acceptable results from their men, and I'll laugh at them and say "I don't give a damn" when I need to. Just to keep myself on task with an edge of sanity.

I think it is fundamentally intolerant of human beings to actually expect to educate and instruct other people who somehow fail to understand all you think you do. You have the process of coping with the problems in life inverted. You should work on your own failings and try to understand others and leave them the hell alone.

My higher criticism of Gone With The Wind pretty much reflects the girlfriend I had who cried when she watch that movie with me almost fifty years ago. I've never known what to think of women, really. I just think it doesn't pay to dance to their music, so to speak. I try to be nice, and will usually not bother them with my views unless it just gets so bad that if I don't say something I might forget myself and stomp on their little toes on purpose. That's what's so useful about the "I don't give a damn" strategy. . . . . it is a clear way out of an intolerable maze of crossed interpretations of reality and futile gestures of civility, with minimal damage.

Today's crop of intolerant bigots who pride themselves on being "progressive" are little different from yesterday's crop of intolerant bigots who prided themselves on being "right" somehow in some manner justifying their impositions of their ways on other people. The Ku Klux Klan mobs and the communist thugs who ransacked Russia in the 1920s running farmers out of their homes and seizing the land for "collectives" were of a common human sort. We have always used some ideal to justify our hate and abuse of others. Progressives and gays are no exceptions.

Hate is never going to be ruled out of existence by any crusaders with delusions of grandeur who believe they can make the world. . . and humans. . . . better.

Hate arises in the human heart with every idea of how to make the world better whether in terms of collective or personal aims. We cannot love without hate. You cannot make a mountain higher without digging a valley deeper. It's a yin/yang sort of thing perhaps. I cannot love the American experiment in human liberty without hating the dear old castles of Europe my ancestors lived in, and the feudal order of human society. You cannot love love your delusional ideals of a better world remade in progressive mantras without hating rednecks cruising the Southern woods with their hounds, guns, and fishing poles. You cannot think you are better somehow without thinking others are worse.

And I can't escape my own contradictions, either.

That's why the capacity to just leave other people alone is necessary to a good friendship with anyone. I might actually love ladies of culture and refinement who resort to the strategies of Scarlet O'hara for a lot of reasons or other human motives just as much as I hate them, but the fact is I will not succeed in any lasting or decent way if I try to change them somehow. That's why it can help to just say "I don't give a damn" and lecture to myself about why I can live without actually having to try to do something about it.

I believe the ideals of the American experiment in human liberty worked better for mankind than either the old feudal system of Europe or the new feudal system of progressive elitism/socialism now being "benevolently" imposed on the poor stupid humans you can't stand. I believe the fundamental right to think, speak, and feel is essential to people's capacity to achieve any of their individual goals, and that there is no better organization of society that can be achieved on a collective community, state, national or global level than can be achieved by putting premium value on individual rights, because the personal or individual ideals are closer to the reality of what we are.

Some have observed that all politics are local. . . but the more accurate statement is "All politics are personal". I'm just enough of globalist myself to love ideas about a "better world" somehow, but I realize people whose methods involve reshaping other people are never going to make it a better world. I can hammer away with my words on others, but unless I find something that others will choose to make their own, it's just useless ramblings of delusional mental exercise. . . . .

I've seen some examples of people whose ideals sorta took them over and pushed out personal interests and concerns even for their own welfare. Communist and even progressive ideologues can do that as well as any religious zealot. I've seen idealists go over the rim en masse for all kinds of causes seen as "for the good of others" or "to save the planet", and in almost every crusade of this sort, if you look for them, you'll see people using the movement for some personal gain. . . and in fact. . . . whipping up the sentiments via media or organizations to maximize their personal power and profit. And I'm just enough of a collectivist I am outraged when I see someone manipulating the masses for personal power. . . . .and personal wealth. . . . It's a betrayal of trust of the highest order. As a global political crime, it's the one we most need to punish. . . . and in order to legitimately organize government "of the people" we first need to establish the right of common people to maintain a maximum sort of equal playing field. . .

Alexander Solzhenitzsyn's observations on Russia led him to religiously believe the common Russian was the fundamental unit of goodness, a goodness that exists in fact only at the personal level, in the individual human soul. I think it is a universal truth, a human truth. It's the nature of human beings. No collective or social level of organization can rise above the free will or virtue of what people are as individuals.

Respect for that basic human free will is the best ideal we have ever conceived, or ever will conceive. Every ideal that tries to reshape basic human free will is an attempt to impose bondage on mankind.

Love people, hate people, love them and hate them at the same time, but leave them the hell alone.

And that, my dear, is precisely why I need to say "I don't give a damn."

 

[Stoked]

We're talking about modern politics here, or at least I thought we were. If we're talking about historical politics, then yes, of course, labour disputes qualify. But so does the American Revolution and the Civil War.

I did frame the question specifically to be about today.

 

[JimLes]

OK, follow up question then. Do you think it will get worse and get to the point where high level crimes are based on politics alone?

What's going on in the US right now is a child's play compared to many European countries in the 70s and the 80s. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_lead_(Italy)

The two parties in the US are so close together ideologically(this is really obvious on the outside, looking in), that it's very unlikely this would ever happen.

 

[ema]

Well, obviously you're too wrapped up in your special sensitivities guided by political correctness to just pass on some blatant sexist humor to tolerate the lower classes of folks like me. I've had my share of women in my life who are all wrapped up in their need to get acceptable results from their men, and I'll laugh at them and say "I don't give a damn" when I need to. Just to keep myself on task with an edge of sanity.

I think it is fundamentally intolerant of human beings to actually expect to educate and instruct other people who somehow fail to understand all you think you do. You have the process of coping with the problems in life inverted. You should work on your own failings and try to understand others and leave them the hell alone.

My higher criticism of Gone With The Wind pretty much reflects the girlfriend I had who cried when she watch that movie with me almost fifty years ago. I've never known what to think of women, really. I just think it doesn't pay to dance to their music, so to speak. I try to be nice, and will usually not bother them with my views unless it just gets so bad that if I don't say something I might forget myself and stomp on their little toes on purpose. That's what's so useful about the "I don't give a damn" strategy. . . . . it is a clear way out of an intolerable maze of crossed interpretations of reality and futile gestures of civility, with minimal damage.

Today's crop of intolerant bigots who pride themselves on being "progressive" are little different from yesterday's crop of intolerant bigots who prided themselves on being "right" somehow in some manner justifying their impositions of their ways on other people. The Ku Klux Klan mobs and the communist thugs who ransacked Russia in the 1920s running farmers out of their homes and seizing the land for "collectives" were of a common human sort. We have always used some ideal to justify our hate and abuse of others. Progressives and gays are no exceptions.

Hate is never going to be ruled out of existence by any crusaders with delusions of grandeur who believe they can make the world. . . and humans. . . . better.

Hate arises in the human heart with every idea of how to make the world better whether in terms of collective or personal aims. We cannot love without hate. You cannot make a mountain higher without digging a valley deeper. It's a yin/yang sort of thing perhaps. I cannot love the American experiment in human liberty without hating the dear old castles of Europe my ancestors lived in, and the feudal order of human society. You cannot love love your delusional ideals of a better world remade in progressive mantras without hating rednecks cruising the Southern woods with their hounds, guns, and fishing poles. You cannot think you are better somehow without thinking others are worse.

And I can't escape my own contradictions, either.

That's why the capacity to just leave other people alone is necessary to a good friendship with anyone. I might actually love ladies of culture and refinement who resort to the strategies of Scarlet O'hara for a lot of reasons or other human motives just as much as I hate them, but the fact is I will not succeed in any lasting or decent way if I try to change them somehow. That's why it can help to just say "I don't give a damn" and lecture to myself about why I can live without actually having to try to do something about it.

I believe the ideals of the American experiment in human liberty worked better for mankind than either the old feudal system of Europe or the new feudal system of progressive elitism/socialism now being "benevolently" imposed on the poor stupid humans you can't stand. I believe the fundamental right to think, speak, and feel is essential to people's capacity to achieve any of their individual goals, and that there is no better organization of society that can be achieved on a collective community, state, national or global level than can be achieved by putting premium value on "societal" goals, because the personal or individual ideals are closer to the reality of what we are.

Some have observed that all politics are local. . . but the more accurate statement is "All politics are personal". I'm just enough of globalist myself to love ideas about a "better world" somehow, but I realize people whose methods involve reshaping other people are never going to make it a better world. I can hammer away with my words on others, but unless I find something that others will choose to make their own, it's just useless ramblings of delusional mental exercise. . . . .

I've seen some examples of people whose ideals sorta took them over and pushed out personal interests and concerns even for their own welfare. Communist and even progressive ideologues can do that as well as any religious zealot. I've seen idealists go over the rim en masse for all kinds of causes seen as "for the good of others" or "to save the planet", and in almost every crusade of this sort, if you look for them, you'll see people using the movement for some personal gain. . . and in fact. . . . whipping up the sentiments via media or organizations to maximize their personal power and profit.

Alexander Solzhenitzsyn's observations on Russia led him to religiously believe the common Russian was the fundamental unit of goodness, a goodness that exists in fact only at the personal level, in the individual human soul. I think it is a universal truth, a human truth. It's the nature of human beings. No collective or social level of organization can rise above the free will or virtue of what people are as individuals.

Respect for that basic human free will is the best ideal we have ever conceived, or ever will conceive. Every ideal that tries to reshape basic human free will is an attempt to impose bondage on mankind.

Love people, hate people, love them and hate them at the same time, but leave them the hell alone.

And that, my dear, is precisely why I need to say "I don't give a damn."

This is pure crap.

























JK. I will read it later. I'm sure it will open new horizons for me.

 

[Stoked]

What's going on in the US right now is a child's play compared to many European countries in the 70s and the 80s. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_lead_(Italy)

The two parties in the US are so close together ideologically(this is really obvious on the outside, looking in), that it's very unlikely this would ever happen.

The parties themselves might be but the public is not. There are very hard divisions on immigration, education, foreign policy, gay rights, abortion, gun rights, enviroment, healthcare, social security...

I'm not interested in comparing the atmosphere in america to that in other parts of the world. At least not for the purpose of this thread.

 

[JimLes]

The parties themselves might be but the public is not. There are very hard divisions on immigration, education, foreign policy, gay rights, abortion, gun rights, enviroment, healthcare, social security...

When was this not the case? When did Americans agree on everything?

 

[Stoked]

When was this not the case? When did Americans agree on everything?

True, but from where I stand the rhetoric is getting increasingly heated and the divisions wider. Ever since Bush 2. SImply in the way people talk to each other. It is getting heated in a every day way that I have not seen before.

 

[JimLes]

True, but from where I stand the rhetoric is getting increasingly heated and the divisions wider. Ever since Bush 2. SImply in the way people talk to each other. It is getting heated in a every day way that I have not seen before.

Anecdotal evidence and personal observations may not be the best gauge. I don't think the situation is close to what it was in the 1960s. There are no riots, no political assassinations, no real domestic terrorism to speak of.

 

[LogGrad98]

Well, obviously you're too wrapped up in your special sensitivities guided by political correctness to just pass on some blatant sexist humor to tolerate the lower classes of folks like me. I've had my share of women in my life who are all wrapped up in their need to get acceptable results from their men, and I'll laugh at them and say "I don't give a damn" when I need to. Just to keep myself on task with an edge of sanity.

I think it is fundamentally intolerant of human beings to actually expect to educate and instruct other people who somehow fail to understand all you think you do. You have the process of coping with the problems in life inverted. You should work on your own failings and try to understand others and leave them the hell alone.

My higher criticism of Gone With The Wind pretty much reflects the girlfriend I had who cried when she watch that movie with me almost fifty years ago. I've never known what to think of women, really. I just think it doesn't pay to dance to their music, so to speak. I try to be nice, and will usually not bother them with my views unless it just gets so bad that if I don't say something I might forget myself and stomp on their little toes on purpose. That's what's so useful about the "I don't give a damn" strategy. . . . . it is a clear way out of an intolerable maze of crossed interpretations of reality and futile gestures of civility, with minimal damage.

Today's crop of intolerant bigots who pride themselves on being "progressive" are little different from yesterday's crop of intolerant bigots who prided themselves on being "right" somehow in some manner justifying their impositions of their ways on other people. The Ku Klux Klan mobs and the communist thugs who ransacked Russia in the 1920s running farmers out of their homes and seizing the land for "collectives" were of a common human sort. We have always used some ideal to justify our hate and abuse of others. Progressives and gays are no exceptions.

Hate is never going to be ruled out of existence by any crusaders with delusions of grandeur who believe they can make the world. . . and humans. . . . better.

Hate arises in the human heart with every idea of how to make the world better whether in terms of collective or personal aims. We cannot love without hate. You cannot make a mountain higher without digging a valley deeper. It's a yin/yang sort of thing perhaps. I cannot love the American experiment in human liberty without hating the dear old castles of Europe my ancestors lived in, and the feudal order of human society. You cannot love love your delusional ideals of a better world remade in progressive mantras without hating rednecks cruising the Southern woods with their hounds, guns, and fishing poles. You cannot think you are better somehow without thinking others are worse.

And I can't escape my own contradictions, either.

That's why the capacity to just leave other people alone is necessary to a good friendship with anyone. I might actually love ladies of culture and refinement who resort to the strategies of Scarlet O'hara for a lot of reasons or other human motives just as much as I hate them, but the fact is I will not succeed in any lasting or decent way if I try to change them somehow. That's why it can help to just say "I don't give a damn" and lecture to myself about why I can live without actually having to try to do something about it.

I believe the ideals of the American experiment in human liberty worked better for mankind than either the old feudal system of Europe or the new feudal system of progressive elitism/socialism now being "benevolently" imposed on the poor stupid humans you can't stand. I believe the fundamental right to think, speak, and feel is essential to people's capacity to achieve any of their individual goals, and that there is no better organization of society that can be achieved on a collective community, state, national or global level than can be achieved by putting premium value on individual rights, because the personal or individual ideals are closer to the reality of what we are.

Some have observed that all politics are local. . . but the more accurate statement is "All politics are personal". I'm just enough of globalist myself to love ideas about a "better world" somehow, but I realize people whose methods involve reshaping other people are never going to make it a better world. I can hammer away with my words on others, but unless I find something that others will choose to make their own, it's just useless ramblings of delusional mental exercise. . . . .

I've seen some examples of people whose ideals sorta took them over and pushed out personal interests and concerns even for their own welfare. Communist and even progressive ideologues can do that as well as any religious zealot. I've seen idealists go over the rim en masse for all kinds of causes seen as "for the good of others" or "to save the planet", and in almost every crusade of this sort, if you look for them, you'll see people using the movement for some personal gain. . . and in fact. . . . whipping up the sentiments via media or organizations to maximize their personal power and profit. And I'm just enough of a collectivist I am outraged when I see someone manipulating the masses for personal power. . . . .and personal wealth. . . . It's a betrayal of trust of the highest order. As a global political crime, it's the one we most need to punish. . . . and in order to legitimately organize government "of the people" we first need to establish the right of common people to maintain a maximum sort of equal playing field. . .

Alexander Solzhenitzsyn's observations on Russia led him to religiously believe the common Russian was the fundamental unit of goodness, a goodness that exists in fact only at the personal level, in the individual human soul. I think it is a universal truth, a human truth. It's the nature of human beings. No collective or social level of organization can rise above the free will or virtue of what people are as individuals.

Respect for that basic human free will is the best ideal we have ever conceived, or ever will conceive. Every ideal that tries to reshape basic human free will is an attempt to impose bondage on mankind.

Love people, hate people, love them and hate them at the same time, but leave them the hell alone.

And that, my dear, is precisely why I need to say "I don't give a damn."

This made my jazz fanz app overheat.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

We're talking about modern politics here, or at least I thought we were. If we're talking about historical politics, then yes, of course, labour disputes qualify. But so does the American Revolution and the Civil War.

I did frame the question specifically to be about today.

This **** still happenin braughs

 

[Stoked]

Anecdotal evidence and personal observations may not be the best gauge. I don't think the situation is close to what it was in the 1960s. There are no riots, no political assassinations, no real domestic terrorism to speak of.

There have been a multitude of assemblies, protests and action groups formed (tea party, occupy wall street), Secret Service stopped 1 attempt on the President a few years ago (2009?), guy flew his plane into that IRS building, ricin tainted letters sent to multiple congressmen...

Not to mention the dramatic increase in private militias.

 

[Stoked]

This **** still happenin braughs

It seems to appear that way. Guess you bringing up evidence from 30 years ago wasn't as relevant to a discussion based on current events as you thought.

 

[JimLes]

There have been a multitude of assemblies, protests and action groups formed (tea party, occupy wall street), Secret Service stopped 1 attempt on the President a few years ago (2009?), guy flew his plane into that IRS building, ricin tainted letters sent to multiple congressmen...

Again, is this really worse than it used to be? IRS thing was a man with a persona gripe, a president was killed in the 1960s, as was a presidential hopeful. Shots were actually taken at Ford, and Reagan nearly died from his assassination attempt. And not one of the groups you mentioned espouses violence...at least openly. And I'll have to ask for some sources on the dramatic increase in private militias.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

It seems to appear that way. Guess you bringing up evidence from 30 years ago wasn't as relevant to a discussion based on current events as you thought.

What the **** u talking about? What part of "still happening" makes you think I'm not talking about current events? Smh

 

[sirkickyass]

Some long thing

And here I thought I was asking questions about Gone With the Wind.

Long Story short: It's been almost 50 years since you've seen the movie so the implications of "I don't give a damn" in the context of the work has gotten fuzzy for you. It's one of the greatest movie kiss-offs of all time. But it's not symbolic. It's not about emancipation or female dysfunction. It's personal. Extremely personal. And Scarlet had it coming for something like four hours. I actually think its acidity is significantly watered down if you try to give Rhett larger or grander motives.

Well, obviously you're too wrapped up in your special sensitivities guided by political correctness to just pass on some blatant sexist humor to tolerate the lower classes of folks like me.

I had no idea that "knowing something about the material you're quoting" was something we were labeling "political correctness" now. It appears that term truly does not tolerate facts.

I think it is fundamentally intolerant of human beings to actually expect to educate and instruct other people who somehow fail to understand all you think you do. You have the process of coping with the problems in life inverted. You should work on your own failings and try to understand others and leave them the hell alone.

A) On the general principle, to the extent that others infringe or seek to infringe on you, it is perfectly reasonable to tell them they are being bigots. There is significant evidence that education works. Part of the reason acceptance of homosexuality is on the rise is because more people are coming out, and the data is pretty good that attitudes change the minute you know even a single gay person.

B) Actually, I think I did ask several questions about your interpretation of Gone With the Wind. While obviously mocking, you should take it as my attempt to understand what you were talking about.

I've never known what to think of women, really.

Not surprised at all, although you rarely see otherization of the opposite gender as blatantly as in your post above.

Let me crack the code for you: they're people, just like you and all the other dudes.

Today's crop of intolerant bigots who pride themselves on being "progressive" are little different from yesterday's crop of intolerant bigots who prided themselves on being "right" somehow in some manner justifying their impositions of their ways on other people. The Ku Klux Klan mobs and the communist thugs who ransacked Russia in the 1920s running farmers out of their homes and seizing the land for "collectives" were of a common human sort. We have always used some ideal to justify our hate and abuse of others. Progressives and gays are no exceptions.

I want to make sure I'm reading this correctly: are you seriously saying that people who want universal health care and "gays" are equivalent to the KKK?

Respect for that basic human free will is the best ideal we have ever conceived, or ever will conceive. Every ideal that tries to reshape basic human free will is an attempt to impose bondage on mankind.

Do you support criminalizing anything?

Lastly, Gone With the Wind sucks. It's long. It's boring. I think people mostly watch it for the dresses and houses. It's not even close to Clark Gable's best film, and it's unfortunate he'll always be remembered as Rhett.

Instead we should talk about my (second) favorite TV Show.

That is a real experience. There's probably a gay bar near you that hosts viewing parties when it's in season. It might even be hosted by a local drag queen.

 

[LogGrad98]

Very recently labor disputes caused the downfall of hostess. This part of america is still alive and kicking, although im (admittedly biased) o organized labor does far more harm than good anymore. Hostess case in point.

 

[babe]

This made my jazz fanz app overheat.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using JazzFanz mobile app

probably had you getting up to go for walk before you finish reading it. Might have been the sunlight on that app.

 

[TroutBum]

I love to talk politics, but only with people who have an open mind. If you've already let Olberman, Rush, or Beck (to name a few) form your opinions for you, then there is no reason to talk politics.

Down with the Green Party!!

 

[babe]

There's probably a gay bar near you that hosts viewing parties when it's in season. It might even be hosted by a local drag queen.

My wife would definitely divorce me for taking up this suggestion. Sometimes I really should appreciate her for what she is.

She doesn't want to talk about things with me very much. . . . feels too threatened with ideas or something. . . . I told her once that women who don't want to talk to their mates are on the same level as . . .. well. . . . the exact term would push the buttons on the filter in here. . . . Every person has a path somewhat their very own, unless somehow their cognition and motivation has been captured by ideology or indoctrination. I find people who have stayed true to some personal ideal much more interesting and worthwhile to talk to than those who have in any way "sold out" to say a political agenda, or perhaps a religion, or a dominant culture. Still worth some effort to understand those who have "sold out". . . . I consider that gays have "sold out" on their maleness and their possible posterity, and I hold it as a fundamental truth that people are better served by leaning towards either a male or female gender in accordance with the hope of having some kids come along.

I got a gay start in life. With no father around and a completely incompetent mother, I was abused by some folks in the neighborhood. When I tried to tell anyone what was happening, I was told I was a damn liar.

I made my own decision to move out of that kind of life, and along the way I found it very useful to realize that women are people who can appreciate someone talking to them and understanding them in some fashion. I probably got better at actually understanding than most of them really wanted. . . . .

I am not your stereotypical notion of someone who just doesn't understand people.

But I find your response to me interesting and it does help me to put my ideas into a better frame of reference for talking to people like you. Thanks for your responses.