This is what emboldened white supremacists look like
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
I'm fool, I don't have a narrative.
It protested a get a green card game show.
Not a big stretch.
The assumption that impacting illegal immigration would be contrary to their interests because they're Latino is itself a bit...Trumplematic.lain:
So, answer the question.
Does building a wall on the border with Mexico and deporting the Illegals Impact Latinos?
Quote Originally Posted by northwye View Post
"The political correctness movement came out of the work of the Transformational Marxist Frankfurt School on the correlates of the "Authoritarian Personality." They were interested in studying the personality traits of the potential fascist...
So you're basically just here to conspiracy blog. Okay>"
This is an example of use of the dialectic rather than being a substantive argument. And it is not a good idea to get into a quarrel over such a use of the dialectic."
It is possible to carry on a dialectic quarrel over this issue of political correctness developing out of Marxism and specifically out of the Frankfurt School Marxism in the work of Adorno and his crew on the Authoritarian Personality research and the book published in 1950 without having any knowledge of this subject. All you have to know is know is how to use some of the tactics of the dialectic.
And part of the use of the dialectic without having knowledge of the topic argued about is to try to keep your opponent from bringing in information on the topic or on the dialectic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic
Dialectic (also dialectics and the dialectical method), from Ancient Greek διαλεκτική, is a method of argument.....The word dialectic originated in ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato in the Socratic dialogues."
"In classical philosophy, dialectic (Greek: διαλεκτική) is a form of reasoning based upon dialogue of arguments and counter-arguments, advocating propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
"The phrase was widely used in the debate about Allan Bloom's 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind,[4][6][15][16] and gained further currency in response to Roger Kimball's Tenured Radicals (1990),[4][6][17][18] and conservative author Dinesh D'Souza's 1991 book Illiberal Education, in which he condemned what he saw as liberal efforts to advance self-victimization, multiculturalism through language, affirmative action, and changes to the content of school and university curricula."
"In the early-to-mid 20th century, the phrase "politically correct" was associated with the dogmatic application of Stalinist doctrine, debated between Communist Party members and American Socialists. This usage referred to the Communist party line, which provided "correct" positions on many political matters."
"In the 1970s, the American New Left began using the term "politically correct".[29] In the essay The Black Woman: An Anthology (1970), Toni Cade Bambara said that "a man cannot be politically correct and a [male] chauvinist, too."
https://www.themarketswork.com/2017/02/16/the-goal-of-political-correctness/
"The Frankfurt School – which fled Germany when Hitler rose to power – took Gramsci’s teachings and then applied them to American Society. The goal of the Frankfurt School was to move America gradually to the Left using the precepts of Gramsci’s Counter Hegemony and the practice of Critical Theory – a social theory of critiquing and changing society as a whole.
George Lukacs, one of the original founders of the Institute of Social Research – which later became the Frankfurt School – utilized the idea that “commodity exchange” had become the central organizing principle for all sectors of society – and led to the creation of their institutions.
Theodor Adorno, one of the Frankfurt School’s leaders, took this theory and reshaped it. To Adorno, capitalism had transcended mere organizing principals and had instead transformed society and culture into the very mechanisms by which order – and capitalism – was maintained. Institutions and culture now created capitalism. Adorno felt that what had once been separate and distinct aspects – culture, politics and the economic market – were now merging to maintain the whole. Culture was no longer a by-product or a coincident part of capitalism – Culture perpetuated capitalism. This led Adorno to view the nature of modern culture as the enabler of a capitalist society – and a belief that it must be overthrown for humanity to achieve its full potential. Already the author of three influential books, this philosophy led Adorno to co-write The Authoritarian Personality which argued that the epitome of psychological health was the “genuine liberal” — an individual completely free of all groups, including race, family and institutions – and anyone who defended traditional culture was inherently a Fascist.
The Authoritarian Personality was an attack on Western Values at its most basic core – the family as a patriarchal unit. Adorno used a very simple but odd premise – and one not supported by research. The traditional family model – mixed with religion in a capitalist society – created an individual who was prone to racial prejudice and ultimately fascism. Adorno believed that traditional parenting used authoritarian techniques which caused children to feel anger towards their parents. At the same time, fear of parental disapproval or punishment kept children from directly confronting their parents, invoking repression and ultimately leading children to identify with and idolize authority figures. These individuals were then pre-disposed to fascist governments which in turn produced hostility towards racial, religious or ethnic minorities. Said another way, if children were raised traditionally, they would hold hostile and aggressive tendencies towards authority figures – tendencies that could not be acted on or overtly addressed. As a result, this hostility and aggressiveness generated authoritarian personalities in children – leading to inherent hostility towards racial, religious or ethnic minorities. In Adorno’s view, the traditional family produced a society defined by racism and inequality and was therefore deserving of overthrow. The book has been the subject of considerable criticism for poor methodology and research but it has also been enormously influential."
http://arcofcc.freeservers.com/Documents/pc.html
"The Historical Roots of "Political Correctness," by Raymond V. Raehn"
"America as a nation is now dominated by an alien system of beliefs, attitudes and values that has become known as Political Correctness. It seeks to impose a uniformity in thought and behavior among all Americans and is therefore totalitarian in nature. It has its roots in the ideology of Marxism which requires a radical inversion of the prevailing traditional culture by cultural Marxism in order to achieve a social revolution. Such a social revolution is the kind envisioned by Karl Marx as an inversion of the social order and a commensurate inversion of the structure of power."
"It so happens that when the Frankfurt School's book The Authoritarian Personalty authored by Theodor Adorno, et al and edited by Max Horkheimer was published in 1950, it was a seminal event because of its substantial impact on American social psychologists and social scientists of the day. It was one of a series of books entitled Studies on Prejudice. It evolved from a simplified formula developed by the Frankfurt School in Europe. Christianity plus capitalism plus the patriarchal authoritarian family created a type of character that was prone to racial prejudice and German fascism. After the Frankfurt School group of social revolutionaries came to America in the mid-1930's, they looked around and observed an America that was Christian, capitalist and with patriarchal families so they sensed there was potential for some kind of authoritarian regime as came about in the Hitlerian Germany they had left. As a result of these circumstances, The Authoritarian Personalty came to serve as an ideological handbook for a national campaign against any kind of prejudice or discrimination on the theory that if these evils were not eradicated, another Holocaust might ensue. Political Correctness evolved from that milieu.
What had begun with the founding of the Frankfurt School in 1924 as destructive criticism of the elements of Western culture had ended in The Authoritarian Personality as a psychological method for pathologizing any evidence of religious, cultural or racial superiority in the thinking and behavior among the American majority. No single religion was to be superior. No single culture was to be superior. And no single race was to be superior. And so multiculturalism was invented. And then no single sex was to be superior. And with nothing superior, there was nothing to value. It was to be a matter of choice by the individual self since there was to be no higher authority than the self. This is the very essence of Political Correctness. It serves as the means to conduct the psychic decapitation of any potential leader who might seek to unify Americans on the basis of a shared religion, culture or race. Americans were to be kept fragmented by this radical individualism and subjected to a national condition of cognitive dissonance. meaning massive confusion over beliefs and values. Then America could be treated as one vast psychopathic ward and controlled accordingly."
"The political correctness movement came out of the work of the Transformational Marxist Frankfurt School on the correlates of the "Authoritarian Personality." They were interested in studying the personality traits of the potential fascist...
So you're basically just here to conspiracy blog. Okay>"
This is an example of use of the dialectic rather than being a substantive argument. And it is not a good idea to get into a quarrel over such a use of the dialectic."
It is possible to carry on a dialectic quarrel over this issue of political correctness developing out of Marxism and specifically out of the Frankfurt School Marxism in the work of Adorno and his crew on the Authoritarian Personality research and the book published in 1950 without having any knowledge of this subject. All you have to know is know is how to use some of the tactics of the dialectic.
And part of the use of the dialectic without having knowledge of the topic argued about is to try to keep your opponent from bringing in information on the topic or on the dialectic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic
Dialectic (also dialectics and the dialectical method), from Ancient Greek διαλεκτική, is a method of argument.....The word dialectic originated in ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato in the Socratic dialogues."
"In classical philosophy, dialectic (Greek: διαλεκτική) is a form of reasoning based upon dialogue of arguments and counter-arguments, advocating propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
"The phrase was widely used in the debate about Allan Bloom's 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind,[4][6][15][16] and gained further currency in response to Roger Kimball's Tenured Radicals (1990),[4][6][17][18] and conservative author Dinesh D'Souza's 1991 book Illiberal Education, in which he condemned what he saw as liberal efforts to advance self-victimization, multiculturalism through language, affirmative action, and changes to the content of school and university curricula."
"In the early-to-mid 20th century, the phrase "politically correct" was associated with the dogmatic application of Stalinist doctrine, debated between Communist Party members and American Socialists. This usage referred to the Communist party line, which provided "correct" positions on many political matters."
"In the 1970s, the American New Left began using the term "politically correct".[29] In the essay The Black Woman: An Anthology (1970), Toni Cade Bambara said that "a man cannot be politically correct and a [male] chauvinist, too."
https://www.themarketswork.com/2017/02/16/the-goal-of-political-correctness/
"The Frankfurt School – which fled Germany when Hitler rose to power – took Gramsci’s teachings and then applied them to American Society. The goal of the Frankfurt School was to move America gradually to the Left using the precepts of Gramsci’s Counter Hegemony and the practice of Critical Theory – a social theory of critiquing and changing society as a whole.
George Lukacs, one of the original founders of the Institute of Social Research – which later became the Frankfurt School – utilized the idea that “commodity exchange” had become the central organizing principle for all sectors of society – and led to the creation of their institutions.
Theodor Adorno, one of the Frankfurt School’s leaders, took this theory and reshaped it. To Adorno, capitalism had transcended mere organizing principals and had instead transformed society and culture into the very mechanisms by which order – and capitalism – was maintained. Institutions and culture now created capitalism. Adorno felt that what had once been separate and distinct aspects – culture, politics and the economic market – were now merging to maintain the whole. Culture was no longer a by-product or a coincident part of capitalism – Culture perpetuated capitalism. This led Adorno to view the nature of modern culture as the enabler of a capitalist society – and a belief that it must be overthrown for humanity to achieve its full potential. Already the author of three influential books, this philosophy led Adorno to co-write The Authoritarian Personality which argued that the epitome of psychological health was the “genuine liberal” — an individual completely free of all groups, including race, family and institutions – and anyone who defended traditional culture was inherently a Fascist.
The Authoritarian Personality was an attack on Western Values at its most basic core – the family as a patriarchal unit. Adorno used a very simple but odd premise – and one not supported by research. The traditional family model – mixed with religion in a capitalist society – created an individual who was prone to racial prejudice and ultimately fascism. Adorno believed that traditional parenting used authoritarian techniques which caused children to feel anger towards their parents. At the same time, fear of parental disapproval or punishment kept children from directly confronting their parents, invoking repression and ultimately leading children to identify with and idolize authority figures. These individuals were then pre-disposed to fascist governments which in turn produced hostility towards racial, religious or ethnic minorities. Said another way, if children were raised traditionally, they would hold hostile and aggressive tendencies towards authority figures – tendencies that could not be acted on or overtly addressed. As a result, this hostility and aggressiveness generated authoritarian personalities in children – leading to inherent hostility towards racial, religious or ethnic minorities. In Adorno’s view, the traditional family produced a society defined by racism and inequality and was therefore deserving of overthrow. The book has been the subject of considerable criticism for poor methodology and research but it has also been enormously influential."
http://arcofcc.freeservers.com/Documents/pc.html
"The Historical Roots of "Political Correctness," by Raymond V. Raehn"
"America as a nation is now dominated by an alien system of beliefs, attitudes and values that has become known as Political Correctness. It seeks to impose a uniformity in thought and behavior among all Americans and is therefore totalitarian in nature. It has its roots in the ideology of Marxism which requires a radical inversion of the prevailing traditional culture by cultural Marxism in order to achieve a social revolution. Such a social revolution is the kind envisioned by Karl Marx as an inversion of the social order and a commensurate inversion of the structure of power."
"It so happens that when the Frankfurt School's book The Authoritarian Personalty authored by Theodor Adorno, et al and edited by Max Horkheimer was published in 1950, it was a seminal event because of its substantial impact on American social psychologists and social scientists of the day. It was one of a series of books entitled Studies on Prejudice. It evolved from a simplified formula developed by the Frankfurt School in Europe. Christianity plus capitalism plus the patriarchal authoritarian family created a type of character that was prone to racial prejudice and German fascism. After the Frankfurt School group of social revolutionaries came to America in the mid-1930's, they looked around and observed an America that was Christian, capitalist and with patriarchal families so they sensed there was potential for some kind of authoritarian regime as came about in the Hitlerian Germany they had left. As a result of these circumstances, The Authoritarian Personalty came to serve as an ideological handbook for a national campaign against any kind of prejudice or discrimination on the theory that if these evils were not eradicated, another Holocaust might ensue. Political Correctness evolved from that milieu.
What had begun with the founding of the Frankfurt School in 1924 as destructive criticism of the elements of Western culture had ended in The Authoritarian Personality as a psychological method for pathologizing any evidence of religious, cultural or racial superiority in the thinking and behavior among the American majority. No single religion was to be superior. No single culture was to be superior. And no single race was to be superior. And so multiculturalism was invented. And then no single sex was to be superior. And with nothing superior, there was nothing to value. It was to be a matter of choice by the individual self since there was to be no higher authority than the self. This is the very essence of Political Correctness. It serves as the means to conduct the psychic decapitation of any potential leader who might seek to unify Americans on the basis of a shared religion, culture or race. Americans were to be kept fragmented by this radical individualism and subjected to a national condition of cognitive dissonance. meaning massive confusion over beliefs and values. Then America could be treated as one vast psychopathic ward and controlled accordingly."
Sure you do. Everyone does.
See, that's how I know your narrative precludes a degree of objectivity. They objected because and you omit that, which is important.
That's your narrative.
I'm genuinely sad that you believe the reasonable answer to that is yes in a way that prejudices a judge.
Black Lives Matters impacts white people. Can you be fair in considering them? And so on...
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Sorry, but I'm full up talking to the other fool.
I don't know how to tell you this, but not everyone who is Mexican is Latino and many who are Latino aren't Mexican. And everything that impacts you isn't necessarily something you champion. For instance, if your organization objects to encouraging illegal immigration you aren't then reasonably protective of illegal immigrants, even if they're Latino.
Gun violence impacts Latinos. Which position is then inherently pro Latino, pro or anti gun ownership? And so on.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
So it's much like your honesty, rationality or ability to see beyond a sentence.
You're nearly a sympathetic character...and wouldn't that be something.
You didn't answer the question:
That's not an answer to the question, that's an appeal to the consequence of one of the answers.
I'm not interested in which answer makes you sad, i'm interested in whether or not you think:
Trump is running for President on a platform that includes building a wall on the Mexican border and deporting the Illegals.
Do you think those things "Impact the Latino Community"?
If I did then you'd have your answer.
That's not an answer to the question, that's an appeal to the consequence of one of the answers.
I'm not interested in which answer makes you sad, i'm interested in whether or not you think:
Trump is running for President on a platform that includes building a wall on the Mexican border and deporting the Illegals.
Do you think those things "Impact the Latino Community"?
Do I belong to an Organization trying to deport them?
If I did then you'd have your answer.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Spreading this gospel?
You post stoning photos yet some of your coreligionists would quite willingly see a Christian version of Sharia.
So then just your own personal interpretation of religious barbarism.
Here's more:
It's framing the question in the context that gives it meaning. If you didn't believe that you'd have no point in asking the question.
I think that absent the inference I noted it's too broad a question to be meaningful. That's why I gave you a couple of serious examples on the point. Things impact us that don't necessarily taint our perception or require our support. We can oppose impactful things as well. Crime impacts us. It impacts Latinos. Can Latino lawyers be fair in their judgment of a crime? Of course.
And you give me reason beyond the problem of generality absent that context. You reduced/edited the actual response of La Raza to the game show in a way that doesn't make sense if you mean to see it fairly. They didn't object to game shows. They objected to the impact of it and you left that out. Goes to that narrative of yours and how its distorting you on the point.
The judge doesn't belong to an organization that supports illegal immigration. It objected to the game show BECAUSE they felt it encouraged illegal immigration.
Their letter objected that the game show in question:
"functions as a magnet to encourage people to enter this country without documentation."
Not until after I answered the question. I switched to all-caps to reiterate the detail which I've said many times that obviates your question, which you've been deliberately dodging all along.
There's no requirement anywhere in the law that the judge be free of any conceivable interest in the outcome of a case. I wonder who you think could have been objective.
And Trump didn't have to say the foolish things he said. There's no standard that says you can insult a judge and get some kind of relief by doing it.
I answered you foolish question, now answer my less foolish one:
A judge is a member of the NRA. A case comes before him challenging an assault weapon ban. Should he recused himself? Let's not have you try to change the subject to deporting guns this time.
As did Trump's comment. You're trying to substitute membership in La Raza as if that's what Trump was complaining about.
Did the judge bring that up in court or something? Because otherwise, I don't see how it's relevant. Judges are entitled to their perspectives, and unless they substitute those preferences for the law, there's nothing to complain about.
Are you gonna answer the question?
I did and more. You just have to read it. Impact doesn't carry a conflict inherently. I've set that case out clearly enough. You need to find the conflict and bias in the group you think would taint the judge. So far you haven't suggested it. And without it you're not asking a question that has meaning.
Or you're asking one no more meaningful or directive than, "Does crime impact Latinos?" Sure. Does that mean their desire to respond to it is a conflict of interest? Of course not. Not without a great deal more.
So?
I wonder if more of the people here who are promoting the Marxist Left are part of the Millennial Generation, born from the early eighties to the early 2000's? If so, that would fit the dominance of the Millennials in the Marxist Left nationally in 2016-2017.
And could it be that the Millennials are more caught up in the use of the dialectic, and do not know what the dialectic is? If true, this does not mean that the people on TOL who are older than the Millennials are free of the dialectic.
There probably are many people from the two Baby Boomer age groups on TOL. The oldest Baby boomers are now about 61 to 70. They are mostly the children of the World War II age group. Then there are the younger Baby Boomers who are mostly the children of the Korean War age group. These younger Baby Boomers were born from about 1956 to 1964 and are now about 53 to 61. There was another generation between the youngest Baby Boomers and the Millennials, born from about 1965 to 1980, sometimes called the Generation X people.
It would not be surprising that the influence of Marxism and of the dialectic increases from the oldest Baby Boomers to the Millennials, while the influence of Marxism and the dialectic upon Americans born before about 1946 was confined to a very few people.
Look at the people who began the present day populist and patriot movement, who, if known by the Marxist Millennials, are highly disliked. Ron Paul was born in 1935, almost a member of the Korean War age group. Then there were the short wave broadcasters of the nineties. William Cooper was maybe the oldest of this group, born in 1943. I don't know when Steve Quayle was born, but probably also in the early forties. Larry Nichols was born in 1951 and Mark Koernke in 1957.
And could it be that the Millennials are more caught up in the use of the dialectic, and do not know what the dialectic is? If true, this does not mean that the people on TOL who are older than the Millennials are free of the dialectic.
There probably are many people from the two Baby Boomer age groups on TOL. The oldest Baby boomers are now about 61 to 70. They are mostly the children of the World War II age group. Then there are the younger Baby Boomers who are mostly the children of the Korean War age group. These younger Baby Boomers were born from about 1956 to 1964 and are now about 53 to 61. There was another generation between the youngest Baby Boomers and the Millennials, born from about 1965 to 1980, sometimes called the Generation X people.
It would not be surprising that the influence of Marxism and of the dialectic increases from the oldest Baby Boomers to the Millennials, while the influence of Marxism and the dialectic upon Americans born before about 1946 was confined to a very few people.
Look at the people who began the present day populist and patriot movement, who, if known by the Marxist Millennials, are highly disliked. Ron Paul was born in 1935, almost a member of the Korean War age group. Then there were the short wave broadcasters of the nineties. William Cooper was maybe the oldest of this group, born in 1943. I don't know when Steve Quayle was born, but probably also in the early forties. Larry Nichols was born in 1951 and Mark Koernke in 1957.
Typical ad hominem argument from someone who hasn't any idea what he's talking about.
Great post that deserves more discussion
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Typical denial of what's right there in black and white.
Nick posts photos of stonings as well as the executions of homosexuals while his coreligionists approve of the same things (under their rules, of course).
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
short answer - he doesn't
of course he's not - answering it honestly, clearly and briefly (while being against his core values) would convict him
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
well, no
| The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association (SDLRLA), the group which Trump University lawsuit Judge Gonzalo Curiel is a member of, considers various pro-illegal immigrant organizations as part of its “community.” http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/06/m...f-san-diego-consider-part-of-their-community/ |
is the judge a member of a group that promotes lawlessness?
as it so happens, yes
Last edited: