What about those of us that 100% avoid all social media sites (unless you count the sift) and most social activities but are still seeing the nation as us and them, rational humans and irrational cultists?

We are NOT all on the same team…we aren’t even all on a team. Some are totally about personal enrichment no matter who it harms. Some are totally anti humanity.

Let's also be clear, some sparse instances of pleasantries and kindnesses performed on camera while outnumbered 4-1 in no way indicate their violent racist behavior off camera when they have control will change. Most departments have gone the other direction, widening the gap between us and them instead of bridging it. -Newtboy

The words they sing are so much more valuable than the guitars they used to transmit their message for almost free.

"Haven't you heard it's a battle of words," -Us and Them

I think n*gger is an ugly word and should die. If nothing else it should not be used to draw a line between "Us and Them." It's just more racism.

I agree with your disagreement. Censoring "Redneck" was the difference.

10 Power points to you.

I'd guess contenders for best sax solo in a pop/rock song Though I wouldn't put the Benny Hill theme in the same list, but would put on Tim Cappello - I Still Believe... Jungleland and lots of others by Bruce Springsteen... Pink Floyd's Us and Them...

Careless Whisper's sax solo, if Wikipedia is to be believed, was Steve Gregory, who's sax didn't have the key range, so they messed with the recording a bit, and when George came in, he liked it... Actually seems like that was the part of the song they had the hardest part with as George didn't like most takes from most people.

Reductio ad ridiculum

Propagating an "Us and Them" mentality with an appeal to extremes is no better than the extremes themselves . Expressing an opinion doesn't necessitate picking a team to root for/against.

Yeah, I didn't really agree with that part of the video.

Felt like a false equivalency to me. There really is an "us" and "them". This isn't some "two sides to every story" kind of thing. The WBC are simply wrong. Their position is objectively awful, and I feel no need whatsoever to try to understand their point of view other than to utterly debunk it.

I'm not saying that they should be burned at the stake or anything. Her experience shows that compassion and reasoned argument are better tools.

See also racists, creationists, homeopaths and climate deniers.

Seems she had quite a bit to say about the us and them thing. Just saying.

@artician
because you are a fully actualized human being.
the majority of the western cultures have been berated under a cascade of distractions and so-called "entertainment" to further their devolution into little consumption machines...SQUIRREL!

when you attempt to understand someone from their perspective,through empathy and compassion,you begin to love them.this is a natural process which does not fit into the "us and them" paradigm.

the tools for violence and conflict are made flaccid and ineffectual.
religion.
nationalism.
become useless tools to manipulate.


understanding leads to love which leads to cooperation which only serves to undermine the interests of the powerful...so that can never be allowed.

it is the natural state of being that humans cooperate and work together but we,in the "developed" world,are taught that greed is good and selfishness is an admirable trait to pursue.

it is a spiritual cancer.

how ironic that those who live in the "under-developed" world are much more prone to share,cooperate and have a far more dynamic understanding of community.

the more i read your comments the more convinced i am that you are one righteous dude.
you are not alone.
the rising tide of resistance grows each and every day.
stay awesome my man.

>> ^jonny:

jonny: Obama has shown his willingness to engage in war
NetRunner: How and when did he show this?

40000+ troops sent to Afghanistan despite campaign promises to do exactly the opposite. And for what? Do you honestly believe the long term security of either the US or Afghanistan was improved as a result?

I'm not particularly happy about him ramping up troop levels in Afghanistan, and I'm no optimist about Afghanistan in general, but I don't think it was some sort of obviously boneheaded or bloodthirsty decision, either.

Here's your original quote in full:

Obama has shown his willingness to engage in war, even when it should be clear that doing so will accomplish little in the long run either in terms of US security or the given country's or region's security and stability.

This in response to the question of "are we about to invade Iran?" with the clear implication being that you think Obama is prone to get America involved in pointless wars without any real consideration of either the short term or long term impact to the country.

The relevant Obama bumper-stickers on foreign policy from the 2008 campaign were "I'm not against all wars, just dumb wars," and "I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. You know, John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell -- but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."

I think his record shows that he's held true to both of those, and overall has wielded American power quite judiciously these last 3.5 years. I'm a big pessimist on Afghanistan, but I can't really blame Obama for trying to do something to wind down our involvement there in a way that doesn't leave the situation in Afghanistan much worse for both the Afghans and us. I don't think that's possible, but I can't blame him for not sharing in my fatalism.

>> ^jonny:
Honestly, NetRunner, you've recently been demonstrating the kind of tribalism in politics that has so many people sick of the whole process. I understand it's an election year and there are a lot of things at stake (none bigger than the likely 2 SCOTUS nominations to replace Ginsberg and Breyer). But to mischaracterize my words in that way (especially when I made it pretty clear I had no preference for Romney even on this very limited issue) is exactly the kind of thing I would expect from a hack political operative. I think, no... I know you are better than that. It's not us and them. There is no them.


And here's where you've really gone off the rails. I'm some political hack engaging in mindless tribalism and mischaracterizing the words of others....because I asked you to provide examples of what Obama has specifically done to make you think he'd attack Iran without cause?

My comments after "All that said," were just my general take on the whole question of war with Iran. Even rereading it now, I find it hard to see how you got the impression I was accusing you of being a Romney supporter.

What little judgment I was passing on you was that I felt you were leveling baseless accusations against Obama, and all I was really doing was asking you to try to back it up with facts.

But years of arguing with blankfist should've taught me, asking people for evidence to support their argument is a dirty partisan trick only practiced by political hacks like me...

jonny: Obama has shown his willingness to engage in war


NetRunner: How and when did he show this?



40000+ troops sent to Afghanistan despite campaign promises to do exactly the opposite. And for what? Do you honestly believe the long term security of either the US or Afghanistan was improved as a result?


Honestly, NetRunner, you've recently been demonstrating the kind of tribalism in politics that has so many people sick of the whole process. I understand it's an election year and there are a lot of things at stake (none bigger than the likely 2 SCOTUS nominations to replace Ginsberg and Breyer). But to mischaracterize my words in that way (especially when I made it pretty clear I had no preference for Romney even on this very limited issue) is exactly the kind of thing I would expect from a hack political operative. I think, no... I know you are better than that. It's not us and them. There is no them.

Regardless of what anyone says this is a top down problem. Instead of covering for each other at all times and maintaining an "us and them" attitude they should be concerned about the integrity of their reputation as an organizational whole and make an example of those among them who are found to have violated the people that they are meant to protect.

That being said I would hate to be a cop. I have no interest in spending one second with the human trash that have to constantly be involved with. I assume that there must come a point where you start to lose the ability to differentiate between the citizens you are sworn to protect and those you are meant to protect them from.

@packo
Altho, I agree with the "stick and stones" theory. There's always an "us and them".

In-groups and out-groups are sorta the foundation of civilization and societies.

If you're a guy..
you will never have the same experience as a woman your same age,height,weight,etc.

You'll never have to give birth to a child,
therefore you can never act as if you know what that experience is like.

[Or "they haven't lived thru thick and thin with her, therefore they haven't earned the right to talk smack about your momma" if you wanna use the "infantile" analogy.]


After a while you realize: What's the benefit? [of being offended]

But yes, Professor Wise is correct. You shouldn't try to "reclaim" any words for any in-groups you're not a part of. = P

Ulrich Schnauss's first album - "Far away trains passing by". An album that well and truly got me hooked on electronica. So soothing, so relaxing, each track an individual journey. Press play, sit back and enjoy...

1. Knuddelmaus


2. Between us and them


3. Passing by


4. Blumenwiese neben autobahn


5. Nobody's home


6. Molfsee


Would totally recommend his later albums - "A strangely isolated place" and "Goodbye" too.

Mine only beef: I just don't really believe that the cops are 'one bounced paycheck' from joining themselves. I think cops hate people and would do this for free. Not all, but most. Dealing with the dregs of society on a daily basis makes you develop an us and them mentality and there's no way that the cops would ever consider becoming one of 'them'.