|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Trump Presidency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
What is different about the latest planned attempts? Perhaps it is (Reuters)The victor, the spoils? Trump eyes Afghanistan's elusive mineral riches also found at Newsweek: HOW WILL TRUMP PAY FOR AFGHANISTAN? PRESIDENT WANTS TO TAP MINERALS IN WAR-TORN COUNTRY According to the experts, the problem is lack of transportation and infrastructure to extract these minerals. We will have to spend a trillion to extract these minerals.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Still the same story. Whether the spoils are Opium or Lithium or Copper, there has never been a successful military conquest of Afghanistan. And dropping bombs hardly seems the coast effective way to build the infrastructure needed to exploit those resources.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Thanks for this. The organisation I work for signed an agreement with some Pakistani agency to do exploration very close to the Afghan border. Pay is very good; but while the Pres. of the US threatens people I don't think I'm going to participate in the project. I don't want to be a victim of collateral damage.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
The public reaction is swift.
quote: I read a lot of information on the internet and these days it is becoming more and more challenging to honestly separate propaganda from fact. In the final analysis, the facts are based largely on the perceptions, beliefs, and opinions of the people. Thus, in a sense, deciding what is and is not fake news is a bit like voting. One simply chooses which source to trust and which adequately conforms to their beliefs. Do you have any pointers or suggestions on how you would equip the public to sift through the mass glut and deluge of information, opinion, and written news that we see every day? Edited by Phat, : added quote bracketChance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Phat writes: The most reliable way is to accept scientific consensus.
Do you have any pointers or suggestions on how you would equip the public to sift through the mass glut and deluge of information, opinion, and written news that we see every day?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: Do you have any pointers or suggestions on how you would equip the public to sift through the mass glut and deluge of information, opinion, and written news that we see every day? None that we have not talked about in the past. The first step is that people have to learn how to consciously discriminate. That is not quick or easily done. Remember logic, reason, reality. Logic is a nice tool but it is the lowest, least reliable of the three. Something may be eminently logical but simply fail when tested by reason (reason, NOT preference). Finally reality trumps both reason and logic. You need to separate those hings that are testable and facts from those things that are not testable and simply opinion. Regarding Afghanistan we can list those things that can be called Facts: the resources exist
Factual Problems:the infrastructure needed to exploit the resources does not exist part of the needed infrastructure is a functioning local, state and national government another infrastructure needed is an environment dominated by the rule of law historically none of the items listed when created by war and invasion has had a long lifespan any solution must be made by the Afghans themselves the next step is to try to plan some method to address the problems that has any chance of success. Can it be done? Of course. Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia are great examples. Once the US got out of trying to impose an External Military solution the Vietnamese, Cambodians and Thais developed solutions such that today all three are active trading partners with the US and both the US and each of those nations benefit from the changed process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
According to the experts, the problem is lack of transportation and infrastructure to extract these minerals. We will have to spend a trillion to extract these minerals. He said in the announcement that they won't be there to do nation building. Going to be awful hard to build and secure the infrastructure to exploit those resources without a secure nation.It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined:
|
This is not an example that is going to allow a determination of "fake" or not "fake" news.
It is an opinion piece. To decide if you'll give it some credence yourself you have to apply what you do know from what has happened in the past. For starters, you gotta actually know something. Most of us have only a cursory idea of what has been done and what happened in Afghanistan etc. What I might say if pressed to pick a side in this is:The past use of military has either been too little or too much. We (the west) did enough to disrupt things and then ran or we used the military when it needed a lot of different kinds of intervention. Would I say that we can smash a society down and keep it that way with only the military? Has it worked in the past? Sure, but not often and not indefinitely. How would I react if I was people there? Not well is an answer that you might apply to yourself or your neighbors. Depending on what you think you know about the past and how people react you can pick one of the opinions given. Separately from a guess (opinion, educated or not) on how much sense any action in the middle east makes is the opinion (guess) on what the motivations and timing of this are. That depends on what you think of how Trump thinks. If you actually like this guy you may say he is showing leadership and it is time for him to make this decision. If you are me you can easily be convinced he is grandstanding and trying to redirect attention. But do you or I know his true motives? No, we don't so we construct an opinion. There is no fake or not fake news here. There are expressed opinions with varying amounts of support.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
you can easily be convinced he (Trump) is grandstanding and trying to redirect attention. That's horrible, though! It sounds like an awfully expensive way to divert attention. America cannot afford more wars abroad. We simply need to rebuild our own infrastructure! I have a question for all of you at large: What is it that is so important about what we do overseas? Are we afraid that the world will pass us by and deal without us? Is that why we are hunting terrorists and controlling foreign resources? I fear that Trump is going to bring this country to its knees and that he really doesn't care. He is only concerned about the monied class. Is there any reason to believe that I am overreacting?Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Good, but reread your Message 1114 that I was replying to. Across several paragraphs it was about bad guys showing up to make good guys look bad. Right, and as I've explicitly said: that is a point of principle. I'm not going to get into the specifics of Charlottesville until we can establish the principle first. Your side is prejudging individuals on an unverified perception of being members of a group and that is wrong. If we can't agree on that first, then there isn't much I can say about Charlottesville that wouldn't just be repeating obvious truths - and I'd rather debate than circlejerk. The sentiment from your side is still that if I'm not talking about FUCKING NAZIS then I cannot be talking about anyone that protested the statue removal at Charlottesville - I can't agree to that. Yes, all of the white supremacists are stupid assholes that we should all oppose and tell to fuck off. I'm just not willing to assume that every single person who wanted to protest the removal of the statue was a white supremacists. And apparently I cannot be opposed to prejudice without being lumped in as supporting the bad guys. That's why I have to establish the principle first, otherwise y'all are gonna start calling me a FUCKING NAZI too. Which seems to be all a part of the trick - lump all of them together into one evil group and then throw anyone who doesn't immediately join your side into that group as well. That way, everyone is either with you or against you and then you can fight everyone who doesn't join your side - there are no innocent bystanders, there are no third parties, it is purely the good guys versus the bad guys Apparently, I can't even question that mentality without being accused of supporting the bad guys. No, that is dangerous and evil - maybe even more so than those stupid white supremacists. Considering this grouping, though, I have a question: What, exactly, is a "white nationalist"? Like, if there is a white guy, and he loves his country, does that make him a white nationalist? 'Cause that isn't a big deal, why would they be being lumped in as well?
You just agreed that Charlottesville wasn't a case of bad guys showing up to make good guys look bad, and now you're going back on yourself. I'm not going back on myself, I'm just talking about two different things. It's really not difficult
How you look to others isn't for you to say. If you believe the message of Charlottesville is that messages of hate and exclusion should be called out for what they are then be clear about it. What I see is a nod toward opposing Nazis, then a lot of argument about bad guys making good guys look bad. You *are* pretty much communicating the same message as Trump. If you don't want to look like him, don't join him. Well if that's how you want to play: you're coming off as being just as bigoted as antifa. You'd rather presume that everyone that you think might be in a group is definitely a bad person that we all should hate, and I'm not willing to be an asshole like that. I can't believe that it has to be said that prejudice is wrong. Also, I never said that the people that I am unwilling to assume are bad are actually good guys - I'm just not prejudging them at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Your side is prejudging individuals on an unverified perception of being members of a group and that is wrong. If we can't agree on that first, then there isn't much I can say about Charlottesville that wouldn't just be repeating obvious truths - and I'd rather debate than circlejerk. Well if Black Lives Matter leaders organise a Black Lives Matter march and the crowd that gathers chants Black Lives Matter slogans, carries Black Lives Matter banners at a site where a Black person lost their life through police action - it seems reasonable to infer that as a general rule, anybody marching is likely to agree with the core points of the BLM movement. I think the same applies when White Supremacist leaders organise a right-wing protest, chant white supremacist slogans and carry white supremacist flags... Would you agree with this principle? Obviously it is possible for some people in a march to disagree with those marching - but these would be an anomaly.
The sentiment from your side is still that if I'm not talking about FUCKING NAZIS then I cannot be talking about anyone that protested the statue removal at Charlottesville - I can't agree to that. Yes, all of the white supremacists are stupid assholes that we should all oppose and tell to fuck off. I'm just not willing to assume that every single person who wanted to protest the removal of the statue was a white supremacists. But this wasn't just a protest regarding the removal of a statue. It was a white supremacist protest that used the removal of a statue as a rallying call. There may be people who mistakenly joined thinking it was about the removal of a statue -- but look at the videos. Charlottesville's population is 20% black and 5% Asian. How many non-white faces do you see Marching with the protestors? I see a few, but for the most part they seem to be at the edges - so its difficult to say if they are marching with or just watching. Charlottesville wasn't a general protest that White Supremacists turned up at. It was a White Supremacist march that maybe some non-white-supremacists turned up to. Such people could see the symbols they were marching with, hear the people they marching with. I don't know about you, but I would have stopped marching even if I agreed with the statue thing because I'd have figured out this wasn't about 'uniting the right' or 'preserving history' but about 'far right solidarity / defiance' and would have distanced myself from it. Anyone who didn't risks getting lumped in with the far right - and they have just as much responsibility as those that lump them with the far right. Just as someone who marches with BLM might be lumped as a BLM supporter even if there was another theme they were protesting and they disagree with BLM. It may be 'not technically accurate' to say every individual there agrees with far right views - but by marching with them, they were still supporting a far right march, the far right agenda.
Considering this grouping, though, I have a question: What, exactly, is a "white nationalist"? Like, if there is a white guy, and he loves his country, does that make him a white nationalist? 'Cause that isn't a big deal, why would they be being lumped in as well? There is sometimes a fine line between nationalism, far-right white nationalism, jingoism and patriotism. It depends on the context. If the country's independence is threatened, or it is a puppet state of an Empire then nationalism may be a perfectly understandable independence movement. The Scottish Nationalists for instance tend towards the idea of an independent Scotland. However, in an independent country, such nationalism doesn't make sense. To be counted as a nationalist in this context, you have to be beyond normal 'patriotism' - to the point of xenophobia, racism, and well...into the far-right end of the spectrum basically.
I can't believe that it has to be said that prejudice is wrong. Also, I never said that the people that I am unwilling to assume are bad are actually good guys - I'm just not prejudging them at all. Sure - but if environmentalists organise a protest regarding the building of a pipeline or a highway and you turn up to that particular protest because you think the pipeline should be replaced by an oil catapult, or the highway isn't going to be wide enough - you're probably undermining your own position and its reasonable for people to count you amongst the 'environmentalists' when pointing at the crowd. Prejudging people may be bad, but effective communication sometimes means grouping individuals even as we understand opinions can be nuanced.
quote: If you have 10 nazis and 1 non-nazi standing together in solidarity - it is reasonable to conclude that over there are about a dozen nazis. It's something we all do - including you. For example:
quote: From Message 1114. ALL the counter protesters ALL lumped everyone into one group and they ALL called for violence against ALL the Unite the Right? That is clearly not true, right? That counter-protester in the wheel chair who was surrounded by torch wielding Unite The Right crying for 'Victory' and loudly cooperating to block off escape routes while she tried to find a way out of the situation was calling for violence? Clearly not. But if you want to argue that 'as a group' the counter-protesters called for violence you might have some grounds for the argument. I'd still think you were wrong, but not as wrong as you are. And those that stand with those calling for violence are de facto supporting the calls for violence just as much as those standing with Nazis are de facto Nazi supporters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
New Cat's Eye writes: I'm not going to get into the specifics of Charlottesville until we can establish the principle first. I was never trying to get further into the specifics of Charlottesville. I think violence on any side is deplorable, but we shouldn't let the violence distract us from the true message of Charlottesville: that groups promoting hate and bigotry and exclusion should be opposed wherever they appear. What's so hard about saying that you oppose such groups that you have to invent obstacles to saying it?
Your side... In this discussion I don't really have a side beyond being opposed to those promoting messages of hate, bigotry and exclusion. Why do you think we're on opposite sides? You seem to have painted yourself into a bit of a corner, but I don't think we're on opposite sides.
The sentiment from your side is still that if I'm not talking about FUCKING NAZIS then I cannot be talking about anyone that protested the statue removal at Charlottesville - I can't agree to that. Uh, no. My own personal feeling is that you're equivocating about condemning those responsible for the hate-motivated demonstrations in Charlottesville. Instead you're talking about confusing good guys with bad guys.
Yes, all of the white supremacists are stupid assholes that we should all oppose and tell to fuck off. I'm just not willing to assume that every single person who wanted to protest the removal of the statue was a white supremacists. Not something I ever suggested. But it is very hard to accept that anyone marching with the Unite the Right protestors didn't know who they were marching with and what the message was. It's not like they weren't chanting and carrying signs.
Which seems to be all a part of the trick... There's no trick. If you like your foot in your mouth, well, you put it there, so keep it there if that's what you want.
Apparently, I can't even question that mentality without being accused of supporting the bad guys. That "mentality" is not something you got from anything *I* wrote, but what's apparently true is that you have preconditions (oh, excuse me, "a point of principle") before you'll condemn messages of hate.
Considering this grouping, though, I have a question: What, exactly, is a "white nationalist"? A white nationalist is someone who wants the country to be dominated by whites in terms of governance and culture.
Well if that's how you want to play: you're coming off as being just as bigoted as antifa. Well now you're just being weird, plus Antifa is anti-fascist and anti-racist, not bigoted. I of course oppose Antifa because of their willingness to resort to violence.
You'd rather presume that everyone that you think might be in a group is definitely a bad person that we all should hate, and I'm not willing to be an asshole like that. Actually I was saying something else and didn't take a stand on that issue. My message is that you're using it as an excuse to avoid committing yourself about opposing groups promoting messages of hate. Congratulations on not prejudging anyone, I agree it's an admirable quality. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Phat writes: What is it that is so important about what we do overseas? Are we afraid that the world will pass us by and deal without us? Is that why we are hunting terrorists and controlling foreign resources? If the US holds sway overseas then we can change things in our own national interests. In the post WW II era, the US has been a largely stabilizing force (with a few missteps) on the world stage after decades of atrocious and costly wars that spanned the globe. What would the world look like if the US abandoned this role? Perhaps there would be other major players that would step up and fill that role (e.g. France, UK) in a way that aligned with US values. There could have also been other less desirable nations that stepped forward, such as Russia or China. Perhaps 100 years ago we could have argued for US isolationism, but I don't think that can be argued anymore. What we have is an international "Game of Thrones", and the one way to guarantee a loss is to not play.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
A white nationalist is someone who wants the country to be dominated by whites in terms of governance and culture. Interesting definition. I say that not because I have a problem with your definition. I think you are entirely correct. However, I think the term covers a spectrum of behavior that ranges between something acceptable and something racist in the extreme. You want to be proud of your Anglican or Aryan roots. Well, there is nothing particularly wrong with that. You worry about Hispanics becoming prominent when the ATM asks you what language to use, then you are at another place on the spectrum. You want America to be a completely white nation, and you are ready to fight about it? Then you are at yet another place on the spectrum. Did you drive your car over some anti-Klan protesters in the street... I think you get the picture. One of the things that inhibit discussion on this topic is that folks don't like the lumping that invariably happens. Folks who want to celebrate statues of Robert E. Lee might not feel that they belong anywhere on that spectrum, but likely they would have a hard time convincing me that they aren't smack dab in the middle of it, if not way right. I don't know what New Cat's Eyes's exact issue is. It may be something different from the one I am currently discussing. But given the fact that you and I have disparate views on the subject of historical monuments, but share similar difficulties in getting NCE to explain his position, I am leaning towards blaming any disconnect on his communication skills. He is just not being clear and thus gives the impression of holding back. I suggest that NCE just speak plainly about his position, and ignore the fact that folks like me might think lesser of him. He may get called on that, but at least he will have a chance to explain. But so far, what he says is incoherent. He is requiring folks to guess what he means. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
I don't like it when the ATM asks what language I want to use - but the French are as white as I am. We have more Chinese speakers than French speakers around here. In fact, you can find ATMs that speak Chinese but that's because of the demand, not because it's mandated by law. We also have a statue of Confucius.
You worry about Hispanics becoming prominent when the ATM asks you what language to use, then you are at another place on the spectrum.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024