Did you feel, act, and speak this way when the Rittenhouse situation was in the news? What about George Floyd? Zimmerman?
If you truly did and said these things during all these same cases, then you have my respect. Chances are that you didn’t though. No one needs to speculate without facts, but MOST people did in almost every one of these cases. They didn’t wait for facts; often times deliberately stating that there is no need to wait for facts, jumping straight to conclusions of racism. I even stopped following a couple die-hard conservatives when they jumped to conclusions about the Floyd case.
I actually didn’t care because all I saw was two dead perverts.
I had nothing invested either way in both cases. Of course the Floyd situation looked bad and I believed at the time the cop didn’t need to restrain him in that manner, but that is pretty much an objective fact. I certainly didn’t jump to racism as his motivation. Whites have not been immune to police brutality. I still wouldn’t say the cop was racist as no evidence, as far as I know, has been presented in that regard.
My criticisms of Zimmerman had to do with him playing sheriff and putting himself in a lethal force situation when it wasn’t necessary. Is he a racist? I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure he’s a piece of garbage.
Leftists across time and space have always believed this. It is hard to pin down what a core leftists belief even is, but I think this is one of them. This is a base assumption through which all manner of ill-conceived policy and rhetoric flows.
I wish you grace and good will this Christmas season, @zecarlo.
This is false. Politicians and other leaders have made careers off of this, regardless of affiliation. Machiavelli was no leftist, the concept didn’t exist at the time, invalidating your whole across space and time comment, and he wrote about how kings take advantage of the weaknesses of men.
Since you are talking about politics within the past 100 years or so, if we limit ourselves to the left and right spectrum in America, if we accept what you posted as true, then who voted for those making those policies? By your reasoning, they would be idiots. Hmmmmm…
And let’s not forget the Pareto Principle and Mosca’s elite theory.
Speaking of Jesus, for whose sins was he crucified?
Your words, not mine. I disagree vehemently. I believe most people are quite capable of navigating life while maintaining a decent moral compass and carving out a productive role for themselves.
Modern conservative policies reject your idea. There is a very compelling and concise one-word argument for the situation in 2021 going into 2022 in the USA.
It means that modern conservatives reject your idea that most people are weak and stupid. It’s not just me.
They do so overwhelmingly, in many meaningful ways.
If I believed most people are weak and stupid I would not support the idea of making sure they have the right to defend themselves using modern firearms in common use.
If I believed most people are weak and stupid, I would not support shall-issue concealed carry permitting in Cook County, Illinois or anywhere else in the country.
If I believed most people are weak and stupid I would not have any opposition to mandating medical treatments.
If I believed most people are weak and stupid I would be in favor of more censorship across all forms of media.
If I believed most people are weak and stupid I would consider it my duty to present information to them in a way that assumes that they are weak and stupid.
If I believed most people are weak and stupid I would definitely vote Democrat.
These examples are just a glimpse of where the ill-conceived assumption that people are weak and stupid can lead to in modern society.
Christianity is based on the assumption that most, if not all, people are weak and stupid. Think of Jesus’s last words on the cross.
No, it doesn’t. It means that those elites who push those so called modern conservative beliefs, which are really liberal ideas without the nasty L word attached, feel that any negative consequences are worth it and/or feel that regardless, they won’t be affected. If all those conservative elites lived in Chicago or Philadelphia, they might think differently.
And as far as censorship goes, when you are the weaker group of course you wouldn’t want censorship since it will be the stronger imposing it upon you. But, if that weaker group gets into power then things change.
But you are free to believe in utopia, just keep in mind what it takes to maintain utopia when it’s thought to have been achieved.
I don’t think this is even close to correct. You’d have to cite to more than Jesus’ last words for this proposition if you want to persuade anyone. There is a related idea in Calvinism that everyone is totally depraved and incapable of redemption on his/her own, but Calvinism is only one strand of Christian thought, and certainly not the largest in terms of followers, even among Protestants.
Regardless, Western civilization, and certainly the Anglo-American tradition, assumes that people are rational beings capable of processing information. This is arguably the basis for the First Amendment and arguably the Second.
Or what they have been told is their best interest.
The concepts of forgiveness and repentance exist not because of what we might do but because of what we will inevitably do.
We can consider what Madison said about men not being angels.
And if most people were smart and strong, this forum wouldn’t be filled with posters complaining. We have basically two tribes in this country and each one calls the other a group of morons. Fox news exists to call liberals dumb asses. Look at our recent presidents: Bush, Obama, Trump and now Biden, are all considered idiots by the other side and sometimes their own side as well.
Yeah, good luck with that. The government doesn’t need to take guns or use guns to bring people to their knees. They can just shut off the internet. This isn’t Colonial America or 19th century France.
There you go again with the whole “weak and stupid” thing again. If the internet went down, it would certainly be more boring - but by no means would it bring me to my knees. I think most people, if faced with the option of “comply or we’ll cut off your internet” would eventually choose to lose their internet over their rights.
That’s not a relevant question at this point. We are talking about the government’s ability to control the population without resorting to the use of guns. And if you want to talk guns, ask the Confederacy how it worked out when they tried to fight the federal government.
I truly do not understand how this ISNT relevant. Only allowing vaccinated people to work or participate in society, pandering mandates to only impact small businesses so we can promote MOAR BIG BISNESSES, I dont see how this isn’t relevant at all to be honest. I could give a fuck less if the govt said “comply or lose your internet” because i’d just choose to go without internet. But telling me that my daughter cannot attend school because I haven’t gotten her vaccinated? Please tell me more about “the government’s ability to control the population without resorting to the use of guns”.
But that’s not what this thread is about, so i’ll not derail it any further.