caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,571
Worth a watch. The worst may be yet to come unless lethal force starts to be massively used against them in self-defense IMO.
Last edited:
But in most cases who the elite are is defined on a case by case basis. In the end it is a particular group or groups. Putin's cronies are the elite in Russia today; high level CCP officials are them in China. In your meritocracy, it is those who qualify as meritorious. If one does not qualify, well, then you are out of luck. In Africa it is often one of several tribes in a region or nation. Elitism is a cultural/social construct supported through politics or power or both.Not necessarily. Elitism is a normative position that the elite deserve to rule for some reason; meritocracy is a form of elitism. Indeed, part of the elitist ideology could precisely be that any sufficiently capable person will rise to be part of the elite.
Edit: this is not the only sense of elitism, I suppose, but I think it's relevant here.
Worth a watch. The worst may be yet to come unless lethal force starts to be massively used lethal force is used against them in self-defense IMO.
Some friends screen grabbed what was on Parler and I don't even want to share it. It's gruesome and at times specific and methodical. It's not all scattershot nonsense.
As Korean-New Zealander I am baffled at this...Yes, all of the congressmen should be dressed in bulletproof clothes and be armed as they go to work for the indefinite future. I am serious.
But in most cases who the elite are is defined on a case by case basis. In the end it is a particular group or groups. Putin's cronies are the elite in Russia today; high level CCP officials are them in China. In your meritocracy, it is those who qualify as meritorious. If one does not qualify, well, then you are out of luck. In Africa it is often one of several tribes in a region or nation. Elitism is a cultural/social construct supported through politics or power or both.
Some friends screen grabbed what was on Parler and I don't even want to share it. It's gruesome and at times specific and methodical. It's not all scattershot nonsense.
That congressman are in such a danger that they have to wear a bulletproof shirt to go to work.Why?
exactly why I am baffled. There is rising discontent with our government because of Covid 19... BUT even then we wouldn't go head charge to National Assembly and trash the place. Some MIGHT want to do it but it is NOT widespread enough to put it in action.They have already tried, and are threatening to do it again. Watch the videos I've been posting and see the threats hobbsyoyo mention on Parlour. This is the tip of the iceberg.
*sigh* More lies?!? Just more tiresome goalpost switching, strawmanning and and lying. First, you blatantly and intentionally misrepresent my post. I said:I cited 3 of your posts with specific #s from different pages and I dont have the luxury of hiding behind anyone, they dont protect me, they protect your echo chamber from me. Nobody reports you out of spite much less get you banned, so to accuse me of trying to hide is rich coming from a human lie detector yelling insults from a safe space. The page I linked was the start of that debate and it went for several pages. Here it is:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/george-floyd-and-protesting-while-black.658605/page-150
I said you downplayed last year's riots and there's the proof:
You quoted Malcolm X, not MLK. But when others did quote MLK and I disagreed with his argument you criticized me twice. How dare I question MLK's logic! So was it wrong for me to assume you agreed with MLK? You do agree with him, right?
"A reasonable tolerance for the collateral damage". That was you defending looters, arsonists and people attacking cops and others who were in the way. Do you understand the people most hurt by the riots are black? Burn it all down! There goes the neighborhood Target and with it 30-40 jobs.
You were defending the Klan, as usual, by trying to equate them to BLM. I was stating that I rejected that analogy totally and I quoted Malcolm X to add emphasis to my position. Now you're intentionally selectively misquoting me to try to make your dishonest point. In other words you're lying... again. On top of that, you're dishonestly doubling down, and trying to gloss over another falsehood that you levied against me even in the face of the fact that you looked it up and realized it was false. You demanded that I admit that I quoted MLK in my supposed support of riots saying quote:Sommerswerd said:I will add that the Klan, and their underlying ideology is evil, repugnant and should be opposed at all costs, including violent and illegal means if necessary. To quote Malcolm X... "by any means necessary". https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...ing-while-black.658605/page-150#post-15815748
I denied that accusation directly, saying , quote:Why is it a lie? Do you deny citing MLK on the subject of riots?
So you accused me of quoting MLK in support of riots and I correctly declared that was a lie. Your response, rather than to just admit you were wrong and apologize, was switch the goal post to me quoting Malcolm X.Yes I deny it, and I say again, that you're an effing liar, and you shame the dignity of MLK by mentioning his name
Wait, what?!? "others did quote MLK"?!? So you're strawmanning me with the arguments of others? But more importantly... you think you can just mix up MLK and Malcolm X and just gloss over it like it doesn't matter? MLK and Malcolm X are two totally different people!!! But it makes sense that a person with your particular ideology would hand wave something like that... afterall its just the other black Civil Rights guy, right? So easy to mix those up, right?You quoted Malcolm X, not MLK. But when others did quote MLK and I disagreed with his argument you criticized me twice. How dare I question MLK's logic!
I responded by saying I did nothing of the sort, and after scouring the thread for days, all you could come up with is ONE post (rather than the "months" you claimed) where I quoted Malcolm X (not MLK) to add emphasis to my calling you out for defending the Klan. Nothing whatsoever about me dismissing "damaging the economic bases of neighborhoods across the country." In other words, you lied.You spent months downplaying violent protests damaging the economic bases of neighborhoods across the country.
@Sommerswerd not to be an ass, but out of curiosity: What do MLK and Malcolm X have to do with the terrorists who attempted the coup at the capital building?
TL;DR Berzerker was accusing me of previously quoting MLK in defense of riots, ostensibly in an attempt to accuse me of hypocrisy for not doing the same in defense of the MAGA coup. I responded that his claim was a lie, and he has been squirming and goalpost switching to try and defend his false claim since, including mixing up Malcolm X with MLK.@Sommerswerd not to be an ass, but out of curiosity: What do MLK and Malcolm X have to do with the terrorists who attempted the coup at the capital building?