tobetrained

extremism is for sure, both on the conservative side and liberal/progressive side. In that, both are increasing as responses to each other. It's only when we choose to take non-extreme positions that things settle down.

I do this all the time. I love it. It's not that I'm trying to make them feel stupid. It's that I want them to want to look into the crap they say. In that, it's no different than people -- regularly -- telling me I have little emotion. They say things like, "I want you to want to care about [some stupid obnoxious thing]." To answer your Q, 9 outta 10, social media is the answer, sadly.

"caught in the act"? He was the administration rep there. No one -- even the players via media training -- believes locker room celebrations are private. There are player PR reps, team and admin PR monkeys, and on it goes. This is outrage for the sake of it.

Sometimes we really let politics cloud our judgements. Just a quick AI search for the 2018 World Cup semi-Final between England and Belgium, @PrisonbaiT: Q: Did any Belgian dignitaries go to the 2018 world cup semifinal or 3rd place match? A: "Several Belgian dignitaries attended the 2018 FIFA World Cup matches, including the semifinal against France and the third-place match against England. Notably, Belgian Prime Minister Aleksander De Croo and King Philippe of Belgium were present at the semifinals." Q: Who paid for their travel? A: "The travel expenses for Belgian dignitaries, such as Prime Minister Alexandre De Croo and King Philippe, were typically covered by the Belgian government. This includes official trips made for national representation during significant events like the FIFA World Cup. Public officials attending such events often have their costs covered as part of their duties to support their national teams, promote national pride, and engage in diplomatic relations."

The best part of the Olympics was a) beating Canada 2 TIMES in OT gold medal games. Oh, and the dog...maybe doggie was best. Twice. 2-1. HUGS! I think administration representatives (as well as celebrities) get access to the dressing room in nearly all major sporting event finals.

Possibly. I guess, in general, I'm trying to get across: people can sell/trade goods or services without a government. It was my understanding the thought was a government was required for that. That is, a person can provide barber services and cut hair without the inherent need of a government to authorize that exchange -- either a sale (exchange of service with currency) or trade (chickens and a bacon slab). As far as the Federal government, generically, I'm not as opposed as you. This could be a bit reductionist, no?: There absolutely was a negotiation to connect the colonies into a greater whole. But simply put, the effort (break away from the British Monarchy) would have failed unless that happened. The knock-on effects of that failure are profound: Would European countries, e.g. France, made an effort with the same level belief to overthrow their monarchies? The American win sent shock waves across that continent. The pressure from these freedom movements spurred change even among monarchies which included ending slavery. Would those changes have still happened? If the wealth of the American colonies had stayed in control of the British Monarchy, would the king have established Parliament? So maybe all would have played out better...but maybe worse. Maybe just a different kind of stupid? haha.

As long as people feel like they're getting something, I don't think they care! I'm not opposed to some of these stuff in that stimulus -- as a response to a crisis. But it was the epitome of irresponsible government to not unwind some of them as COVID itself no long was an existential threat -- do to vaccine(s). And really, given timing, to implement them in the first place as vaccines were around as Biden took office...these programs were later. AS far as "cost today", generic inflation 2019 to 2026 is +27%. But I'm still annoyed our government's goal is 2% per year... that's still growth. Deflation is tough but is also necessary to manage affordability.

If we could get past white nationalism and white latte liberalism, there's likely a real broader societal convo to be had. Doubt it will ever happen. Maybe.

Not really, this is conceit of liberal politics simply to apply a bit of self-loathing. First, you're classifying all Native Americans into one homogeneous group, which they're not. Native Americans were a disparate set of many nomadic and semi-nomadic nations are some more sedentary states. Some where violent, some were peaceful. We don't have details as writing was not prevalent. Second, you're picking an arbitrary timeline of what determines "american-ness." I'll point out here, the term was actually European. Native Americans had no classification for the Western Hemisphere,or the Americas, as most knew not the extent of it let alone anything beyond to need a term. And, Native Americans are actually not native either. The human race is entirely African migrants. Third, I would hope you would apply this logic -- your design on American-ness -- to places like India, the Balkan countries, and various Turk-dominant areas. Most of the populations there, like North America, are migrant interlopers with movements during the last 1500+ years, in our collective historical period. Not all these migrations were positive. The Balkans, for instance, is the location of many Slavic peoples which originate in the forest zone of central Russia. Most were brought there as their namesake term -- as slaves. Fourth, and most importantly, grouping people by the color of their skin or their ethnic culture in terms of some value -- here, "american-ness" -- is pure racism. It is multi-directional and can be self-directed to a person's own race.

Well, then, let's leave it at racism is racism. Extremism begets extremism.

What does this quote mean?

@BlindRawFucker1 for myself, no knives to throw. Anyone across both continents are Americans. But words can have multiple meanings too. Americans was a term designated by the British to those that migrated to their original American colonies, Canada was barely settled at the time and the Spanish/Portuguese dominated areas to the south of these colonies. In this, It was a way to create a "they're not us" epithet applied to people who migrated by those that stayed in England/UK or even Europe more broadly. It then became a term of achievement for those who came here starting in mid-19th century...in search for freedom. It is the rationale of this move that was the subject of the video and convo. What freedom had they been looking for and why.

@KinshipLab I'd agree with that completely. I'm not sure why you feel my comment, if it was my comment, precluded that.

@tallslenderguy we agree on that on things we disagree! and there's nothing wrong with that. I understand how you feel that way. It's not that I see just a fire in the fireplace, but I recognize that -- during the Biden administration and in culture more broadly -- other people felt the same way. What I see: two political sides who want to burn each other's house down, and do so when they get the chance. Life in today's politically-charged and polarized world is coping between two political extremes. I choose not to be outraged.

Hmmm... I understand how you got to laiz a faire, but I wouldn't call it that. To say that, I think, one would have to say there should be no restrictions "just cuz." I'm not doing that. Here's a medical analogy: Let's say someone falls down and gets hurt. You see a gash on their head and they say it hurts. You give them a couple ibuprofen. But you can't see the internal bruising elsewhere nor know their clotting problem. So now you've made things worse in your attempt to fix a real problem. [let's assume these descriptions actually make medical sense???] I'm making the case fixing the money issue is the ibuprofen. The backroom deals of political influence are left unchecked and overcome all else. And that's before you get to the corporate messaging on issues. Outside of the analogy, I look at candidate financing not as a corruption additive to backroom influence, it's an offset...like two waves which can cancel each other out (to some degree). And importantly, large contribution are public knowledge -- you know about Musk, Soros, etc. -- and can backfire as much as help. Backroom influence from special interest groups are in the shadows. You said, "i do not mean to present this as a all or nothing proposition, but more as an ongoing refining or evolutionary process." I didn't take it that way. You said, "...but believe i am independently outraged lol. " Then be outraged by the influence too! It's just as insidious. I would suspect, you would be less outraged by money if public disclosure of large financial contributions was not known. What would happen if these special interest groups had to publish their candidate pledges/questionnaires, release all data on fundraising and expenditures during election windows -- even not election-related. It might be easier to be angry if that info was made public. But it's in the shadows. Here in yellow is where we disagree immensely, "...give everyone an equal voice..." To me, equality ends with one person one vote as that is our voice, if you will. There is NOTHING implied in democracy beyond equality of the vote as anything more moves into the realm of ideology. to that end, the quoted phrase is aligned to notions around collectivism...which I'm less inclined to follow vs. individualism (if forced into an either-or). Let's take these one by one: "i'm outraged by a president taking a gift of a jet": as far as I understand, that gift is property of the US. I could be wrong. But to make your statement you do not recognize other cultures and the 1000s of years of trade and political interaction history of cultures across Eurasian steppes -- Middle East to China. Gift-giving was the basis of political dialog. You don't have to like it, but in being outraged are you A) trying to force other cultures to observe your social norms? B) Looking to be outraged when simple "dislike" works? "tearing down a chunk of the White House": the White House has gone through major revisions many times. This might be more ludicrous than most but far from unique. So what outrages you? Can't you simply dislike it? "our supposed checks and balances not working": They are being strained, maybe more so than in the past. But what's not working and who is the cause? I would argue Congress is at fault for much if not all of this after decades of abdicating its authority to a President -- both parties, they complain when out of power but do the same when in power. So to whom are you directing your outrage? [...I'm ducking!!...]