It was asked why China has suddenly decided to come out all nasty to the world. I think the answer is that it has placed its bets on a Biden win in November and takes the view that, if he wins, Biden will be essentially Obama Mark 2, namely will want to avoid conflict and so will bend over backwards to do anything to calm China down. So China is probably thinking that the more it sabre rattles, the more Biden (or his successor) will look to give give aways.
That sounds more like Trumpery than how the world actually works.
Yeah, this is blatant "Biden is weak on China" crap. For one thing, Uncle Joe far more likely to have 7th Fleet sail right through South China Sea once a day & twice on Sundays IF he thought it in the US national interest.
Trump has zero conception of national interest - beyond his own fundament that is.
and it is a genuine contribution to a tricky discussion (my opinion as a white, centre right liberal male) including, naturally, lots to disagree with.
Defecating on a carpet is a genuine contribution. If you think it has merit, please say so and explain why.
Can we please not get hung up on the Johnny Depp story. It's rather unsavoury.
I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -
THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.
What does who tweets something have to do with whether the thing tweeted is accurate or not? If it isn't, they are disreputable. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether they have views or interpretations others would not share, since we are not obliged to share the view or interpretation they hold.
That assumes information is accurate or not accurate. The reality is far more complex, spin doctors and the advertising industry exist for a reason.
It you got a review for a new car online, wouldnt you want to know if it was by an independent journalist, direct from the manufacturer, an expert, or a journalist sponsored by the manufacturer? Each one might be true, but you should read it differently.
So the only gtoup of people that actually are over all in favour of compulsion are the authoritarian left and the remainers who still don't like the fact some peasants didn't vote as they were told to.
I have said I expect a uturn will come on the compulsion and I think those percentages make it look more likely as it's people more likely to vote tory that appear to reject compulsion
Uh
So a majority of voters are fine with mandatory wearing of facemasks in the high street, public transport or shops but less than half think they should be compulsory in offices
So, the Number 10 Grayling stitch-up fails spectacularly. If they cannot even get that right, you do have to wonder about their ability to deal with slightly bigger issues like trade deals, saving the economy, keeping the UK together and managing the covid-19 pandemic.
Classic Grayling. This is really good news for the nation's security. It may be bad news for whichever department Boris offers him to next though.
It says, in the original, that "common characteristics of US white people, most of the time" are -
Self reliance Planning for the future Nuclear families The avoidance of conflict Politeness Hard work Working before playing Respect for authority Giving kids their own rooms, so they can be independent Punctuality Objective and rational thinking Protection of property Belief in cause and effect
That's what is says "characterises most American white people"
I'd like to know Katz' sources for this, or if she just made it up. I'm certainly not giving a blanket agreement to all of it, or necessarily any of it. My issue is with you- and the original tweeter- freaking out over things which don't really seem particularly outlandish.
Is it really that shocking. for example, to claim that the protestant work ethic a) is culturally dominant in the US and b) primarily originated with white settlers? Is it fair to characterise that claim as saying that only white people work hard?
I would associate that value list far more with Korean society than the US.
Okay? The article is about how traits associated with white culture have become treated as the default or norm in the US as a result of long-standing white dominance of US institutions. If you're saying that a lot of very similar traits are also treated as the default in Korea because they're also present in Korean culture then I don't really see how that's relevant.
It says, in the original, that "common characteristics of US white people, most of the time" are -
Self reliance Planning for the future Nuclear families The avoidance of conflict Politeness Hard work Working before playing Respect for authority Giving kids their own rooms, so they can be independent Punctuality Objective and rational thinking Protection of property Belief in cause and effect
That's what is says "characterises most American white people"
I'd like to know Katz' sources for this, or if she just made it up. I'm certainly not giving a blanket agreement to all of it, or necessarily any of it. My issue is with you- and the original tweeter- freaking out over things which don't really seem particularly outlandish.
Is it really that shocking. for example, to claim that the protestant work ethic a) is culturally dominant in the US and b) primarily originated with white settlers? Is it fair to characterise that claim as saying that only white people work hard?
I would associate that value list far more with Korean society than the US.
Okay? The article is about how traits associated with white culture have become treated as the default or norm in the US as a result of long-standing white dominance of US institutions. If you're saying that a lot of very similar traits are also treated as the default in Korea because they're also present in Korean culture then I don't really see how that's relevant.
Do you really associate modern US culture with -
Planning for the future The avoidance of conflict Politeness Respect for authority Objective and rational thinking Belief in cause and effect
Because I don't....
I associate it with racism, misogyny, malice, stupidity and ignorance.
Cultural appropriation is the one area on racism where the angry right are correct. It is indeed a nonsense.
Well, it depends on whether it is respectful. For example is blackface a perfectly fine bit of cultural appropriation?
I agree it is about respect. Blackface as generally done in the 20th century was disrespectful, rude and problematic. It doesnt have to be, though, there shouldnt be an automatic bar on people copying looks of other races.
Okay? The article is about how traits associated with white culture have become treated as the default or norm in the US as a result of long-standing white dominance of US institutions.
So, to be clear, Objective rational linear thinking and emphasis on cause and effect is evidence of 'white* dominance of US institutions'? Really? In the annals of utterly bonkers nonsense, that is a quite spectacular example.
* by which they don't actually seem to mean white, they've equated skin colour with the culture of a subset of northern European settlers, but we'll let that racist logical error pass
OMFG.
- Has there been a law passed against nuance while my back was turned?
Here in US the ABC Morning News featured zoom from a House of Commons committee or something, where the stage was stolen by a cat with a VERY fluffy tail.
Cat did more for Anglo-American relations in one minute than Foreign Office in decades.
It was asked why China has suddenly decided to come out all nasty to the world. I think the answer is that it has placed its bets on a Biden win in November and takes the view that, if he wins, Biden will be essentially Obama Mark 2, namely will want to avoid conflict and so will bend over backwards to do anything to calm China down. So China is probably thinking that the more it sabre rattles, the more Biden (or his successor) will look to give give aways.
So, what you're saying is that if Trump wins, China will suddenly back down?
The reality is that the US is weaker now than it has been for a long time, and has a President who is susceptible to flattery and is simultaneously scared of committing military force. Obama, at least, was willing to sail a US carrier group through the Formosa strait - while Trump has been much lower key, preferring to send the occasional missile cruiser, but never something as significant as a carrier group.
China has grown in confidence and grown in aggressiveness during the Trump Presidency: to deny that is to deny that the world is round. To claim that it is due to fear of a Biden Presidency, given their increased aggression long predates Trump's unpopularity, is simply delusional.
The Lab Con split is more striking to me than Leave Remain.
Indeed. It seems to me that the evidence does not support OGH trying to make it a Leaver vs Remainer issue. I would suggest it is more of a Statist vs Individualist issue which is seen far more clearly in party affiliation than in how people voted in the referendum.
and it is a genuine contribution to a tricky discussion (my opinion as a white, centre right liberal male) including, naturally, lots to disagree with.
Thank you and hats off.
If only more would take a leaf instead of doing the Pavlov's dogs routine.
It appears to come from the same tradition as those, who during the 1980's* would explain that liberal democracy and human rights were bad, and really could only work for white people. Since it didn't fit with other cultures.
Hence Socialist Democratic Republics** were more democratic than actual democracy.
*This line of argument vanished in 1989 without the slightest hint of an apology. **One party, hereditary dictatorships with a big serving of kleptocracy.
It was asked why China has suddenly decided to come out all nasty to the world. I think the answer is that it has placed its bets on a Biden win in November and takes the view that, if he wins, Biden will be essentially Obama Mark 2, namely will want to avoid conflict and so will bend over backwards to do anything to calm China down. So China is probably thinking that the more it sabre rattles, the more Biden (or his successor) will look to give give aways.
So, what you're saying is that if Trump wins, China will suddenly back down?
The reality is that the US is weaker now than it has been for a long time, and has a President who is susceptible to flattery and is simultaneously scared of committing military force. Obama, at least, was willing to sail a US carrier group through the Formosa strait - while Trump has been much lower key, preferring to send the occasional missile cruiser, but never something as significant as a carrier group.
China has grown in confidence and grown in aggressiveness during the Trump Presidency: to deny that is to deny that the world is round. To claim that it is due to fear of a Biden Presidency, given their increased aggression long predates Trump's unpopularity, is simply delusional.
Also this: China has built a significant advantage in missiles. They could maybe wipe out a US carrier group that got too close
I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -
THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.
So you think the protestant work ethic is universal, not cultural? Clue's in the name.
To be honest, I don't even understand what that graphic is trying to say to people. Are these things bad because they are "white"? Are they good despite being "typically white"? Do non-whites not do these things, or should they avoid them, or what?
Woke has gone so far it has entered a parallel universe outwith my comprehension. I am not jesting. I don't get it.
Yeah, we really have gone insane in the far future of *checks notes* 1990.
And I don't know why you're trying to read into it more than what it says. You're the one who's putting this "white = bad" narriative on it
It says, in the original, that "common characteristics of US white people, most of the time" are -
Self reliance Planning for the future Nuclear families The avoidance of conflict Politeness Hard work Working before playing Respect for authority Giving kids their own rooms, so they can be independent Punctuality Objective and rational thinking Protection of property Belief in cause and effect
That's what is says "characterises most American white people"
Could one of the the right-wingers getting their knickers in a twist about this please point out the bits where it says either or both of "only white people have these characteristics" or "these characteristics are bad"? Because if it isn't saying either of those things (hint: it isn't), then I fail to see what the problem is.
The website suggests that you benefit from "white privilege" by displaying such characteristics.
Though it seems to me that there are plenty of members of all ethnic groups who display such characteristics.
OFF TOPIC - This from Texas Monthly 2020 Runoff Roundup
Former Travis County GOP chair and B-list Austin crank Robert Morrow has suffered a stinging defeat in his bid to serve on the State Board of Education. GOP voters were apparently not in the mood for Morrow’s ideas for Texas schoolchildren, including pole-dancing classes for high-schoolers and teaching that Lyndon Johnson assassinated John Kennedy.
Morrow is losing 78-22 to Lani Popp, who has a lovely name and seems wisely to have stayed off Twitter, her challenger’s preferred medium for anime porn. Current Travis County GOP chair Matt Mackowiak must be relieved that he will not have to follow through on his promise to “light [himself] on fire” if Morrow wins.
American politics just seems so much livelier than ours. We are supposed to be amused at a joke about underpants.
That is a pretty compelling argument for mask wearing in shops.
Basically, the argument is a simple one: by accepting slightly more onerous restrictions now, you avoid a hard lock down (either de facto or de jure).
It's a compelling argument for accepting restrictions, and I think it's reasonable that masks in shops be one of them. Not the other way round though.
I must admit I am having real trouble seeing how wearing a mask is a restriction. I know more than a few libertarian minded medical professionals who would not dream of working without wearing a mask and who were quick to adopt them in general day to day interactions long before anyone suggested they should be mandatory.
It was asked why China has suddenly decided to come out all nasty to the world. I think the answer is that it has placed its bets on a Biden win in November and takes the view that, if he wins, Biden will be essentially Obama Mark 2, namely will want to avoid conflict and so will bend over backwards to do anything to calm China down. So China is probably thinking that the more it sabre rattles, the more Biden (or his successor) will look to give give aways.
So, what you're saying is that if Trump wins, China will suddenly back down?
The reality is that the US is weaker now than it has been for a long time, and has a President who is susceptible to flattery and is simultaneously scared of committing military force. Obama, at least, was willing to sail a US carrier group through the Formosa strait - while Trump has been much lower key, preferring to send the occasional missile cruiser, but never something as significant as a carrier group.
China has grown in confidence and grown in aggressiveness during the Trump Presidency: to deny that is to deny that the world is round. To claim that it is due to fear of a Biden Presidency, given their increased aggression long predates Trump's unpopularity, is simply delusional.
Also this: China has built a significant advantage in missiles. They could maybe wipe out a US carrier group that got too close
NOT what you'd expect under a strong PM, is it. Appears the worm MAY be turning.
Also fact that stench of incompetence beginning to permeate HM's current govt, and reckon that significant section of Tory Party has had more than enough.
They can't defenestrate BoJo - not yet - but they CAN rattle his cage. AND do so in knowledge that they defending national security threat foreign & domestic - including PM's keepers, minders & minions.
The Lab Con split is more striking to me than Leave Remain.
Indeed. It seems to me that the evidence does not support OGH trying to make it a Leaver vs Remainer issue. I would suggest it is more of a Statist vs Individualist issue which is seen far more clearly in party affiliation than in how people voted in the referendum.
57% of Tories back making facemasks compulsory in shops as do 55% of Leavers and 60% of voters overall
It was asked why China has suddenly decided to come out all nasty to the world. I think the answer is that it has placed its bets on a Biden win in November and takes the view that, if he wins, Biden will be essentially Obama Mark 2, namely will want to avoid conflict and so will bend over backwards to do anything to calm China down. So China is probably thinking that the more it sabre rattles, the more Biden (or his successor) will look to give give aways.
So, what you're saying is that if Trump wins, China will suddenly back down?
The reality is that the US is weaker now than it has been for a long time, and has a President who is susceptible to flattery and is simultaneously scared of committing military force. Obama, at least, was willing to sail a US carrier group through the Formosa strait - while Trump has been much lower key, preferring to send the occasional missile cruiser, but never something as significant as a carrier group.
China has grown in confidence and grown in aggressiveness during the Trump Presidency: to deny that is to deny that the world is round. To claim that it is due to fear of a Biden Presidency, given their increased aggression long predates Trump's unpopularity, is simply delusional.
Also this: China has built a significant advantage in missiles. They could maybe wipe out a US carrier group that got too close
It was asked why China has suddenly decided to come out all nasty to the world. I think the answer is that it has placed its bets on a Biden win in November and takes the view that, if he wins, Biden will be essentially Obama Mark 2, namely will want to avoid conflict and so will bend over backwards to do anything to calm China down. So China is probably thinking that the more it sabre rattles, the more Biden (or his successor) will look to give give aways.
So, what you're saying is that if Trump wins, China will suddenly back down?
The reality is that the US is weaker now than it has been for a long time, and has a President who is susceptible to flattery and is simultaneously scared of committing military force. Obama, at least, was willing to sail a US carrier group through the Formosa strait - while Trump has been much lower key, preferring to send the occasional missile cruiser, but never something as significant as a carrier group.
China has grown in confidence and grown in aggressiveness during the Trump Presidency: to deny that is to deny that the world is round. To claim that it is due to fear of a Biden Presidency, given their increased aggression long predates Trump's unpopularity, is simply delusional.
Also this: China has built a significant advantage in missiles. They could maybe wipe out a US carrier group that got too close
Besides, China's goal is not to strike America, and start WW3, at least not yet. It is to deter America from hitting China, and to push America out of Asia and the Eastern Pacific. China wants to be the Asian hegemon, supplanting the USA
So far it is doing pretty well. They've just taken Hong Kong without a shot being fired. Taiwan is next.
I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -
THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.
What does who tweets something have to do with whether the thing tweeted is accurate or not? If it isn't, they are disreputable. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether they have views or interpretations others would not share, since we are not obliged to share the view or interpretation they hold. If their interpretation is suspect or incorrect, that's an entirely separate matter.
Please see my reply 6.35 to Pagan.
Unless it's a "2+2=4" type assertion, you should always be cautious about accepting at face value things tweeted by dubious sources with an extremist agenda.
And especially so when - as here - it's a tweet from such a source copied onto PB.com by a poster of similar ilk. When it comes to this think Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd - Double Jeopardy.
Cultural appropriation is the one area on racism where the angry right are correct. It is indeed a nonsense.
Is Revolutionary Commie Furedi the angry right or the angry left?
Frank Furedi is a good example of how the Left/Right definitions fail us these days. His book Culture of Fear is a brilliant analysis of how both Left and Right use fear to instil compliance in the population and how the media feeds this in its chase for ratings.
There were a couple of days of increasing positive cases week on week and R seemed to be above 1, though on a very low number of cases, as Barnesian has shown.
And the government shat itself in panic.
Why ? Because the government is desperate for people to return to 'normal' and had just announced inducements for people to go to pubs and restaurants.
Now if those inducements had to be cancelled because of an increasing infection rate then the government would look bad and many jobs would have been at risk.
So instead the government decided to do something different - mandatory masks in shops. Its not likely to do have much effect but the government are desperate to squeeze the last drop out of the orange metaphorically speaking.
And this panic explains why the government made no effort to prepare the public for a change in policy and why we saw politicians in pub / restaurant / hairdresser photostunts while not wearing masks.
Ironically the last two days of positive cases have shown things to be improving again.
That is a pretty compelling argument for mask wearing in shops.
Basically, the argument is a simple one: by accepting slightly more onerous restrictions now, you avoid a hard lock down (either de facto or de jure).
It's a compelling argument for accepting restrictions, and I think it's reasonable that masks in shops be one of them. Not the other way round though.
I must admit I am having real trouble seeing how wearing a mask is a restriction. I know more than a few libertarian minded medical professionals who would not dream of working without wearing a mask and who were quick to adopt them in general day to day interactions long before anyone suggested they should be mandatory.
Well rules, restrictions. They're something whereby freedom is slightly curtailed. Wearing a mask clearly isn't something you would do if you were on your own.
Having a rule that we should all wear seat-belts is silly - it should be blindingly obvious, but us being us, a rule seems necessary.
Masks in shops is apparently somewhat marginal in benefit, but even if it had no benefit at all it might be worth doing anyway just to keep people's attention on the risk (albeit that is now small).
It was asked why China has suddenly decided to come out all nasty to the world. I think the answer is that it has placed its bets on a Biden win in November and takes the view that, if he wins, Biden will be essentially Obama Mark 2, namely will want to avoid conflict and so will bend over backwards to do anything to calm China down. So China is probably thinking that the more it sabre rattles, the more Biden (or his successor) will look to give give aways.
So, what you're saying is that if Trump wins, China will suddenly back down?
The reality is that the US is weaker now than it has been for a long time, and has a President who is susceptible to flattery and is simultaneously scared of committing military force. Obama, at least, was willing to sail a US carrier group through the Formosa strait - while Trump has been much lower key, preferring to send the occasional missile cruiser, but never something as significant as a carrier group.
China has grown in confidence and grown in aggressiveness during the Trump Presidency: to deny that is to deny that the world is round. To claim that it is due to fear of a Biden Presidency, given their increased aggression long predates Trump's unpopularity, is simply delusional.
Also this: China has built a significant advantage in missiles. They could maybe wipe out a US carrier group that got too close
Besides, China's goal is not to strike America, and start WW3, at least not yet. It is to deter America from hitting China, and to push America out of Asia and the Eastern Pacific. China wants to be the Asian hegemon, supplanting the USA
So far it is doing pretty well. They've just taken Hong Kong without a shot being fired. Taiwan is next.
Hong Kong has been Chinese territory since 1997, the Chinese have just cancelled Hong Kong devomax basically and Trump ended Hong Kong's preferential trade status today https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-53414539.
Taiwan however is a different story and don't forget it is not only the US concerned about Chinese expansion, Japan, South Korea and India are too
OFF TOPIC - This from Texas Monthly 2020 Runoff Roundup
Former Travis County GOP chair and B-list Austin crank Robert Morrow has suffered a stinging defeat in his bid to serve on the State Board of Education. GOP voters were apparently not in the mood for Morrow’s ideas for Texas schoolchildren, including pole-dancing classes for high-schoolers and teaching that Lyndon Johnson assassinated John Kennedy.
Morrow is losing 78-22 to Lani Popp, who has a lovely name and seems wisely to have stayed off Twitter, her challenger’s preferred medium for anime porn. Current Travis County GOP chair Matt Mackowiak must be relieved that he will not have to follow through on his promise to “light [himself] on fire” if Morrow wins.
American politics just seems so much livelier than ours. We are supposed to be amused at a joke about underpants.
Texas is bigger & brasher at most things, including politics.
BUT Lone Star politics tame in some respects compared with Pelican State.
For example, had one friend of mine (the former ambassador's son) whose uncle once threatened in a drunken rage to assassinate His Honor the Mayor of New Orleans ("I'm gonna shot the god-damn son of a bitch!") because representatives from the city had come to his house and interrogated his wife about 100 or so unpaid parking tickets. He was dissuaded, but took some doing.
Interesting, had another friend (a fugitive from a Florida chain gang) who was once detained briefly by police ("arrest the usual suspects") following the murder of the same mayor's long-time mistress.
I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -
THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.
What does who tweets something have to do with whether the thing tweeted is accurate or not? If it isn't, they are disreputable. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether they have views or interpretations others would not share, since we are not obliged to share the view or interpretation they hold. If their interpretation is suspect or incorrect, that's an entirely separate matter.
Please see my reply 6.35 to Pagan.
Unless it's a "2+2=4" type assertion, you should always be cautious about accepting at face value things tweeted by dubious sources with an extremist agenda.
And especially so when - as here - it's a tweet from such a source copied onto here by a poster of similar ilk. When it comes to this think Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd - Double Jeopardy.
lol. The source is real. It's been tweeted by thousands of others
So the only gtoup of people that actually are over all in favour of compulsion are the authoritarian left and the remainers who still don't like the fact some peasants didn't vote as they were told to.
I have said I expect a uturn will come on the compulsion and I think those percentages make it look more likely as it's people more likely to vote tory that appear to reject compulsion
Uh
So a majority of voters are fine with mandatory wearing of facemasks in the high street, public transport or shops but less than half think they should be compulsory in offices
Yet the majority, possibly including myself*, will wait until it is actually mandatory before wearing one to the shops instead of starting now. We are a strange bunch.
* For me, until mandatory Ill wear one if expecting to be in shop >10 mins, otherwise probably not.
I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -
THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.
What does who tweets something have to do with whether the thing tweeted is accurate or not? If it isn't, they are disreputable. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether they have views or interpretations others would not share, since we are not obliged to share the view or interpretation they hold. If their interpretation is suspect or incorrect, that's an entirely separate matter.
Please see my reply 6.35 to Pagan.
Unless it's a "2+2=4" type assertion, you should always be cautious about accepting at face value things tweeted by dubious sources with an extremist agenda.
And especially so when - as here - it's a tweet from such a source copied onto PB.com by a poster of similar ilk. When it comes to this think Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd - Double Jeopardy.
I don’t take anything I think is controversial at face value without multiple sources (not including the Mail and Express as multiple sources). People get so easily wound up by what they think they hear, read on FB etc I just let it go over my head Unless I know it’s true/false until I can be bothered checking it out.
I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -
THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.
What does who tweets something have to do with whether the thing tweeted is accurate or not? If it isn't, they are disreputable. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether they have views or interpretations others would not share, since we are not obliged to share the view or interpretation they hold. If their interpretation is suspect or incorrect, that's an entirely separate matter.
Please see my reply 6.35 to Pagan.
Unless it's a "2+2=4" type assertion, you should always be cautious about accepting at face value things tweeted by dubious sources with an extremist agenda.
And especially so when - as here - it's a tweet from such a source copied onto here by a poster of similar ilk. When it comes to this think Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd - Double Jeopardy.
lol. The source is real. It's been tweeted by thousands of others
I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -
THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.
What does who tweets something have to do with whether the thing tweeted is accurate or not? If it isn't, they are disreputable. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether they have views or interpretations others would not share, since we are not obliged to share the view or interpretation they hold. If their interpretation is suspect or incorrect, that's an entirely separate matter.
Please see my reply 6.35 to Pagan.
Unless it's a "2+2=4" type assertion, you should always be cautious about accepting at face value things tweeted by dubious sources with an extremist agenda.
And especially so when - as here - it's a tweet from such a source copied onto here by a poster of similar ilk. When it comes to this think Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd - Double Jeopardy.
lol. The source is real. It's been tweeted by thousands of others
The headline states that the graphic depicts "Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the USofA".
My guess is that it is predominantly white people who are making these assumptions, associating things which these people perceive as virtues, with their own whiteness.
I didn't get the impression that the author shares these assumptions, only that she observed the fact that white people, at least a majority of them, hold these views.
Democrats appear to be winners of July 2020 Maine Primary. Mostly because they nominated current state house Speaker Sara Gideon to run against incumbent (and unopposed in GOP primary) Republican US Sen Susan Collins.
Gideon is "moderate" who beat "progressive" for nomination, receiving whopping 70% of Dem primary vote. Of Maine's 500+ cities, towns and "plantations" (unincorporated with few or zero voters) Gideon only lost 9 and tied in 6.
Democrats nationally and locally are NOT happy with Sen. Collins, not at all. Unity behind Democrat best qualified (re: both experience & politics) is just one sign of determination to end the incumbent's over-long senatorial career.
I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -
THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.
What does who tweets something have to do with whether the thing tweeted is accurate or not? If it isn't, they are disreputable. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether they have views or interpretations others would not share, since we are not obliged to share the view or interpretation they hold. If their interpretation is suspect or incorrect, that's an entirely separate matter.
Please see my reply 6.35 to Pagan.
Unless it's a "2+2=4" type assertion, you should always be cautious about accepting at face value things tweeted by dubious sources with an extremist agenda.
And especially so when - as here - it's a tweet from such a source copied onto here by a poster of similar ilk. When it comes to this think Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd - Double Jeopardy.
lol. The source is real. It's been tweeted by thousands of others
The headline states that the graphic depicts "Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the USofA".
My guess is that it is predominantly white people who are making these assumptions, associating things which these people perceive as virtues, with their own whiteness.
I didn't get the impression that the author shares these assumptions, only that she observed the fact that white people, at least a majority of them, hold these views.
No. Read the headline from the original source. The author believes what is plainly said:
"While different individuals might not practice or accept all of these traits, they are common characteristics of most U.S. White people most of the time."
I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -
THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.
What does who tweets something have to do with whether the thing tweeted is accurate or not? If it isn't, they are disreputable. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether they have views or interpretations others would not share, since we are not obliged to share the view or interpretation they hold. If their interpretation is suspect or incorrect, that's an entirely separate matter.
Please see my reply 6.35 to Pagan.
Unless it's a "2+2=4" type assertion, you should always be cautious about accepting at face value things tweeted by dubious sources with an extremist agenda.
And especially so when - as here - it's a tweet from such a source copied onto here by a poster of similar ilk. When it comes to this think Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd - Double Jeopardy.
lol. The source is real. It's been tweeted by thousands of others
And despite doing all that you don't seem to have actually read it beyond your outrage share.
I have read it. All of it.
There is probably room for agreement here. The intent of the overall message (before the graphic) is worthy, if, in places, disputable.
However, the infographic is clumsy, and ugly, and sounds insane to anyone sensible (who isn't fully equipped with the latest critical race theory and can somehow parse it into sort-of acceptability). As such, it is a bad mistake, which is why it is getting such a harsh reaction online.
Cultural appropriation is the one area on racism where the angry right are correct. It is indeed a nonsense.
Is Revolutionary Commie Furedi the angry right or the angry left?
Frank Furedi is a good example of how the Left/Right definitions fail us these days. His book Culture of Fear is a brilliant analysis of how both Left and Right use fear to instil compliance in the population and how the media feeds this in its chase for ratings.
His book Paranoid Parenting is a tonic for those fed up with the usual childcare manuals.
He remains an interesting academic, but his spiritual children in the RCP are much more interested in political power. They have simply followed Moscows line, from Communist days to the present fermenting of divisive Populism
Julian Lewis is probably more right-wing than Chris Grayling.
But maybe less useless.
The corollary of that statement is that you think it’s possible there are MPs that are more useless than Grayling out there.
Burgon (hopefully before anyone beats me to it!)
Grayling is an intellectual colossus in the company of Burgon.
Burgon is apparently so daft that I dare not slander brushes. Clearly he's not mind. He just seems that way. It's astonishing that he and other really flimsy wits should be vying to star in a Labour party where there are some quite good people still left around. Benn, Cooper, Kinnock, Milliband, Harman, and even Cruddas.
I don't quite see what Starmer is up to in terms of his shadow cabinet - Dodds as shadow chancellor is just ridiculous, but I guess we'll see over tie, and if Burgon reappears then we know that Starmer has lost the internal fights.
Its not rocket science. wearing masks must be compulsory.
In Switzerland, where everything is usually compulsory if it isn't illegal, it's apparently not a requirement to wear a mask (apart from public transport, which was only introduced on 1st July). Interesting.
Just a comment on the Smithsonian fracas. Try reading Kate Fox 'Watching the English'. In this book she treats English culture to a bit of simple anthropology, as if they are an exotic tribe being observed. It's very popular, and funny too. The Smithsonian is doing a similar thing, though it is much more stereotyped and sharp, so uncomfortable. It reads more like a critical outsider might see a white culture.
The PB critics have included these broad criticisms:
The picture is white supremacist by attributing a range of self evident good qualities to a white culture only.
The picture is racist and anti-white by attributing a rage of doubtful qualities to a white culture.
The picture is racist and anti non-white because it implies every non white lacks a range of self evident good qualities.
It's woke nonsense gone mad.
I doubt if all these can be true. Personally I feel stereotyped by it, which is exactly I think what happens more to other groups than to whites. So I think it is of value.
It was asked why China has suddenly decided to come out all nasty to the world. I think the answer is that it has placed its bets on a Biden win in November and takes the view that, if he wins, Biden will be essentially Obama Mark 2, namely will want to avoid conflict and so will bend over backwards to do anything to calm China down. So China is probably thinking that the more it sabre rattles, the more Biden (or his successor) will look to give give aways.
Also that regardless of whether what he proposes is right, Trump will not get consensus support fit any action against them right now
Just a comment on the Smithsonian fracas. Try reading Kate Fox 'Watching the English'. In this book she treats English culture to a bit of simple anthropology, as if they are an exotic tribe being observed. It's very popular, and funny too. The Smithsonian is doing a similar thing, though it is much more stereotyped and sharp, so uncomfortable. It reads more like a critical outsider might see a white culture.
The PB critics have included these broad criticisms:
The picture is white supremacist by attributing a range of self evident good qualities to a white culture only.
The picture is racist and anti-white by attributing a rage of doubtful qualities to a white culture.
The picture is racist and anti non-white because it implies every non white lacks a range of self evident good qualities.
It's woke nonsense gone mad.
I doubt if all these can be true. Personally I feel stereotyped by it, which is exactly I think what happens more to other groups than to whites. So I think it is of value.
Have they come up with one of these charming stereotyping charts about other ethnic groups, or is it just the one? The way the new Wokeists focus monomaniacally on 'White', 'Whites', 'Whiteness' reminds me of the way the Corbyn cadre talks about, er, 'Zionists'.
I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -
THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.
So you think the protestant work ethic is universal, not cultural? Clue's in the name.
To be honest, I don't even understand what that graphic is trying to say to people. Are these things bad because they are "white"? Are they good despite being "typically white"? Do non-whites not do these things, or should they avoid them, or what?
Woke has gone so far it has entered a parallel universe outwith my comprehension. I am not jesting. I don't get it.
Yeah, we really have gone insane in the far future of *checks notes* 1990.
And I don't know why you're trying to read into it more than what it says. You're the one who's putting this "white = bad" narriative on it
It says, in the original, that "common characteristics of US white people, most of the time" are -
Self reliance Planning for the future Nuclear families The avoidance of conflict Politeness Hard work Working before playing Respect for authority Giving kids their own rooms, so they can be independent Punctuality Objective and rational thinking Protection of property Belief in cause and effect
That's what is says "characterises most American white people"
Could one of the the right-wingers getting their knickers in a twist about this please point out the bits where it says either or both of "only white people have these characteristics" or "these characteristics are bad"? Because if it isn't saying either of those things (hint: it isn't), then I fail to see what the problem is.
The fact that they needed to highlight that it was characteristic of white culture implies that other cultures do not have the same set of values (otherwise they would be the same)
To the extent you see the characteristics as positive you are then starting from a position that white culture is better unless you can justify why the alternative is better
Just a comment on the Smithsonian fracas. Try reading Kate Fox 'Watching the English'. In this book she treats English culture to a bit of simple anthropology, as if they are an exotic tribe being observed. It's very popular, and funny too. The Smithsonian is doing a similar thing, though it is much more stereotyped and sharp, so uncomfortable. It reads more like a critical outsider might see a white culture.
The PB critics have included these broad criticisms:
The picture is white supremacist by attributing a range of self evident good qualities to a white culture only.
The picture is racist and anti-white by attributing a rage of doubtful qualities to a white culture.
The picture is racist and anti non-white because it implies every non white lacks a range of self evident good qualities.
It's woke nonsense gone mad.
I doubt if all these can be true. Personally I feel stereotyped by it, which is exactly I think what happens more to other groups than to whites. So I think it is of value.
I think the meaning of the graphic is that those traits are generally perceived to be associated with whiteness. So despite Nigerians being the most highly qualified of US immigrants, science is associated with whiteness.
Well, what to say re: Jeff Sessions except, welcome to the dustbin of history - loser.
Even in overwhelming defeat had to grovel to the Trumpsky who hates, hurts, humiliates & hurls him into oblivion.
Appears only real reason he ran to get his old job back was because he could NOT make it in the world of lobbying & influencing (commercial or ideological).
Ended up winning three widely scattered counties; Mobile on the Gulf, his home county in south-central AL, and Madison (Huntsville) on Tennessee River, where he obviously impressed the rocket scientists (likely due to congressional space spending than anything else).
Not much to be said for Coach Tuberville, except true measure of his runoff victory is that he took Tuscaloosa County. AND he begins the general election - and likely will end it - as a prohibitive favorite against incumbent Dem US Sen. Doug Jones. Who PBers may remember upset just about the worst GOP nominee possible, the (in)famous Judge Roy Moore who has 10 Commandments tatooed on his forehead - or is it his ass?
I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -
THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.
What does who tweets something have to do with whether the thing tweeted is accurate or not? If it isn't, they are disreputable. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether they have views or interpretations others would not share, since we are not obliged to share the view or interpretation they hold. If their interpretation is suspect or incorrect, that's an entirely separate matter.
Please see my reply 6.35 to Pagan.
Unless it's a "2+2=4" type assertion, you should always be cautious about accepting at face value things tweeted by dubious sources with an extremist agenda.
And especially so when - as here - it's a tweet from such a source copied onto here by a poster of similar ilk. When it comes to this think Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd - Double Jeopardy.
lol. The source is real. It's been tweeted by thousands of others
The headline states that the graphic depicts "Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the USofA".
My guess is that it is predominantly white people who are making these assumptions, associating things which these people perceive as virtues, with their own whiteness.
I didn't get the impression that the author shares these assumptions, only that she observed the fact that white people, at least a majority of them, hold these views.
No. Read the headline from the original source. The author believes what is plainly said:
"While different individuals might not practice or accept all of these traits, they are common characteristics of most U.S. White people most of the time."
Meanwhile on the infographic, see the greyed out text:
It says all these are "white traditions, attitudes and ways of life" which have been "internalized" by "people of color"
I stand corrected. After a second, more thorough look at it, I tend to agree that the author, more or less, does share these assumptions, which does seem to bring her own work into disrepute.
I'm still struggling to identify what she has written as 'woke', though. It really seems to be the opposite of that.
Just a comment on the Smithsonian fracas. Try reading Kate Fox 'Watching the English'. In this book she treats English culture to a bit of simple anthropology, as if they are an exotic tribe being observed. It's very popular, and funny too. The Smithsonian is doing a similar thing, though it is much more stereotyped and sharp, so uncomfortable. It reads more like a critical outsider might see a white culture.
The PB critics have included these broad criticisms:
The picture is white supremacist by attributing a range of self evident good qualities to a white culture only.
The picture is racist and anti-white by attributing a rage of doubtful qualities to a white culture.
The picture is racist and anti non-white because it implies every non white lacks a range of self evident good qualities.
It's woke nonsense gone mad.
I doubt if all these can be true. Personally I feel stereotyped by it, which is exactly I think what happens more to other groups than to whites. So I think it is of value.
I think the meaning of the graphic is that those traits are generally perceived to be associated with whiteness. So despite Nigerians being the most highly qualified of US immigrants, science is associated with whiteness.
It says white people "avoid conflict".
So white people are peaceful. "Whiteness is peace".
I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -
THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.
What does who tweets something have to do with whether the thing tweeted is accurate or not? If it isn't, they are disreputable. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether they have views or interpretations others would not share, since we are not obliged to share the view or interpretation they hold. If their interpretation is suspect or incorrect, that's an entirely separate matter.
Please see my reply 6.35 to Pagan.
Unless it's a "2+2=4" type assertion, you should always be cautious about accepting at face value things tweeted by dubious sources with an extremist agenda.
And especially so when - as here - it's a tweet from such a source copied onto here by a poster of similar ilk. When it comes to this think Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd - Double Jeopardy.
lol. The source is real. It's been tweeted by thousands of others
The headline states that the graphic depicts "Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the USofA".
My guess is that it is predominantly white people who are making these assumptions, associating things which these people perceive as virtues, with their own whiteness.
I didn't get the impression that the author shares these assumptions, only that she observed the fact that white people, at least a majority of them, hold these views.
No. Read the headline from the original source. The author believes what is plainly said:
"While different individuals might not practice or accept all of these traits, they are common characteristics of most U.S. White people most of the time."
Meanwhile on the infographic, see the greyed out text:
It says all these are "white traditions, attitudes and ways of life" which have been "internalized" by "people of color"
I stand corrected. After a second, more thorough look at it, I tend to agree that the author, more or less, does share these assumptions, which does seem to bring her own work into disrepute.
I'm still struggling to identify what she has written as 'woke', though. It really seems to be the opposite of that.
If by woke you mean good, then no, it isn't woke. But woke isn't a synonym for good, in my opinion.
It was asked why China has suddenly decided to come out all nasty to the world. I think the answer is that it has placed its bets on a Biden win in November and takes the view that, if he wins, Biden will be essentially Obama Mark 2, namely will want to avoid conflict and so will bend over backwards to do anything to calm China down. So China is probably thinking that the more it sabre rattles, the more Biden (or his successor) will look to give give aways.
So, what you're saying is that if Trump wins, China will suddenly back down?
The reality is that the US is weaker now than it has been for a long time, and has a President who is susceptible to flattery and is simultaneously scared of committing military force. Obama, at least, was willing to sail a US carrier group through the Formosa strait - while Trump has been much lower key, preferring to send the occasional missile cruiser, but never something as significant as a carrier group.
China has grown in confidence and grown in aggressiveness during the Trump Presidency: to deny that is to deny that the world is round. To claim that it is due to fear of a Biden Presidency, given their increased aggression long predates Trump's unpopularity, is simply delusional.
Also this: China has built a significant advantage in missiles. They could maybe wipe out a US carrier group that got too close
Besides, China's goal is not to strike America, and start WW3, at least not yet. It is to deter America from hitting China, and to push America out of Asia and the Eastern Pacific. China wants to be the Asian hegemon, supplanting the USA
So far it is doing pretty well. They've just taken Hong Kong without a shot being fired. Taiwan is next.
Hong Kong has been Chinese territory since 1997, the Chinese have just cancelled Hong Kong devomax basically and Trump ended Hong Kong's preferential trade status today https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-53414539.
Taiwan however is a different story and don't forget it is not only the US concerned about Chinese expansion, Japan, South Korea and India are too
China has been fighting a Cold War against Western democracies for a couple of decades. But our politicians have been too [callow/stupid/corrupt] to notice and our industrialists have cared for nothing but profit. Speak to anyone that knows about these things in Asia and they will describe the Cameron/Osborne years in particular as a shameful humiliation for Britain, for the transactional approach taken to British-Sino relations.
The current upper echelon of the Chinese Communist Party are best described as racial supremacists. When you grasp this basic point everything becomes clear. They’ve not even been hiding their goals, with frequent speeches and policy papers targeting technological dominance, military dominance through One Belt One Road and economic dominance through its trade abuses and corporate espionage (helped by Bush II’s green light to WTO). With casual suppression of dissenting culture through concentration camps thrown in for good measure.
It has been obvious for years that once the years of fat cows inevitably gave way to skinny ones, that the only tool available to the Party would be geographic expansionism and a hyping up of totalitarian nationalism. It’s a happy coincidence (?) for them that the hard economic contraction is happening at a time when a) the world is looking the other way, and b) there’s a plausible reason to restrict movement of people in/out and across the country.
The original Huawei decision last year was as crushingly disappointing as any I can remember from a government I supported. Trump has too many flaws to list and is no doubt a psychopathic narcissist. But three cheers to him for decisively shifting the terms of debate on China. They see us as their enemy and have been treating us as such. It’s time we woke up and returned the favour.
Grayling must have the most complete record of all the skeletons in Westminster out of any MP to keep being appointed / put forward for roles clearly beyond his competence (except this time of course). I just can't think of another logical explanation for someone so blatantly useless still being the favoured candidate for a position of responsibility
Some fascinating US polling today. Rasmussen has Biden only three points up on Trump (47-44) which is a big swing to Trump from last week. As I can't access the crosstabs, the only nugget I have is Independents favour Biden by six this week compared with twelve last week.
Page 125 has the key numbers. Biden leads Trump 49-40 with a one point Trump lead among men (46-45) outbalanced by a 17 point Biden lead among women (52-35).
Trump leads 49-42 among White voters but Biden is up 46-40 in the Midwest and tied 45-45 in the South so an excellent poll for the Democrat challenger.
The CNBC/Change Research Poll crosstabs aren't very helpful:
I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -
THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.
What does who tweets something have to do with whether the thing tweeted is accurate or not? If it isn't, they are disreputable. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether they have views or interpretations others would not share, since we are not obliged to share the view or interpretation they hold. If their interpretation is suspect or incorrect, that's an entirely separate matter.
Please see my reply 6.35 to Pagan.
Unless it's a "2+2=4" type assertion, you should always be cautious about accepting at face value things tweeted by dubious sources with an extremist agenda.
And especially so when - as here - it's a tweet from such a source copied onto here by a poster of similar ilk. When it comes to this think Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd - Double Jeopardy.
lol. The source is real. It's been tweeted by thousands of others
The headline states that the graphic depicts "Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the USofA".
My guess is that it is predominantly white people who are making these assumptions, associating things which these people perceive as virtues, with their own whiteness.
I didn't get the impression that the author shares these assumptions, only that she observed the fact that white people, at least a majority of them, hold these views.
No. Read the headline from the original source. The author believes what is plainly said:
"While different individuals might not practice or accept all of these traits, they are common characteristics of most U.S. White people most of the time."
Meanwhile on the infographic, see the greyed out text:
It says all these are "white traditions, attitudes and ways of life" which have been "internalized" by "people of color"
I stand corrected. After a second, more thorough look at it, I tend to agree that the author, more or less, does share these assumptions, which does seem to bring her own work into disrepute.
I'm still struggling to identify what she has written as 'woke', though. It really seems to be the opposite of that.
I know the origins of this kind of thought. It is - or was - an extreme strand of identity politics, grounded in Marxism (hence the attempt to deconstruct the "capitalist" nuclear family). A few rad left academics thought this up over previous decades.
See the list of Katz's work. She's utterly obscure, and quite old
The problem is that this nutty radicalism has suddenly gone mainstream., Let's hope it is a passing phase. I agree it is the opposite of Woke as most people perceive it.
Those are better results for Biden in Florida and Arizona that I would have expected. I wonder if - in both - it is a reaction to the renewed CV-19 outbreak.
Just a comment on the Smithsonian fracas. Try reading Kate Fox 'Watching the English'. In this book she treats English culture to a bit of simple anthropology, as if they are an exotic tribe being observed. It's very popular, and funny too. The Smithsonian is doing a similar thing, though it is much more stereotyped and sharp, so uncomfortable. It reads more like a critical outsider might see a white culture.
The PB critics have included these broad criticisms:
The picture is white supremacist by attributing a range of self evident good qualities to a white culture only.
The picture is racist and anti-white by attributing a rage of doubtful qualities to a white culture.
The picture is racist and anti non-white because it implies every non white lacks a range of self evident good qualities.
It's woke nonsense gone mad.
I doubt if all these can be true. Personally I feel stereotyped by it, which is exactly I think what happens more to other groups than to whites. So I think it is of value.
I think the meaning of the graphic is that those traits are generally perceived to be associated with whiteness. So despite Nigerians being the most highly qualified of US immigrants, science is associated with whiteness.
It says white people "avoid conflict".
So white people are peaceful. "Whiteness is peace".
.
Yes, it is literally describing the social construct of whiteness.
Race is a social construct. This mind-blowingly woke idea was arrived at in the mid 1940s.
Comments
Trump has zero conception of national interest - beyond his own fundament that is.
It you got a review for a new car online, wouldnt you want to know if it was by an independent journalist, direct from the manufacturer, an expert, or a journalist sponsored by the manufacturer? Each one might be true, but you should read it differently.
It is no different when reading about an idea.
This is really good news for the nation's security. It may be bad news for whichever department Boris offers him to next though.
But that will hopefully change on 3rd November.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/eu-citizens-2021-local-elections_uk_5f0ec044c5b6df6cc0b37305
Cat did more for Anglo-American relations in one minute than Foreign Office in decades.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1283444994045550594?s=20
The reality is that the US is weaker now than it has been for a long time, and has a President who is susceptible to flattery and is simultaneously scared of committing military force. Obama, at least, was willing to sail a US carrier group through the Formosa strait - while Trump has been much lower key, preferring to send the occasional missile cruiser, but never something as significant as a carrier group.
China has grown in confidence and grown in aggressiveness during the Trump Presidency: to deny that is to deny that the world is round. To claim that it is due to fear of a Biden Presidency, given their increased aggression long predates Trump's unpopularity, is simply delusional.
Hence Socialist Democratic Republics** were more democratic than actual democracy.
*This line of argument vanished in 1989 without the slightest hint of an apology.
**One party, hereditary dictatorships with a big serving of kleptocracy.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/section/china-army/
Though it seems to me that there are plenty of members of all ethnic groups who display such characteristics.
The US has the most powerful military overall, then Russia, then China
https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp
Also fact that stench of incompetence beginning to permeate HM's current govt, and reckon that significant section of Tory Party has had more than enough.
They can't defenestrate BoJo - not yet - but they CAN rattle his cage. AND do so in knowledge that they defending national security threat foreign & domestic - including PM's keepers, minders & minions.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/consumer/survey-results/daily/2020/07/13/f7e6f/1
Besides, China's goal is not to strike America, and start WW3, at least not yet. It is to deter America from hitting China, and to push America out of Asia and the Eastern Pacific. China wants to be the Asian hegemon, supplanting the USA
So far it is doing pretty well. They've just taken Hong Kong without a shot being fired. Taiwan is next.
Unless it's a "2+2=4" type assertion, you should always be cautious about accepting at face value things tweeted by dubious sources with an extremist agenda.
And especially so when - as here - it's a tweet from such a source copied onto PB.com by a poster of similar ilk. When it comes to this think Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd - Double Jeopardy.
There were a couple of days of increasing positive cases week on week and R seemed to be above 1, though on a very low number of cases, as Barnesian has shown.
And the government shat itself in panic.
Why ? Because the government is desperate for people to return to 'normal' and had just announced inducements for people to go to pubs and restaurants.
Now if those inducements had to be cancelled because of an increasing infection rate then the government would look bad and many jobs would have been at risk.
So instead the government decided to do something different - mandatory masks in shops. Its not likely to do have much effect but the government are desperate to squeeze the last drop out of the orange metaphorically speaking.
And this panic explains why the government made no effort to prepare the public for a change in policy and why we saw politicians in pub / restaurant / hairdresser photostunts while not wearing masks.
Ironically the last two days of positive cases have shown things to be improving again.
Having a rule that we should all wear seat-belts is silly - it should be blindingly obvious, but us being us, a rule seems necessary.
Masks in shops is apparently somewhat marginal in benefit, but even if it had no benefit at all it might be worth doing anyway just to keep people's attention on the risk (albeit that is now small).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-53414539.
Taiwan however is a different story and don't forget it is not only the US concerned about Chinese expansion, Japan, South Korea and India are too
BUT Lone Star politics tame in some respects compared with Pelican State.
For example, had one friend of mine (the former ambassador's son) whose uncle once threatened in a drunken rage to assassinate His Honor the Mayor of New Orleans ("I'm gonna shot the god-damn son of a bitch!") because representatives from the city had come to his house and interrogated his wife about 100 or so unpaid parking tickets. He was dissuaded, but took some doing.
Interesting, had another friend (a fugitive from a Florida chain gang) who was once detained briefly by police ("arrest the usual suspects") following the murder of the same mayor's long-time mistress.
https://twitter.com/hrkbenowen/status/1283463753481297920?s=20
Here's the relevant literature from the museum
https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness
I even went through history and found you the original source, all the way back in 1990, and mad academic Judith H Katz
http://www.cascadia.edu/discover/about/diversity/documents/Some Aspects and Assumptions of White Culture in the United States.pdf
You can thank me later
Thankfully so has Labour...
* For me, until mandatory Ill wear one if expecting to be in shop >10 mins, otherwise probably not.
AC Milan have gone behind versus Parma.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/football/italian-serie-a/ac-milan-v-parma-betting-29898028
My guess is that it is predominantly white people who are making these assumptions, associating things which these people perceive as virtues, with their own whiteness.
I didn't get the impression that the author shares these assumptions, only that she observed the fact that white people, at least a majority of them, hold these views.
Democrats appear to be winners of July 2020 Maine Primary. Mostly because they nominated current state house Speaker Sara Gideon to run against incumbent (and unopposed in GOP primary) Republican US Sen Susan Collins.
Gideon is "moderate" who beat "progressive" for nomination, receiving whopping 70% of Dem primary vote. Of Maine's 500+ cities, towns and "plantations" (unincorporated with few or zero voters) Gideon only lost 9 and tied in 6.
Democrats nationally and locally are NOT happy with Sen. Collins, not at all. Unity behind Democrat best qualified (re: both experience & politics) is just one sign of determination to end the incumbent's over-long senatorial career.
Indeed, often winning ones too.
"While different individuals might not practice or accept all of these traits, they are common characteristics of most U.S. White people most of the time."
http://www.cascadia.edu/discover/about/diversity/documents/Some Aspects and Assumptions of White Culture in the United States.pdf
Meanwhile on the infographic, see the greyed out text:
It says all these are "white traditions, attitudes and ways of life" which have been "internalized" by "people of color"
There is probably room for agreement here. The intent of the overall message (before the graphic) is worthy, if, in places, disputable.
However, the infographic is clumsy, and ugly, and sounds insane to anyone sensible (who isn't fully equipped with the latest critical race theory and can somehow parse it into sort-of acceptability). As such, it is a bad mistake, which is why it is getting such a harsh reaction online.
https://twitter.com/flaviblePolitic/status/1283451696899919873
He remains an interesting academic, but his spiritual children in the RCP are much more interested in political power. They have simply followed Moscows line, from Communist days to the present fermenting of divisive Populism
How about workplaces ?
What about in the home, isn't that where most infections happen ?
I don't quite see what Starmer is up to in terms of his shadow cabinet - Dodds as shadow chancellor is just ridiculous, but I guess we'll see over tie, and if Burgon reappears then we know that Starmer has lost the internal fights.
The PB critics have included these broad criticisms:
The picture is white supremacist by attributing a range of self evident good qualities to a white culture only.
The picture is racist and anti-white by attributing a rage of doubtful qualities to a white culture.
The picture is racist and anti non-white because it implies every non white lacks a range of self evident good qualities.
It's woke nonsense gone mad.
I doubt if all these can be true. Personally I feel stereotyped by it, which is exactly I think what happens more to other groups than to whites. So I think it is of value.
Also, I like the way you have "Israeli contacts". It makes me think you are probably linked to Mossad, which is cool
Have they come up with one of these charming stereotyping charts about other ethnic groups, or is it just the one? The way the new Wokeists focus monomaniacally on 'White', 'Whites', 'Whiteness' reminds me of the way the Corbyn cadre talks about, er, 'Zionists'.
To the extent you see the characteristics as positive you are then starting from a position that white culture is better unless you can justify why the alternative is better
Well, what to say re: Jeff Sessions except, welcome to the dustbin of history - loser.
Even in overwhelming defeat had to grovel to the Trumpsky who hates, hurts, humiliates & hurls him into oblivion.
Appears only real reason he ran to get his old job back was because he could NOT make it in the world of lobbying & influencing (commercial or ideological).
Ended up winning three widely scattered counties; Mobile on the Gulf, his home county in south-central AL, and Madison (Huntsville) on Tennessee River, where he obviously impressed the rocket scientists (likely due to congressional space spending than anything else).
Not much to be said for Coach Tuberville, except true measure of his runoff victory is that he took Tuscaloosa County. AND he begins the general election - and likely will end it - as a prohibitive favorite against incumbent Dem US Sen. Doug Jones. Who PBers may remember upset just about the worst GOP nominee possible, the (in)famous Judge Roy Moore who has 10 Commandments tatooed on his forehead - or is it his ass?
After a second, more thorough look at it, I tend to agree that the author, more or less, does share these assumptions, which does seem to bring her own work into disrepute.
I'm still struggling to identify what she has written as 'woke', though. It really seems to be the opposite of that.
So white people are peaceful. "Whiteness is peace".
How is that not just barking mad?
We are overanalyzing. The document is insane.
The current upper echelon of the Chinese Communist Party are best described as racial supremacists. When you grasp this basic point everything becomes clear. They’ve not even been hiding their goals, with frequent speeches and policy papers targeting technological dominance, military dominance through One Belt One Road and economic dominance through its trade abuses and corporate espionage (helped by Bush II’s green light to WTO). With casual suppression of dissenting culture through concentration camps thrown in for good measure.
It has been obvious for years that once the years of fat cows inevitably gave way to skinny ones, that the only tool available to the Party would be geographic expansionism and a hyping up of totalitarian nationalism. It’s a happy coincidence (?) for them that the hard economic contraction is happening at a time when a) the world is looking the other way, and b) there’s a plausible reason to restrict movement of people in/out and across the country.
The original Huawei decision last year was as crushingly disappointing as any I can remember from a government I supported. Trump has too many flaws to list and is no doubt a psychopathic narcissist. But three cheers to him for decisively shifting the terms of debate on China. They see us as their enemy and have been treating us as such. It’s time we woke up and returned the favour.
Some fascinating US polling today. Rasmussen has Biden only three points up on Trump (47-44) which is a big swing to Trump from last week. As I can't access the crosstabs, the only nugget I have is Independents favour Biden by six this week compared with twelve last week.
Economist/YouGov has enormous crosstabs:
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/hpupr0zhkl/econTabReport.pdf
Page 125 has the key numbers. Biden leads Trump 49-40 with a one point Trump lead among men (46-45) outbalanced by a 17 point Biden lead among women (52-35).
Trump leads 49-42 among White voters but Biden is up 46-40 in the Midwest and tied 45-45 in the South so an excellent poll for the Democrat challenger.
The CNBC/Change Research Poll crosstabs aren't very helpful:
https://9b1b5e59-cb8d-4d7b-8493-111f8aa90329.usrfiles.com/ugd/9b1b5e_cabe0094cdf847dc8a2f12309173b8dd.pdf
Biden leads 51-41. I did note 55% of the sample were women which looks a little high and would skew the numbers toward Biden based on the above.
If anyone can access the Rasmussen crosstabs they would be very interesting.
See the list of Katz's work. She's utterly obscure, and quite old
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/91319.Judith_H_Katz
The problem is that this nutty radicalism has suddenly gone mainstream., Let's hope it is a passing phase. I agree it is the opposite of Woke as most people perceive it.
Race is a social construct. This mind-blowingly woke idea was arrived at in the mid 1940s.