tobetrained

Sorry, but let me add this question to you @tallslenderguy: Why isn't a statement and sentiment like this enough (on the topic on detention centers)? "I'm not comfortable, actually hate, the detention centers the US has, and under the Trump administration is continues to open. I think it's awful to treat people like cattle. Yes, we had a massive spike in illegal immigration, and yes these raids and centers have made people dramatically less willing to come... including illegal border crossing hitting a 50-year low: [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8wd8938e8o [think before following links] https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats But we have to find a way to treat people better." Why is that not enough? Why the political exaggeration to create a hyper-effect response?

Starting at the beginning of this whole thread. You post an AI-generated article from a site which has no trail to sources, owners, nor revenue stream. AI content sites can be fore pure profit, auto-generating content from searches terms designed to encourage rage. This can also be content intended to push misinformation, disinformation, and the like at scale. Search online "radicalization and AI content" for how this works. There's plenty of biased media outlets to be able to quote, as your article did, "some journalists say..." driven by their publications political bias. But also journalists are not sources of news. And media outlets, driven by free speech, have an absolute right to be biased. This brings us further down in this thread and to others and the sources for videos, etc being biased. Here, you refer to The Guardian news publication. Their stated tagline: "Latest US news, world news, sports, business, opinion, analysis and reviews from the Guardian, the world's leading liberal voice" So yes, I can call them biased as a matter of fact, it's a fact they publicize. As for Dr Heather Cox Richardson, I can factually call her biased. After you had posted about her, I looked her up. The Guardian (see above) called her, "The Guardian described her as the single most important progressive pundit since Edward P. Morgan from the 1960s." from a basic web search, and I coped that quote from her wikipedia page. And, here the opening of that page, "Heather Cox Richardson (born October 8, 1962) is an American historian who works as a professor of history at Boston College, where she teaches courses on the American Civil War, the Reconstruction Era, the American West, and the Plains Indians." PhD's are not experts in everything, just their focus of study. She is no more a European WWII-era expert than you or I. Next, on terms. How about starting with valid non-AI sources: [think before following links] https://aboutholocaust.org/en/facts/what-is-the-difference-between-a-concentration-camp-and-an-extermination-camp "A concentration camp was an institution developed in Nazi Germany to imprison political enemies and opponents. Often situated in suburbs of major cities, the camps were a very visible indicator of the Nazi regime’s willingness to use violence and terror. Inmates in concentration camps were held in inhumane conditions and subjected to torture, starvation, and, in certain camps, medical experimentation..." Fact: concentration camps were used for all sorts of horrible things, that is NOT opinion. As someone who lost his grandfather and then 10-year old uncle to such places, I find your thread and premise horrible. Now, @tallslenderguy,I will leave it to you: What is your need to push a false-delineation of that horror in order to make set modern politically-biased narrative?

@tallslenderguy this is "using AI" vs. "AI content." The site you referenced is auto-generated. Whether a human is controlling that is unclear and unlikely, with the site you reference. See their "About" section. I looked. I find it "extreme" to connect detention centers for those here (knowingly) illegally) with those who lost their rights as human beings taken away -- current citizens -- and then were tortured, mutilated, gassed, experimented on, and outright slaughtered -- sometimes for sport. That connection is extreme, simply to make it sound extreme. I hold to it. To be sure, I'm not making the either/or statement: detention centers either concentration camps (that your post states) OR they're perfectly fine things to be had. You can not like the detention centers, etc but not raise it to the level of hate. It is extreme to make anything you dislike the ogre from the other political side.

So, I decided to share this situation which happened this morning. These are the things which make me less likely to care about the issue at hand. I know I'm not the only man this happens to. I was starting a 15 minute workout in the gym of 2 alternating pairs for 16 laps: 1) a ladder (foot) drill for conditioning, paired with 2) one of these four movements per lap: Toes to Bar, Box Jumps, Pull-ups, or Decline Pushups The Toes to Bar and Pullups being done using the handles on a pulley machine...which comes into play below: Before I start I always check with others in the (medium-sized) gym. I tried to engage to make sure space was open, today with the woman in question. She ignored me twice then just put her hand up to brush me aside the third time. So I started my workout. As I approached my 6th lap (of 16), she started using the pulley machine without acknowledging me. So I started to working in. She started yelling at me around the 11th lap. - I'm not respecting her space (which she wasn't in the first place) - I wouldn't do it to a man - a 30-second (or more) scream on repeat: "TELL IT TO A MAN!" - a body shaming comment about me/men wearing compression pants Again, in a general sense, these "ism" conversations typically go one way. But they're not. For instance, on a similar topic, I typically keep my hair buzzed short. More than 10 times living in the Portland area I've been called a nazi. -- though never once in 20 years between NYC or LA.

@tallslenderguy the site you reference is an AI-powered content development site with little editorial control. It creates articles based on whatever is topic is the "author" wants to develop (not "create"). If there was an "author" who want to say how Trump was NOT building concentration camps, that article would have been created and posted. This is pure extremism.

...continue from last post. Sorry forgot to add this: The documentary does a good job in positioning the rise of fascism/far-right to the rise of socialism/communism/far-left. Specifically, it updates this conversation throughout and how they, effectively, created the beast in each other. I would argue this is much better example of today's environment.

Possibly many did. But what's up with your videos and this trend of self-important overly earnest puritanical hosts? 😀 Is breathlessness supposed to be some marker of truth? His off-center orange-knit beanie was so precious you wanna dip him in glaze and stick him on shelf. His video and supposition is described in statistics as overfitting: "Production of an analysis that corresponds too closely or exactly to a particular set of data, and may therefore fail to fit additional data or predict future observations reliably" Every one of his steps (Origins, Violence, Acceptance, Power, Abs. Power) has been used for millennia in democracies (and other forms) by future autocrats to gain power. None of which were called fascism. They've been used by people on the left to do the same. The Assyrians come to mind as well as the Neo-Assyrians later. Dionysius of Syracuse too... hell, and on that, the entire Hellenic world in the iron age would fit his argument. If you want to understand fascism in a non-sensationalized way, the BBC did a fairly good documentary: The World War 1914-1945. I just looked it up, eps 3-4 cover this. But it's good enough to watch all.

True story, referenced before about (former) building manager not allowing Halloween trick-or-treat as it's "not inclusive." him: we're not having it. me: why? him: some kids don't live in areas to get a fair amount of candy. me: but this is for our building and kids in it. him: listen, it's just not inclusive enough. me: that's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. him: you don't have to be confrontational about it. me: stop being ridiculous and I wouldn't have to be. I was not sorry to see chuckles go. I woulda held the door open on his way out if they'd told me. So, so, so many stories.

Ah. OK...I didn't read it that way yesterday. But, to your point: Over-reactions simply create other over-reactions and false-reactions. As discussed above, whatever you think about this President and his admin/policies, it's not fascism. And the people who suffered from it deserve better. Over-reactions like this is what turns people off.

@RubberAustria Thank you for a rational comment. I would also be curious as to your views on left-side populism. Maybe that's a different thread at a different time. But I think many need to understand that too.

The issue with today's convo in this thread is simply the selective set of inclusions. Biden, Obama, other Republican President's besides Trump have had actions called or ruled unconstitutional. You can google all that too. That's pure selective outrage. The main issue in our democracy is Congress' abdication of authority and responsibility resulting out-of-control power of the Presidency. Democrats today -- Feb 28 -- are harping on War Powers due to Iran strikes. Sure. But they too abdicated that authority when Obama did not want to be reigned in (and those members of congress were more concerned about election campaigns) and Dems held both House and Senate. Right. But both sides think even our small election wins are mandates for their wildest dreams. They over-reach. Then the other party wins an election down the road. To reiterate a point made in days/months prior: this is why 10 of the last 11 mid-term elections, starting with 1980-82, have gone against the sitting President's party (after that party's over-reach early in the President's term). And they do so with bills/laws/regulations later deemed unconstitutional. Prior to 1980, Democrats had gerrymandered the US House beyond Republican winning possibility (check Wikipedia, and I've posted example data before). If not for that, likely a longer trend. @tallslenderguy You talk about this in a nebulous construct. If you want, give me five and I'll take the time to respond to each. There are probably many more so five shouldn't be too hard, no? Pick which you like.

But I would also point out to this convo, we're also at a point where the reciprocal extremism is also here, across the West. An NYC Mayor who doesn't stand up for his police officers when attacked The French National Rally supporter killed by anti-fascists extremists -- for their assumed views of him/his group -- which including a low-ranking worker in the LFI (French far-left party) Yet another -- poorly planned -- assassination attempt on Trump And this is just the last week.

The problem with AI, it responds based on your question. There was no "moderate approach" to Hitler. It was appeasement as he began expansion beyond Germany. As for what the Nazi's did within Germany, what was "Europe" supposed to do? Germans were angry with the conclusion of WWI and most historians today claim the two wars are single long was with a 20-ish year break. [that doesn't make them correct in their behavior] To illustrate the point, I de-politicized your question: "What was Europe's approach to Hitler?" A: "Europe's approach to Hitler in the 1930s was primarily characterized by a policy of appeasement, where leaders, especially British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, made concessions to avoid conflict, believing it would maintain peace. This strategy ultimately failed, as it did not prevent Hitler's aggressive expansion and led to the outbreak of World War II." I then asked AI: "What did the Nazi's do within Germany before outward expansion?" Political Consolidation and Control Elimination of Political Opposition: The Nazis quickly moved to eliminate other political parties, ensuring that the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) was the only legal political entity by 1933. Reichstag Fire and Enabling Act: Following the Reichstag fire in February 1933, the Nazis passed the Enabling Act, which granted Hitler the power to enact laws without Reichstag approval, effectively giving him dictatorial powers. Social Policies Control of Media and Education: The regime established tight control over newspapers, radio, and education to disseminate Nazi ideology and glorify Adolf Hitler. Youth Programs: Organizations like the Hitler Youth sought to indoctrinate young Germans with Nazi ideals and prepare them for future roles in the regime. Racial Policies Nuremberg Laws (1935): These laws institutionalized racial discrimination, particularly against Jews, depriving them of citizenship and legal rights. Kristallnacht (1938): This pogrom against Jews included the destruction of synagogues, Jewish businesses, and the arrest of thousands, marking an escalation in anti-Semitic violence. Economic Policies Public Works Projects: The Nazis initiated large-scale projects like the Autobahn, providing jobs and helping to reduce unemployment significantly. Militarization of the Economy: The regime focused on rebuilding the military in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, leading to increased military spending and a push for self-sufficiency. Repression and Control SS and Gestapo: The Schutzstaffel (SS) and Geheime Staatspolizei (Gestapo) were instrumental in enforcing Nazi policies, through surveillance, arrest, and persecution of dissenters. Concentration Camps: Early camps were established for political prisoners, later expanding to detain Jews, homosexuals, and other groups deemed undesirable. Many of these these things define extremism and populism regardless of exact ideology. Of these 10 bullet points above, Trump/MAGA scoring: Political Opposition: No. They playing politics for sure. There has been ZERO movement to eliminate other parties -- legally. Enabling Act: No. As yet, nothing has been proposed. Trump is absolutely taking advantage of congress' decades-long abdication of power. Media and Education: No. As yet, no control...beyond calling out and trying to eliminate the control from the left. Youth Programs: No. I haven't heard of anything...let's not forget Obama actually tried youth programs. Nuremberg Laws: No. Nothing proposed. Kristallnacht: No. Nothing proposed or enacted. Pubic Works: No. Nothing, if anything the reverse...some of his followers are angry over that -- see: NY/NJ tunnel project -- attempt to withhold funds. Militarizing the economy: Not really. Mainly to get Europe to handle it's own self-defense and not rely on the US as primary defender. SS and Gestape: No. Nothing has been instituted. And to some ICE accounts for this...but it's an established group to handle the undocumented. They are not legal citizens. Concentration Camps: No. None exist. Again, detention centers are for the undocumented before transit back to home country... not for citizens. So @tallslenderguy, this argument is pretty weak but open to hear how it's not.

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.