|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jun 29, 2020 20:33:16 GMT -8
Actually, they know their history TOO well. They are following the classic formula that has propelled the most odious regimes into power. 1) Identify an "other" that most citizens will agree should be persecuted. (e.g. racists) 2) Start the ball rolling with attacks on the easiest targets. 3) When no one objects, expand the attacks - in short order the slightest taint will suffice to justify the harshest of attacks. When it reaches this point, virtually every organization will fall into line - resistance becomes too expensive for any public group or corporation to pay. In the 1950's the "other" was communists. The attacks were initially against communists, which evolved to include "sympathizers". Fortunately that attempt fizzled out for the simple reason that America was too damn prosperous for the threat of communism to be taken that seriously. In the late 1960's, Mao's China suffered through the devastating Cultural Revolution. In that case, the "other" were traditionalists - a category that was easily expanded as the revolution progressed. And, of course, the Germany of the 1930's had the Jews. Over time the doctrine evolved from requiring three Jewish grandparents to just one, and eventually merely being sympathetic to the Jews was enough to cost people their jobs. Now, you might doubt that modern America could possibly have anything in common with Nazi Germany or Maoist China, but I offer a few simple litmus tests which apply. 1. Are there a variety of statements which are objectively anodyne yet are all-but-suicidal to utter? 2. Is it routine for politics and policy to explicitly contradict well established (and formerly uncontroversial) scientific fact? 3. Is "otherness" routinely applied posthumously, even to the heroes of the past? Each of these demonstrates a pathology which any healthy society will reject. Yet you can find examples of all these in Maoist China and Nazi Germany. (You will have to work harder to find the evidence in McCarthyism, simply because that movement failed to achieve the necessary mass.) And you can easily examples of all three pathologies here today. So, count me on the side of preserving the "Civil War" tradition - and anything else that smacks of mob rule. Our republic has little to fear from racists, communists, bourgeoisie, or Jews, but I pray we never underestimate the destruction the mob can bring. What a bunch of paranoid nonsense. I'm unapologetic in proclaiming the so-called "confederate" insurrectionists for what they were. None of them deserve to be seen as "heroes". F**k them and f**k the stupid equestrian statues (mostly erected in the early 20th century) they rode in on. Thanks for letting us all know which side you're on. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Jun 29, 2020 20:59:11 GMT -8
Actually, they know their history TOO well. They are following the classic formula that has propelled the most odious regimes into power. 1) Identify an "other" that most citizens will agree should be persecuted. (e.g. racists) 2) Start the ball rolling with attacks on the easiest targets. 3) When no one objects, expand the attacks - in short order the slightest taint will suffice to justify the harshest of attacks. When it reaches this point, virtually every organization will fall into line - resistance becomes too expensive for any public group or corporation to pay. In the 1950's the "other" was communists. The attacks were initially against communists, which evolved to include "sympathizers". Fortunately that attempt fizzled out for the simple reason that America was too damn prosperous for the threat of communism to be taken that seriously. In the late 1960's, Mao's China suffered through the devastating Cultural Revolution. In that case, the "other" were traditionalists - a category that was easily expanded as the revolution progressed. And, of course, the Germany of the 1930's had the Jews. Over time the doctrine evolved from requiring three Jewish grandparents to just one, and eventually merely being sympathetic to the Jews was enough to cost people their jobs. Now, you might doubt that modern America could possibly have anything in common with Nazi Germany or Maoist China, but I offer a few simple litmus tests which apply. 1. Are there a variety of statements which are objectively anodyne yet are all-but-suicidal to utter? 2. Is it routine for politics and policy to explicitly contradict well established (and formerly uncontroversial) scientific fact? 3. Is "otherness" routinely applied posthumously, even to the heroes of the past? Each of these demonstrates a pathology which any healthy society will reject. Yet you can find examples of all these in Maoist China and Nazi Germany. (You will have to work harder to find the evidence in McCarthyism, simply because that movement failed to achieve the necessary mass.) And you can easily examples of all three pathologies here today. So, count me on the side of preserving the "Civil War" tradition - and anything else that smacks of mob rule. Our republic has little to fear from racists, communists, bourgeoisie, or Jews, but I pray we never underestimate the destruction the mob can bring. Let’s hear your examples of 1, 2, and 3 from present day America. |
|
|
|
Post by 411500 on Jun 29, 2020 21:55:15 GMT -8
bennyskid......somehow, for some reason, I think you have something coherent to say.
It would be helpful to me if you were to re-think, re-write and then tell us in plain English what the hell you're trying to say....
Once we have a clue exactly what you are saying, perhaps we can assess its merits.
From where I stand, what you have written thus far does no justice to any topic. Period.
GO BEAVS!!
|
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Jun 29, 2020 22:11:53 GMT -8
Certainly his test #3 is apparent to all, as figure after figure from our nation's past is being judged and found guilty by the elites of 2020 for simply being products of their times. The modern day purifiers of our culture have moved on from Nathan Bedford Forrest and are now painting with the same brush Teddy Roosevelt, Ulysses S Grant, Woodrow Wilson, and, of course, George Washington. Their sins are presumably large by 21st century standards, but diminish in their severity the further back in time we place ourselves.
Have a look at Grant. He lived in a time when slavery was legal and he was surrounded by it. He fell in love with a woman, Julia Dent, whose father was a slaveholder, which Grant was not. His father in law gifted him a slave, and Grant freed him just as quickly as he deemed it practical to do so. Would that justify rational people tearing down his statue? (I suppose the key word in that question is 'rational.')
During his famous debates with Steven Douglass in 1858, Abraham Lincoln used the 'n' word more than a dozen times. That was perfectly normal verbiage at that time, and not a soul in the audience would have so much as batted an eye. Will the soul of Abraham Lincoln be called next to the docket to answer for this?
Looking forward, America is becoming ever more tolerant of drugs and the drug trade. Perhaps in the next half century, all of them will be legalized and legitimized, and your great grandchildren will routinely buy them at Safeway. Will the elites of 2070 then tear down the statues of those who shouted, "just say no," and replace them with monuments to Pablo Escobar and El Chapo?
Ridiculous notion, right? Well, that's what Americans of the past would have said if they had been told that what is now taking place would be happening in their nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Jun 29, 2020 22:15:26 GMT -8
bennyskid......somehow, for some reason, I think you have something coherent to say. It would be helpful to me if you were to re-think, re-write and then tell us in plain English what the hell you're trying to say.... Once we have a clue exactly what you are saying, perhaps we can assess its merits. From where I stand, what you have written thus far does no justice to any topic. Period. GO BEAVS!! I didn't have any problem following what he was saying, and I think he said it very well indeed. Nice job, bennyskid. |
|
|
|
Post by fridaynightlights on Jun 30, 2020 3:12:08 GMT -8
Actually, they know their history TOO well. They are following the classic formula that has propelled the most odious regimes into power. 1) Identify an "other" that most citizens will agree should be persecuted. (e.g. racists) 2) Start the ball rolling with attacks on the easiest targets. 3) When no one objects, expand the attacks - in short order the slightest taint will suffice to justify the harshest of attacks. When it reaches this point, virtually every organization will fall into line - resistance becomes too expensive for any public group or corporation to pay. In the 1950's the "other" was communists. The attacks were initially against communists, which evolved to include "sympathizers". Fortunately that attempt fizzled out for the simple reason that America was too damn prosperous for the threat of communism to be taken that seriously. In the late 1960's, Mao's China suffered through the devastating Cultural Revolution. In that case, the "other" were traditionalists - a category that was easily expanded as the revolution progressed. And, of course, the Germany of the 1930's had the Jews. Over time the doctrine evolved from requiring three Jewish grandparents to just one, and eventually merely being sympathetic to the Jews was enough to cost people their jobs. Now, you might doubt that modern America could possibly have anything in common with Nazi Germany or Maoist China, but I offer a few simple litmus tests which apply. 1. Are there a variety of statements which are objectively anodyne yet are all-but-suicidal to utter? 2. Is it routine for politics and policy to explicitly contradict well established (and formerly uncontroversial) scientific fact? 3. Is "otherness" routinely applied posthumously, even to the heroes of the past? Each of these demonstrates a pathology which any healthy society will reject. Yet you can find examples of all these in Maoist China and Nazi Germany. (You will have to work harder to find the evidence in McCarthyism, simply because that movement failed to achieve the necessary mass.) And you can easily examples of all three pathologies here today. So, count me on the side of preserving the "Civil War" tradition - and anything else that smacks of mob rule. Our republic has little to fear from racists, communists, bourgeoisie, or Jews, but I pray we never underestimate the destruction the mob can bring. What a bunch of paranoid nonsense. I'm unapologetic in proclaiming the so-called "confederate" insurrectionists for what they were. None of them deserve to be seen as "heroes". F**k them and f**k the stupid equestrian statues (mostly erected in the early 20th century) they rode in on. Thanks for letting us all know which side you're on. Yeah, that is one of the most bizarre, paranoid interpretations of history I have ever read. Somehow we went from discussing then name change of the Oregon vs Oregon State game to Mao and the Nazis... lol On the positive side it may be a good idea for a dystopian science fiction novel. |
|
billsaab
Freshman
Retired. Live in SW Washington on 73/4 Acres.
Posts: 589 
|
Post by billsaab on Jun 30, 2020 5:06:26 GMT -8
This climate is goofy. To erase History is the foolish gestures of a fragmented Culture. I sympathize with Peaceful protests, and all have the right to do that. I do not support Anarchists so I am labeled. This change advances no cause or Family or culture. I think OSU over reacted. I guess I will call it the Civil War and someone else will call it platypus ....
|
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Jun 30, 2020 6:28:02 GMT -8
How many here are offended by John Wayne?
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jun 30, 2020 7:16:39 GMT -8
How many here are offended by John Wayne? Marion Michael Morrison/John Wayne was a great American movie actor. Not sure how that ever merited having an airport renamed in his honor but Orange County did so in 1979. I hope everyone knows that John Wayne never actually did any of those heroic things he was shown doing in films. All of those actions were scripted and all of that memorable dialogue was put in his mouth by Hollywood screenwriters. The real John Wayne (aged 34-37) sat out WW2 with a family deferment. That said, I enjoy watching his movies. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jun 30, 2020 9:25:48 GMT -8
Actually, they know their history TOO well. They are following the classic formula that has propelled the most odious regimes into power. 1) Identify an "other" that most citizens will agree should be persecuted. (e.g. racists) 2) Start the ball rolling with attacks on the easiest targets. 3) When no one objects, expand the attacks - in short order the slightest taint will suffice to justify the harshest of attacks. When it reaches this point, virtually every organization will fall into line - resistance becomes too expensive for any public group or corporation to pay. In the 1950's the "other" was communists. The attacks were initially against communists, which evolved to include "sympathizers". Fortunately that attempt fizzled out for the simple reason that America was too damn prosperous for the threat of communism to be taken that seriously. In the late 1960's, Mao's China suffered through the devastating Cultural Revolution. In that case, the "other" were traditionalists - a category that was easily expanded as the revolution progressed. And, of course, the Germany of the 1930's had the Jews. Over time the doctrine evolved from requiring three Jewish grandparents to just one, and eventually merely being sympathetic to the Jews was enough to cost people their jobs. Now, you might doubt that modern America could possibly have anything in common with Nazi Germany or Maoist China, but I offer a few simple litmus tests which apply. 1. Are there a variety of statements which are objectively anodyne yet are all-but-suicidal to utter? 2. Is it routine for politics and policy to explicitly contradict well established (and formerly uncontroversial) scientific fact? 3. Is "otherness" routinely applied posthumously, even to the heroes of the past? Each of these demonstrates a pathology which any healthy society will reject. Yet you can find examples of all these in Maoist China and Nazi Germany. (You will have to work harder to find the evidence in McCarthyism, simply because that movement failed to achieve the necessary mass.) And you can easily examples of all three pathologies here today. So, count me on the side of preserving the "Civil War" tradition - and anything else that smacks of mob rule. Our republic has little to fear from racists, communists, bourgeoisie, or Jews, but I pray we never underestimate the destruction the mob can bring. Let’s hear your examples of 1, 2, and 3 from present day America. Looks like you're still waiting. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Jun 30, 2020 9:51:13 GMT -8
bennyskid......somehow, for some reason, I think you have something coherent to say. It would be helpful to me if you were to re-think, re-write and then tell us in plain English what the hell you're trying to say.... Once we have a clue exactly what you are saying, perhaps we can assess its merits. From where I stand, what you have written thus far does no justice to any topic. Period. GO BEAVS!! A clear definition of who he thinks "they" are would be a great start. |
|
|
|
Post by bennyorange on Jun 30, 2020 10:37:08 GMT -8
This has become an emotional and polarized issue which mirrors what's going on in the country at large. I tend to lean towards Bennyskid view of reality but I can understand the other viewpoint, especially the viewpoint of those CURRENTLY playing, and can respect their feelings on the matter. I think their feelings are misplaced but feelings aren't "right" or "wrong" and the biggest gripe I have over all this crap is that suddenly an individuals thoughts and feelings are labeled wrong simply because they don't match yours. This seems to be especially true on the liberal left and I like to call it the intolerance of the tolerant. I'm sure I'll get bashed for that but there it is.
I grew up in a conservative middle class white neighborhood, had maybe a handful of black Americans in school prior to OSU, and lived in an all white fraternity so I'm guessing I meet the definition of white privilege. My father was a bit of a bigot but was an otherwise kind, proud and successful human being. He instilled enough love and common sense into me that I gradually saw the fallacy of his bigotry and believe I have moved past that. I've not witnessed much in the way of racial discrimination in my life so it's hard for me to identify with the current level of rage but I think I can understand it - to a point. I truly don't think it is systemic nationwide and frankly I see very little if any of it here in the PAC NW - at least in the valley. The protest has now moved beyond discussion in my opinion and has migrated to more of a "cleansing" of all thought and history that doesn't match the views of those with the current momentum of thought.
I'd be REALLY interested to hear what the true patriarch of this page - Mr Richard M. Taylor (aka Beavermobile) would have to say. To be honest his opinion could possibly go a long ways towards changing mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jun 30, 2020 10:57:05 GMT -8
This has become an emotional and polarized issue which mirrors what's going on in the country at large. I tend to lean towards Bennyskid view of reality but I can understand the other viewpoint, especially the viewpoint of those CURRENTLY playing, and can respect their feelings on the matter. I think they're feelings are misplaced but feelings aren't "right" or "wrong" and the biggest gripe I have over all this crap is that suddenly an individuals thoughts and feelings are labeled wrong simply because they don't match yours. This seems to be especially true on the liberal left and I like to call it the intolerance of the tolerant. I'm sure I'll get bashed for that but there it is. I grew up in a conservative middle class white neighborhood, had maybe a handful of black Americans in school prior to OSU, and lived in an all white fraternity so I'm guessing I meet the definition of white privilege. My father was a bit of a bigot but was an otherwise kind, proud and successful human being. He instilled enough love and common sense into me that I gradually saw the fallacy of his bigotry and believe I have moved past that. I've not witnessed much in the way of racial discrimination in my life so it's hard for me to identify with the current level of rage but I think I can understand it - to a point. I truly don't think it is systemic nationwide and frankly I see very little if any of it here in the PAC NW - at least in the valley. The protest has now moved beyond discussion in my opinion and has migrated to more of a "cleansing" of all thought and history that doesn't match the views of those with the current momentum of thought. I'd be REALLY interested to hear what the true patriarch of this page - Mr Richard M. Taylor (aka Beavermobile) would have to say. To be honest his opinion could possibly go a long ways towards changing mine.I don't recall Beavermobile being overly political. He might say gargle my sack or you need a cock punch or something along those lines to a lot of posters here. |
|
