winsor

Given your penchant for orthodoxy, I'll take that under advisement. "Mein Kampf" includes some specifics that are factually accurate; if I somehow make reference to particulars that are in accordance with that work it certainly doesn't mean that my argument is in support of the overall conclusions contained therein. Too many syllogisms upon which CRT is based are terminally flawed, and the fact that you don't pick up on that is telling. Perhaps the urge to fight evil with evil is too strong, but it is all evil. BSBD, Winsor

The logic is simple. Racism is evil. Critical Race Theory is 100% racist. Q.E.D. I am aghast at the fact that you support CRT, every bit as much as if you supported the Klan. BSBD, Winsor

Taylor Caldwell noted that "5% of the population think, 5% think they think, and 90% would sooner die than think." Quite who is who is situational and debatable, but the sentiment rings true. If you are proud of yourself for limiting your name-calling, that certainly says more about you than it does me. DZ has killfile capabilities these days. It works pretty well, but you are free to do as you please. BSBD, Winsor

A) We ain't buddies. B)- I have certainly said all the words enclosed in the quotes, but never in that order. None of that is what I might have said to be facetious. C) If you want to call names, good on you. D) If I have the Nightly News on and a talking head makes a statement of opinion, that's a secondary source. If they haven't done their homework, as is often the case, comparing it with original source material makes that clear. E) It is not my job to sway your opinion. If you think I am wrong and have data to support your position, have at it. If all you can do is to call me names, knock yourself out. F) Understanding is often reliant upon definition, and using different definitions, whether lexical, precising, technical, legal, medical and so forth, can result in greatly different meanings (a variation on equivocation). For example, there are rather a few definitions of 'troll,' and as far as you know I may meet at least one. G) Everyone has the right to be wrong (except under oath). Some people are more enthusiastic about exercising said right, but I am unsure what that buys them. BSBD, Winsor

Since you are using quotes around something that you know damned well I did not and would not say, you are simply being libelous. If you have something valid to add, that's great. Such familiarity as I have with the tenets of CRT, BLM, etc, I pick up from such sources as NPR, interviews with and publications by the founders of these movements/isms and published espousals of these movements. I take second hand accounts with a grain of salt - if at all. If you think my stance is Jewish=good, gentile=bad your reading comprehension needs work. Similarly, I am anything but an adherent of Manifest Destiny, and find some parts of U.S. history (highly celebrated events included) to be nothing short of appalling. The Reparations proposed by Evanston, Illinois for past evils was framed by both Right and Left wing sources as a generic repayment for slavery. In reality it was but an attempt to address specific zoning laws that moved nonwhite families out of desirable neighborhoods and to the wrong side of the tracks, by industrial and waste sites and so forth. Houses were either uprooted and moved or bulldozed and repayments were to the specific families affected. The process by which the original policies were enforced was downright immoral, and the ramifications are clear and identifiable. During the '20s Jews bought large swaths of Stinking Desert in British Palestine, at above market rates, from people who then felt they had swindled the Jews. Years later, after sweat equity resulted in groves of fruit trees and the like growing on the formerly barren areas, the people who had sold land they thought was worthless got worked up and declared they had been cheated. During the Second World War Palestinian Arabs aligned themselves with the Third Reich, the Grand Mufti being welcomed in Berlin and issuing Fatwas against the Jews. Thus my equal reaction to Hijabs and Swastikas. Since you are moderately bright, I am not sure if you are being obtuse or demonstrating the Dunning-Krueger effect. Given that Dunning and Krueger's subjects were Ivy League, I suspect the latter. If you have a valid point to discuss (with legit references if possible), terrific . If you limit your contributions to abuse, that's on you. BSBD, Winsor

I guess you're too young to get the Rodney King reference. According to Science, the earth IS flat. Kansas, at least, is topographically flatter than a pancake. On a bigger scale, that model begins to break down. Why do you assume that I am hesitant to "allow folks to examine their history openly and honestly?" I recommend that you visit Thomas Sowell's discussion of slavery and check his references. What makes you think that I do not understand CRT?' Doing the barest modicum of homework on the claims contained therein makes abundantly clear that it is based on a massively flawed model, and contingent upon verifiable falsehoods at every layer. I consider racial discrimination to be reprehensible, whether it is 'good' or 'bad' discrimination. I do not accept anything other than equal rights and equal responsibilities, no more and no less. If that meets your definition of 'racist,' whatever. BSBD, Winsor

Again, nice try. Judaism is a tribal identity. A Jew who considers the Tanakh to be FUBAR is still a Jew. A Muslim who tumbles to the fact that the Koran is nonsense is an apostate and subject to immediate execution The Hebrew Scriptures are a compilation of Bronze Age lore from a big, dysfunctional family, and were never intended for general distribution. The Patriarchs were some seriously flawed people, and the Children of Israel did not bat 1,000 in general. Islam is cult, largely fabricated using Judaism and Christianity as a rough basis, and largely propagated by force. Islam, LDS and Scientology are similar in that they were each generated by a charismatic charlatan, and are based on elaborate works of fiction. Scientology is a good litmus test for sanity - if it makes sense to you, there is something severely wrong with you. Islam is nothing short of evil. The Koran makes clear, as do the adherents of Islam, whether Shiite or Sunni, that Muhammad was an illiterate, pervert psychopath. His basic stance was 'agree with me or die,' and made good on that promise whenever possible. .Every branch of Islam mandates that I should be put to death summarily, and I have no apologies for my loathing of Islam. My copy of the Koran sits next to my copy of Mein Kampf, and the philosophies espoused by either are interchangeable. I find people in Islamic regalia as welcoming as people wearing swastikas. There are Muslims and Catholics with whom I get along fine. However I take great exception to Catholicism both historically and at present, and absolutely despise Islam. I do not advocate killing Catholics or Muslims, but I am not at all okay with their track record of killing people like me. Oh, and yes, anyone with Muhammad's proclivities would have to register as a sex offender, and anyone who has conversations with invisible people qualifies as mentally ill. Deal with it. BSBD, Winsor

I am unsure of what you are saying here, but I gather you deem me to be a 'racist.' Since 'anti' racists consider anyone with whom they disagree to be 'racists' in the same sense that 'anti' fascists label anyone with whom they disagree to be 'fascists,' I find it to be somewhat meaningless. If you discuss, for example, the economic realities of parts of the Appalachians, it's hard to avoid the perception that one is criticizing the population on the basis of inherent traits. To get defensive and say, oh, 'some of my best friends are Hillbillies...' simply reinforces the perception. Living in a largely Sicilian neighborhood gave some idea of the social norms there, but as an outsider. The same is true for time spent in majority Ukrainian, or Han Chinese, or African immigrant or Black American neighborhoods. I try to be careful not to claim more than superficial insight of Americans of Sicilian descent by virtue of living in a neighborhood where I was tolerated as a non-Sicilian. If I am to make sweeping generalizations, I prefer to qualify them as best as I can. Any statement that takes the form of 'all Southerners are ...; for example may be discounted out of hand. I hate to break it to you, but I'm not trolling. Having had it pointed out to me that I was a "racist honkey motherfucker," I won't waste the breath to claim otherwise. Since CRT defines anyone of European extraction as racist from birth, that particular definition is meaningless. A wise man once asked "why can't we all just get along?" I find the answer to that sage question to be worthy of discussion. BSBD, Winsor

Better luck next time, eh?

Trump and Charlie Sheen have too much in common. Sheen has drugs for an excuse, Trump apparently comes by it naturally.

I'm in agreement. I don't happen to smoke, drink or take much of anything, but consider our penchant for prohibition to be singularly ill advised. I figure that, if it isn't worse than alcohol or tobacco (name one recreational drug that's measurably worse than either) it should be legalized, not decriminalized. Since we hold dear our relationships with invisible friends, it is ironic that we should use an overlay of psychosis to effect a sane policy. The economic virtues of holiness were handled brilliantly by John Oliver http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/. When you mix Government Bureaucracy with Religion, the outcome is predictably bizarre. BSBD, Winsor

Since you do not appear to include being a student of History amongst your interests, I will let the oversimplification the origins of the State of Israel stand. I mean, that's the way it is - as far as you can tell. If you equally criticized such things as, oh, Crimea or Tibet, maybe your point might carry some weight. The Balfour Declaration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration resulting from the work of Chaim Weizmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaim_Weizmann et al. resulted in the redistribution of land that had been reacquired repeatedly over the course of history. Since I was young at the time, they forgot to ask my opinion. BSBD, Winsor

I don't thing anti-Semitism needs much stoking to keep the Anti-Defamation League in business. The March of Dimes was originally focused on ending Polio. I still recall heartbreaking pictures of adorable kids with braces and crutches imploring people to help (though a classmate so afflicted was given to use his crutches the way a rogue cop would use his PR-24). When Salk and Sabin produced effective vaccines, the March of Dimes scrambled to find a way to keep their moneymaking juggernaut in business. After some searching, they settled on Birth Defects, and now have a cause that is unlikely to go away ever. Dead heroes are preferred to live ones, since they can't do or say anything to besmirch their image. Greg ('Pappy') Boyington was given the Medal of Honor after his Corsair plunged into the Pacific with no parachute observed and he was declared dead. When he emerged alive from a Japanese POW camp (smoke from his engine blocked the view of his canopy, after he kicked the stick forward and he hit the water seconds after his airplane), the Navy freaked. They tried to downplay his penchant for drunken violence, but eventually cashiered him. He was supposedly sober when I met him, but still very much of a prick. The Cult of the Magic Jewish Zombie had their perfect hero in someone who supposedly came back to life (but nobody cold find). Gen'l Sheridan, when introduced to a 'good Indian' said "the only good Indians I know are dead," and the Roman's view that the only good Jew is a dead Jew worked perfectly for their chosen hero,- who they promoted to 'god' in keeping with their literary tradition. Co-opting Messianic Judaism as a Universal Religion meant distancing their hero from his culture. Any accounts of his very existence were written on a different continent, in languages he wouldn't likely understand, by people with no working knowledge of his culture and traditions, and writings directed at an audience that had put him to death in the first place. Historically the Church supposedly revered a dead Jew but in practice reviled the live ones, and all too often turned the live ones into dead ones. Nothing personal. Thus, the Anti-Defamation League has a limitless wellspring of anti-Semitism with which to contend. Keeping a low profile is generally the best defense, akin to Reform Judaism being a response to Napoleon's offer of citizenship to Jews who assimilated. This is unfortunately of limited utility; I lived but a few kilometers from a site where French Jews were gathered by the Police before being 'Sent East.' As far as ending anti-Semitism? Good luck with that. BSBD, Winsor

Either is this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-pta-purge-of-asians-11626128073 The problem with equal opportunity on the basis of merit is that it does not always shake out the way some may like. The problem with being okay with the principle of 'good racism' vs. 'bad racism' is that opinions seem to differ on the whole good/bad divide.

This is NOT from the Onion: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brits-paying-200-ethically-sourced-24404906

Equal protection under the law is a good thing. I referred to an article regarding a biker rodeo some time back. A restauranteur was asked if he was afraid of all the hairy bikers, and his response was to the effect of 'nah, the guys that can afford a $30,000 bike tend to be pretty responsible, they're polite to the waitresses and they tip well.' Asked if there was any group that did give him trouble, he responded 'frat boys - they are often rude, don't tip and are given to skipping out on the check.' I'm pretty sure I do not recommend anything but equal rights and equal opportunities, no more, no less - even for frat boys. BSBD, Winsor

What I said before regarding genetics vs. culture stands. It's been a few decades since I read the work, but IIRC Darwin observed finches fill niches in the Galapagos occupied by other birds in different ecosystems. One thing that struck me when living in different cultures is that many of the social roles that are occupied by groups in the U.S. (Italian shoemakers, Irish cops, etc.) were similarly claimed by other subsets of the particular society, just not the same ones that are stereotypical here. As The Onion noted, "stereotypes are a real time saver." I've actually seen people going to great lengths to achieve one stereotype or another - driving through South Philadelphia I recall seeing clutches of young men dressed according to the current uniform and young women with the identical hairstyles and skirt length, for example. I have occasionally assumed that someone was pulling my leg when they behaved according to a stereotype, only to find out that they were entirely serious. What's in a name? Sometimes quite a lot. In some societies, there are legal restrictions on nomenclature on the basis of bloodline. Naming a Jewish child is a big deal, and whether or not one is 'de', 'von' or 'van' has significant implications in a great deal of Europe. The acting and musical professions are given to selecting names to correspond with the persona of the roles sought. 'Ethnic' sounding names of various persuasions are routinely ditched for more "benign" monikers. Rather a few technical professionals whose names use a different alphabet will pick a name their colleagues can pronounce when working in the States. The name on a resume can often give some idea of who is going to walk through the door. The movie "Ted" had a great bit regarding guessing the name of a female from Boston the protagonist picked up. Prejudice is a bad thing, where one says 'all people of this group are the same.' Postjudice, OTOH, is sometimes justified, where experience with a group gives you a pretty good idea of what to expect. ALL frat boys are not the same, but restaurant owners have said they treat the waitstaff badly, don't tip and often skip out on the check. When the fleet is in port, one can have general expectations of the sailors, English football fans have a high percentage of hooligans (I've known rather a few), and so forth. If one's given name is "Billy Bob" or "La-a" (pronounced 'la-dash-ah'), it can affect the expectations of HR. Oddly enough, the 'old boy' or other network can be a great equalizer. Having someone you trust vouch for the professionalism and work ethic of an applicant goes a long way. Getting a tepid endorsement from the same source can take a first pick down a notch or two. My point is not that these things don't exist, but that it is not always as simple as it seems, and understanding the dynamics can go a long way toward minimizng unfairness. BSBD, Winsor

You certainly know your way around a fallacy. Insisting that by U.S. servicemen I am referring to those of Vietnamese origin is beneath you (or at least should be). As far as 'race blind' goes, I am a big fan of leaving race and sex out of a hiring equation in the sense of a Juilliard audition, where the panel cannot see the musician and has to judge on the merits of play alone. Professional licensing exams similarly filter out those who know the material cold from those that take too much time to get the answer. There are Engineers who aren't fast enough to pass the F.E. or P.E. exam, but are knowledgeable and meticulous enough that I'd trust their work with my life. There are others who have degrees from apparently reputable schools that leave me wondering quite how the hell they got the sheepskin. Over lunch we may talk about our cultures of origin - cuisine, history, culture and so forth - but on the job the issues are entirely professional, and none of that is a factor. I reserve the right to decide who I trust with my life. Whether I trust a Pilot, A&P, Rigger or surgeon has nothing to do with what they look like. If I'm going into surgery I don't give a damn whether the Anesthesiologist is of Sicilian or Bangladeshi extraction, a stomp down gorgeous female or looks like Quasimodo, if the two are equally competent.. If you expect me to give a pass to one group of people or 'oppress' another, I'll have to disappoint you. BSBD, Winsor

No, I don't give it much thought at all. You play the hand you're dealt, and if you choose to bitch about it you can't expect much sympathy.

Hey, it's job security.

That's not saying much. Coochie Cootie comic books make more sense than any traditional religion.

Argumentum ad Hominem - Circumstantial does not make a point. Beats Argumentum ad Hominem - Abusive, I suppose.

You are going to have a hard time believing this, but easily 6 or 7 of the servicemen who were Southeast Asia were not white, I seem to recall the odd Chiracahua, Navajo, Negro, Mulatto, Turk, Chicano, etc,, to include a Major General in the chain of command. It was actually a Black guy who told me that "gooks are all the same." Nice try.. When did I say "oh, he's black, so he must be a diversity hire - so let's keep an eye on him?" Again, nice try. Also, your apparent conclusion that I think "those "differences" do not result in bigotry and discrimination - and go away if you simply ignore those problems," is more indicative of a failure to communicate than anything I might conclude. Like many issues, my point is not that there does not exist a problem, but that what is put forth is anything but a solution. Two wrongs do not make a right. Three lefts do. BSBD, Winsor

Making it about race is an exercise in obfuscation. One of the points that was made in orientation for the pilot's union was that, once you're in you're basically unfireable. I find that unconscionable and never became a member. If we agree that competence and character are the primary considerations by which one should be employed, we are on the same page.

I will credit you with being pedantic regarding the '19 year old kid,' but in context it applies to U.S. Servicemen, not 'white.' I agree that denial of fundamentals rarely works, and I also contend that noting differences between groups of people is not necessarily racist or sexist, and can be counterproductive. For example, people from different geographical locales are to some extent better adapted to the climates (regardless of change) found there. People of arctic heritage in general handle very cold climates better and people from tropical heritage tend to do better in hot climates. None of this is universally true, but it fits with my experience. The 'nature vs. nurture' concept applies as well, where identical twins raised in vastly different environments can have a completely different world view - though they can have a great deal of characteristics in common. The difference between two people with identical ethnicity, one from Alabama and one from Congo can be remarkable, and to have the same expectations of both is unrealistic. Actually, ethnically identical people raised in Manhasset and Bedford Stuyvesant are anything but interchangeable. There are similarly differences between the sexes, both in physiology and temperament.. This is not to say that one group is 'better' than the other, or that these differences are universal, but as a stochastic reality it is demonstrable If a biological man wants to live as a woman, that's his prerogative. The same goes for a woman who wants to live as a man. As a matter of etiquette I'll play along with the role, but when people get excited about a 'man' giving birth, I call bullshit. I prefer to live in an environment where distinctions are largely an abstraction, where the kids and parents in, say, Boy Scouts are from all over Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas, and get along with dignity and respect. That's typical of birthday parties around here as well, though there are girls in the mix. If you think I should get all hung up on these 'differences,' I guess I'll have to disagree with you. BSBD, Winsor