You really like the sound of your own voice, don't you?

1) You cherry picked and then exaggerated my statements.

2) You toned it down a bit, while still doing both of the above.

3) Now you're just cherry picking.

There's no point debating you if you're just going to be disingenuous about it.

Does a group of white people who are purposely excluding racial minorities seem equally, more, or less prone to racially charged violence than a multi-ethnic group?

And before you bring that black group back into the discussion, remember, odds are (at least in the US) they don't have the range of options the whites do. Most of the time, a group of 50 or more black people forms with no other racial groups present because they're pushed into less desirable areas and excluded from the wealthier side of society. I agree that it's possible that group could be prone to violence, but I'd argue that their reasons would stem more from social inequality, rather than racism. You can't make that same argument for the white group.

I've gone to church for a few years. And I see no women staying silent, nor any man telling them to. I really don't care about "tradition" and would voice serious concern if these type of crap happens in the modern church. Believe me, my church sisters takes no crap from the brothers. And I don't really see much old-school practices except communion, and that's not far-out unacceptable a tradition considering its purpose.

I (or at least hope to) continuously carry a critical eye & mind on these social-issue things as in many others at the church. Church "doctrine/tradition" is no excuse to justify bad social/inequality/bigotry behavior. For me, discussion on why the heck Paul wrote these words is fine, it's good to find faults how those people who lived 2000 years ago and evolve the modern church practices to align better with Jesus' intention.
Overall, in my church, I think most people are pretty grounded in real-life struggles... but hey, I fully understand these are subjective opinions... we all have our blindspots. I think we're all better man/woman if we can take in criticisms.

I can't for the life of me understand the U.S. "Christian Right" (but I'm Canadian, so I'm just a passive observer, as I can't vote on US politics) nor, from my understanding of Him, Jesus (as a preacher of love & peace) could be a far/alt-right-winger. But oh, sorry, I don't mean to talk politics... just hope to convey from which side of the discussion I come from.

It's foolish (and arrogant) to take the Bible literally... so much contradictions, inconsistencies, if read this way. And really, I keep thinking - WHY LITERALLY? - I don't dare listen to my pastors and think their words MUST be what God/Jesus meant. Martin Luther's movement freed us from those chains of mindlessness from the church preachers' power over us.

Akways look to the intention of Jesus, which for me, is honestly good, relevant and much in demand, and do those as the Christian mission. The Bible can be confusing, but the message is crystal clear. And that's love & compassion towards our neighbors, go a preach THAT! Not hate/fear-filled "damn this, damn that"/"End of the World is nigh"-type rhetorics.

Seriously man, looking from a distance (again, Canadian here) those loud-voice Christian Rights in the States scare the hell out of me and most of my brothers & sisters, the general thought around me is that they've move way far out from the Christian's way that Jesus want us to be (that I know of)... makes me so sad.

Racism describes a system of disadvantage based on race. Black people can't be racist since they don't benefit from that system. Prejudice, sure, but not racist.

People of color are allowed to be angry about racism. We have to accept that anger is a natural response to being systematically oppressed. To expect every minority to react to racial/social inequality without a hint of emotion is some bullshit white privilege.

I'm not defending this woman's words, but rather taking issue with why and how they are being presented. bobknight33, you've had a terrible track record posting your racist bullshit on here, how about stop now.

It wasn't very good content...for those who don't find the subject amusing. It's damn boring imo--if that's the case. I liked it because it's message of social inequality. People will pay 1000 dollars for pizza but get snippy if they are taxed to help schools....

When I'm dead, all of these conditions you decry will still be here.

Whenever racism is wiped out, social inequality is banished, every street is paved in gold...then Genji will do wonderful things with his life. I wonder how old he'll be when this is accomplished?

If I were a racist, I'd just come on here and blame his race or whatever. I'm trying to talk some sense to the man. Apparently, however, he prefers to play the victim. And you other malcontents support him in his victimhood.

So while I wish him success, you people just shout 'HEY GENJI, COME LOOK, THERE'S SOME RACISM OVER HERE!!!'

Genji, you alone are responsible for your life.

You want to see racism still in full force, check out the difference in punishment between usage of crack cocaine vs powder cocaine and the work of Prof Carl Hart on how they are basically the same thing...

Drug addiction has been proven to be exacerbated by poor socio economic conditions.

Drug punishment is more punitive for black people.

More black people live in poor socioeconomic circumstances.

To try and rise above that, a decent portion turn to crime. Surprise surprise, you're dirt poor with no job opportunity so you run with the gang.

Meanwhile, the republican party works as hard as possible to keep socialist policy (at least, socialist policy that helps black people, you can keep farm subsidies and corp bailouts to the whites) a demonised concept that might actually help reform these areas.

Fix the inequality, fix the socio economic problems, job discrimination etc, you fix most of the drug and crime problems. Less crime = less spending on cops, less spending on healthcare, less spending on incarceration etc = more money for more social inequality fixing...

Amazing right?

And yeah Genji, Lantern and co are bigots and racists (who will play the "oh I'm being ad hom'ed" card when you realistically describe them) who go out of their way to bait people. Keep giving them shit, they don't deserve (and probably wouldn't comprehend or even condescend to rationally respond to) legitimate discourse.

It's sad but the best thing to hope for imo is generational change, eventually Lantern and co. will be the last fossils hanging on to an era we should move on from. Then they'll die and the world will be a better place... ; )

I don't have a lot of time at the moment to get into this in depth, but this article might help to clarify my thoughts on the issue.

This is not a "competition," by any means, but I am sensitized to the issue, having been indoctrinated throughout my schooling and my upbringing by what feels like a social inequity which purports that, implicitly, men are "bad" and need to be "checked" at every turn, while women are "good," and must be protected and acquiesced at all times. As I get older, however, this attitude turns sour as I continuously find myself faced with a stark dichotomy between either heeding the social, professional, and political needs, wants, and desires of "all women," and those of protecting my own social, professional, and political needs, wants, and desires "as a man." These shouldn't be dichotomous, but for some reason, it has become such.

I am willing to look at and manage my own triggers and/or issues around this, as a personal effort (and I do on almost a daily basis), but in the meantime (and in the hopes of supporting such an effort), I feel there needs to be a lot more recognition and dialogue around what constitutes "equality" (be it gender, or financial, or otherwise) within a society that is either politically regulated and thereby "rigged," by definition on behalf of some people, at the expense of others; or it is socially imposed, whereby (for example) a man is simply expected to be the breadwinner, by virtue of his gender, and reactively judged if he is or can not be that.

I have no interest in "making a video" about this, since my energies are better placed elsewhere, at present, but I can and do make comments on videos like this one, in an effort to meet and respond to the messages with which we're inculcated, with the personal albeit opposing view that things "are as they are" for a reason, and if we're to do anything about it, it requires a fuller examination of the entire picture, and not simply a one-sided, biased and therefore "unequal," perspective which posts blame (and/or guilt) upon one side of the equation without any (or with little) insight as to what role one plays in the issue, oneself.

I am not saying that the inequities aren't there. In fact, I'd go so far as to say
that people need to come to terms with the fact that some people will always "have more" than others and, in a leveled playing field, that is the only fair situation that can exist. In other words, any forced or imposed "equality" is implicitly incompatible with both liberty and freedom, and can not (and should not) be abided as a matter of course.

I encourage you to take a look at the article posted at the top of this comment for another perspective on the same (or "similar") issue.

The book is filled with statistics that support the position (often to the point of information overload).

And you're right that we need to address the root of the problem but you have the wrong root. Lousy upbringings can indeed lead to criminal behaviour, but what leads to lousy upbringings?

Lack of education, unemployment, perceived social inequality all factor into it. And yes, some people are just messed up and shouldn't have kids, but I'd say they are a minority.

So instead of your frankly insane, dystopian, eugenics-based future, we could instead look at ways to make everyone better off. First step, give women control over their reproductive cycle. This has been shown time and again to be one of the keys points in raising a societies economic and social values.

To get back to the original point here, how do these young men, (who had every advantage in life, compared to 90% of the world anyway) fit into your future?

1. Why is it that the more we move away from social democracy and towards fundamentalist capitalism, the more stratified our culture becomes. With record high profits, record low taxes, deregulation of the financial sector and privatization of the government, why is there more corruption, more inequality, more violence, more war, more unemployment, more inflation, more poverty and more misery rather than less. Why are your beliefs so at odds with reality?

And also, individualism is a zero sum game by definition - my me mine. Collectivism is a ‘multi-sum’ game by definition - us we ours. You have it completely backwards. You can’t have it both ways. A functioning democracy works in concert with markets and regulates them to make sure they remain working in a 'multi-sum' manner.

2. You didn't explain why countries that lean more towards social democracy have a happier, healthier, better off populous than countries that lean more towards deregulated markets? Do you dispute this disparity? If so, back it up. Why is it that the more we stray from the New Deal in our own country, the worse our country suffers?

3. Liberals oppose human science? As in eugenics? Liberals prioritize tribalism over science? What does that even mean? Knowledge is useless unless it can make you money? This section is incomprehensible. This is an area of argument I've not heard before. I'd be interested to hear you flesh it out in a more straightforward manner.

4. Cool, let’s get to the heart of the problem:

What does capitalism have to do with liberty? Doesn’t it seem manipulative to define your partisan economic outlook as the embodiment of liberty? How would you feel if I started using social democracy and liberty as the same word? (note to self: fun argument applications here.) How would unregulated markets deal with chattel or wage slavery, labor abuse, environmental destruction, violence, unemployment, vast social inequity, or other kinds of oppression? Why would unregulated markets care that people are suffering?

Why has there never been a successful free market society?

Why is it that the individual tenets of the free market (lowering taxes,lowering wages,deregulation,privatization,austerity) seem to have such a negative and destructive effect on society?

Dali was fascist scum.

http://www.counterpunch.org/navarro12062003.html

The Jackboot of Dada

Salvador Dali, Fascist

By VICENTE NAVARRO

The year 2004, the centenary of Dali's birth, has been proclaimed "the year of Dali" in many countries. Led by the Spanish establishment, with the King at the helm, there has been an international mobilization in the artistic community to pay homage to Dali. But this movement has been silent on a rather crucial item of Dali's biography: his active and belligerent support for Spain's fascist regime, one of the most repressive dictatorial regimes in Europe during the twentieth century.

For every political assassination carried out by Mussolini's fascist regime, there were 10,000 such assassinations by the Franco regime. More than 200,000 people were killed or died in concentration camps between 1939 (when Franco defeated the Spanish Republic, with the military assistance of Hitler and Mussolini) and 1945 (the end of World War II, an anti-fascist war, in Europe). And 30,000 people remain desaparecidos in Spain; no one knows where their bodies are. The Aznar government (Bush's strongest ally in continental Europe) has ignored the instructions of the U.N. Human Rights Agency to help families find the bodies of their loved ones. And the Spanish Supreme Court, appointed by the Aznar government, has even refused to change the legal status of those who, assassinated by the Franco regime because of their struggle for liberty and freedom, remain "criminals."

Now the Spanish establishment, with the assistance of the Catalan establishment, wants to mobilize international support for their painter, Dali, portraying him as a "rebel," an "anti-establishment figure" who stood up to the dominant forces of art. They compare Dali with Picasso. A minor literary figure in Catalonia, Baltasar Porcel (chairman of the Dali year commission), has even said that if Picasso, "who was a Stalinist" (Porcel's term), can receive international acclaim, then Dali, who admittedly supported fascism in Spain, should receive his own homage." Drawing this equivalency between Dali and Picasso is profoundly offensive to all those who remember Picasso's active support for the democratic forces of Spain and who regard his "Guernica" (painted at the request of the Spanish republican government) as an international symbol of the fight against fascism and the Franco regime.

Dali supported the fascist coup by Franco; he applauded the brutal repression by that regime, to the point of congratulating the dictator for his actions aimed "at clearing Spain of destructive forces" (Dali's words). He sent telegrams to Franco, praising him for signing death warrants for political prisoners. The brutality of Franco's regime lasted to his last day. The year he died, 1975, he signed the death sentences of four political prisoners. Dali sent Franco a telegram congratulating him. He had to leave his refuge in Port Lligat because the local people wanted to lynch him. He declared himself an admirer of the founder of the fascist party, Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera. He used fascist terminology and discourse, presenting himself as a devout servant of the Spanish Church and its teaching--which at that time was celebrating Queen Isabella for having the foresight to expel the Jews from Spain and which had explicitly referred to Hitler's program to exterminate the Jews as the best solution to the Jewish question. Fully aware of the fate of those who were persecuted by Franco's Gestapo, Dali denounced Bunuel and many others, causing them enormous pain and suffering.

None of these events are recorded in the official Dali biography and few people outside Spain know of them. It is difficult to find a more despicable person than Dali. He never changed his opinions. Only when the dictatorship was ending, collapsing under the weight of its enormous corruption, did he become an ardent defender of the monarchy. And when things did not come out in this way, he died.

Dali also visited the U.S. frequently. He referred to Cardinal Spellman as one of the greatest Americans. And while in the U.S., he named names to the FBI of all the friends he had betrayed. In 1942, he used all his influence to have Buñuel fired from the Museum of Modern Art in New York, where Buñuel worked after having to leave Spain following Franco's victory. Dali denounced Buñuel as a communist and an atheist, and it seems that under pressure from the Archbishop of New York, Buñuel had to leave for Mexico, where he remained for most of his life. In his frequent visits to New York, Dali made a point of praying in St. Patrick's Cathedral for the health of Franco, announcing at many press conferences his unconditional loyalty to Franco's regime.

Quite a record, yet mostly unknown or ignored by his many fans in the art world.

Vicente Navarro is the author of The Political Economy of Social Inequalities: Consequences for Health and Quality of Life and Dangerous to Your Health. He teaches at Johns Hopkins University. He can be reached at navarro@counterpunch.org.

Dali was fascist scum. http://www.counterpunch.org/navarro12062003.html

The Jackboot of Dada

Salvador Dali, Fascist

By VICENTE NAVARRO

The year 2004, the centenary of Dali's birth, has been proclaimed "the year of Dali" in many countries. Led by the Spanish establishment, with the King at the helm, there has been an international mobilization in the artistic community to pay homage to Dali. But this movement has been silent on a rather crucial item of Dali's biography: his active and belligerent support for Spain's fascist regime, one of the most repressive dictatorial regimes in Europe during the twentieth century.

For every political assassination carried out by Mussolini's fascist regime, there were 10,000 such assassinations by the Franco regime. More than 200,000 people were killed or died in concentration camps between 1939 (when Franco defeated the Spanish Republic, with the military assistance of Hitler and Mussolini) and 1945 (the end of World War II, an anti-fascist war, in Europe). And 30,000 people remain desaparecidos in Spain; no one knows where their bodies are. The Aznar government (Bush's strongest ally in continental Europe) has ignored the instructions of the U.N. Human Rights Agency to help families find the bodies of their loved ones. And the Spanish Supreme Court, appointed by the Aznar government, has even refused to change the legal status of those who, assassinated by the Franco regime because of their struggle for liberty and freedom, remain "criminals."

Now the Spanish establishment, with the assistance of the Catalan establishment, wants to mobilize international support for their painter, Dali, portraying him as a "rebel," an "anti-establishment figure" who stood up to the dominant forces of art. They compare Dali with Picasso. A minor literary figure in Catalonia, Baltasar Porcel (chairman of the Dali year commission), has even said that if Picasso, "who was a Stalinist" (Porcel's term), can receive international acclaim, then Dali, who admittedly supported fascism in Spain, should receive his own homage." Drawing this equivalency between Dali and Picasso is profoundly offensive to all those who remember Picasso's active support for the democratic forces of Spain and who regard his "Guernica" (painted at the request of the Spanish republican government) as an international symbol of the fight against fascism and the Franco regime.

Dali supported the fascist coup by Franco; he applauded the brutal repression by that regime, to the point of congratulating the dictator for his actions aimed "at clearing Spain of destructive forces" (Dali's words). He sent telegrams to Franco, praising him for signing death warrants for political prisoners. The brutality of Franco's regime lasted to his last day. The year he died, 1975, he signed the death sentences of four political prisoners. Dali sent Franco a telegram congratulating him. He had to leave his refuge in Port Lligat because the local people wanted to lynch him. He declared himself an admirer of the founder of the fascist party, Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera. He used fascist terminology and discourse, presenting himself as a devout servant of the Spanish Church and its teaching--which at that time was celebrating Queen Isabella for having the foresight to expel the Jews from Spain and which had explicitly referred to Hitler's program to exterminate the Jews as the best solution to the Jewish question. Fully aware of the fate of those who were persecuted by Franco's Gestapo, Dali denounced Bunuel and many others, causing them enormous pain and suffering.

None of these events are recorded in the official Dali biography and few people outside Spain know of them. It is difficult to find a more despicable person than Dali. He never changed his opinions. Only when the dictatorship was ending, collapsing under the weight of its enormous corruption, did he become an ardent defender of the monarchy. And when things did not come out in this way, he died.

Dali also visited the U.S. frequently. He referred to Cardinal Spellman as one of the greatest Americans. And while in the U.S., he named names to the FBI of all the friends he had betrayed. In 1942, he used all his influence to have Buñuel fired from the Museum of Modern Art in New York, where Buñuel worked after having to leave Spain following Franco's victory. Dali denounced Buñuel as a communist and an atheist, and it seems that under pressure from the Archbishop of New York, Buñuel had to leave for Mexico, where he remained for most of his life. In his frequent visits to New York, Dali made a point of praying in St. Patrick's Cathedral for the health of Franco, announcing at many press conferences his unconditional loyalty to Franco's regime.

Quite a record, yet mostly unknown or ignored by his many fans in the art world.

Vicente Navarro is the author of The Political Economy of Social Inequalities: Consequences for Health and Quality of Life and Dangerous to Your Health. He teaches at Johns Hopkins University. He can be reached at navarro@counterpunch.org.

Poverty, lack of opportunity and social inequality are at the root of violence.

I would argue that the bulk of violence in today's world is not because of poverty or inequality - but because of politics. World governments use the natural tendencies of humans to focus on differences and deliberately inflame those proclivities to further political objectives. Inequality & poverty will always exist in a temporal society. However, VIOLENCE need not exist. Without pied pipers calling people to behave badly in the name of a 'cause' then violence evaporates. Create a truly moral people who abhor violence, and government cringes. But governments are all in favor of taking away weapons from the public so as to limit their freedom to stand up to tyranny.

How do you stop hatred and glorification of violence? Are you trying to say I can't enjoy a good 50 cent rap, or watch scarface again?

I think violence is in our nature, we cannot deny it. We can however acknoledge it without doing harm to our neighbors.

Poverty, lack of opportunity and social inequality are at the root of violence.

IMO.

Ultimately, Winstonfield, marriage is just a word and the meaning of a word can change to mean something different to different people. I suspect the word marriage will be adopted by gay couples to describe their relationship and be fully understood by the person to whom they are speaking. And there's nothing you or the church can do about that.

As for your point about the religious construct, I think you're being paranoid. A religious group is a social construct with built-in prejudices unassociated with the government (although they do get tax exemptions, which is wrong). A gay person suing the Catholic church is akin to a black person suing the KKK for denying them membership. It's an absurd prospect.

Government recognition of marriage for certain goodies is the problem. The SSA is a $50 trillion ponzi scheme that needs to be phased out immediately, it's Medicare promises have extended far, far beyond our future capacity to meet them. The IRS needs to be replaced with a VAT or nothing. That would make this and many other social inequities disappear overnight. Groups should not be able to vote themselves things from other groups. It is a prime failure of democracy that should have been permanently addressed a long time ago in our constitution.

I don't think Bush's statement is THAT wrong & naive. The Muslim fundamentalists certainly hate the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard because he is free, ie, free of Muslim dogma regarding cartoons. The Palestinians hate the Israelis for a completely different reason though.

I agree that social & political aspects play a huge part as well as religion in the Gaza troubles, I just want to point out that there are subtle distinctions between "justice", "social justice" and "fairness" and so on, but that these terms are used more or less interchangeably in the media.

Fairness, for one, belongs in games & sports. Despite this, It's often heard in regard to the Israel-Palestine conflict as the argument "The Israelis are evil because they have such powerful weapons. The Palestinians don't stand a chance". Clearly a silly argument.

Social Justice, as I've so far understood it, carries overtones of a sense of justice extraneous to the legal system, but by which people somehow are entitled to be treated. Usually this is heard in the context of social inequality, as an argument for redistribution. This is why I call it envy.

I don't understand it the way you use it though.

It's reasonable to say that they're acting violently out of poverty & desperation, but how does that have anything to do with justice?