Burn it down? Why am. I hearing radio silence?

[abrakamowse]

11 minutes ago, crab12 said:

edit: I guess from your perspective it's hard for you to believe that conservatives feel afraid, but this is how they feel.

No, I understand that... fear is what makes all this kind of manifestations and revolts happen. There's fear in both sides, really...

3 minutes ago, crab12 said:

Also, conservatives are very unhappy with the current government as well, at least the part of the movement I identify the most with.

I know that, and that's why it is needed an open mind to solve this problems. Because both sides are unhappy for different reasons (and some of them not so different really)... more empathy is needed in my opinion from both sides.

[Forestluv]

5 minutes ago, crab12 said:

I dunno how you feel, I just expressed what conservatives as a collective feel.

edit: I guess from your perspective it's hard for you to believe that conservatives feel afraid, but this is how they feel.

For sure. I was raised in a conservative environment. That fear is not my default, yet I can access it if I want to. It’s almost like a language I learned as a child. I haven’t used it for 30 years, yet I can still remember.

For example, I was watching a couple victory speeches of progressive black candidates that recently won primary contests in New York. My default resonance was that of inspiration and hope for a more just and equal future. Yet I can still tap in and experience the white conservative fear. The was one point in which he said “I’m going to congress and I’m going to be a problem to the status quo”. I was able to tap into remnants of my conservative conditioning. He was a black man gaining power that wanted to change the rules, change the influence of white people, take away white culture, my way of life. For about a minute, I experienced fear. He became the “other” against “me” and “my” culture’s way of life, a threat to the power we have in making and enforcing the rules. After about a minute, it dissolved. It was a peak into that mindset, perception and experience. I know what it’s like. It’s a very real, powerful thing. 

[crab12]

3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

For sure. I was raised in a conservative environment. That fear is not my default, yet I can access it if I want to. It’s almost like a language I learned as a child. I haven’t used it for 30 years, yet I can still remember.

For example, I was watching a couple victory speeches of progressive black candidates that recently won primary contests in New York. My default resonance was that of inspiration and hope for a more just and equal future. Yet I can still tap in and experience the white conservative fear. The was one point in which he said “I’m going to congress and I’m going to be a problem to the status quo”. I was able to tap into remnants of my conservative conditioning. He was a black man gaining power that wanted to change the rules, change the influence of white people, take away white culture, my way of life. For about a minute, I experienced fear. He became the “other” against “me” and “my” culture’s way of life, a threat to the power we have in making and enforcing the rules. After about a minute, it dissolved. It was a peak into that mindset, perception and experience. I know what it’s like. It’s a very real, powerful thing. 

Very interesting. For me it was the opposite. I grew up in a liberal household and took on conservative views after hitting 25 or so. yes, it's very much about losing my way of life, I don't want to live in the current modern society, modern society is cancer to me, I want traditional modest christian spiritual community, with several upgrades to christianity where in the churches actual spiritual topics are discussed, like here on this forum.

Also feels good not to be met with the hostility I'm used to whenever I express my political opinions.

Edited June 26, 2020 by crab12

[Forestluv]

24 minutes ago, crab12 said:

Very interesting. For me it was the opposite. I grew up in a liberal household and took on conservative views after hitting 25 or so. yes, it's very much about losing my way of life, I don't want to live in the current modern society, modern society is cancer to me, I want traditional modest christian spiritual community, with several upgrades to christianity where in the churches actual spiritual topics are discussed, like here on this forum.

Also feels good not to be met with the hostility I'm used to whenever I express my political opinions.

I grew up in a fundamental Christian home in which faith, beliefs, tradition and culture were very important. I know what it feels like to have others dismiss that, tell me I’m wrong, or try to take it away from me. . . Yet I’ve also come to understand public spaces are shared spaces for everyone’s faiths, beliefs, traditions and cultures. It’s not fair for me to say “Christmas only” and get upset with “Happy Holidays” in public spaces, even if it feels like the tradition of Christmas is getting watered down, because their are people who celebrate other holidays or no holiday at all. Similarly, it would be unfair for me to say that the 10 commandments should be displayed in public schools or that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married. 

[crab12]

@Serotoninluv I get what you saying about shared spaces. But currently everyone else demands their own space while we are seeing messages like this:

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/activist-demands-statues-of-white-jesus-be-torn-down-murals-destroyed/

And having Jesus destroyed in his current form and replaced with something else is not acceptable to us. Also having white statues destroyed is unacceptable to us, they are part of our identity, for better or for worse, and they are not doing any harm to no one anymore.

Edited June 26, 2020 by crab12

[Nak Khid]

Here's the Fox news link to the interview about 6 minutes 

I cant get it to play - suspicious 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/black-lives-matter-leader-burn-down-system

 

.

Edited June 26, 2020 by Nak Khid

[Forestluv]

14 minutes ago, crab12 said:

@Serotoninluv I get what you saying about shared spaces. But currently everyone else demands their own space while we are seeing messages like this:

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/activist-demands-statues-of-white-jesus-be-torn-down-murals-destroyed/

And having Jesus destroyed in his current form and replaced with something else is not acceptable to us.

There will be a continuum of what society views as appropriate and inappropriate. For now, most people agree that statues honoring men that fought to enslave people should be taken down. Yet this can be pushed further. For example, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, yet didn’t fight to perpetuate slavery. That’s not what he is being honored for. He is being honored for things like adding the Bill of Rights to the U.S. constitution. That is an important distinction.

White Jesus statues is not as clear cut. I wish progressives would focus on changing the clear cut stuff right now. Like removing the confederate flags and statues from public spaces as well as changing biases in institution, such as hiring practices. 

In terms of Jesus statues, I would say it depends on context. For example, I would say a Jesus statue would be appropriate on the campus of a private Christian University. It is appropriate on church property. It gets more complicated as we enter the public sphere. Would erecting a Jesus statue be appropriate on the campus of a public University? This makes me uncomfortable because a power play enters. . . The narrative that “This is a Christian Nation”. If there was a Jesus statue erected on a public campus, I would prefer it be a collection of spiritual statues: for example Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad and Shiva together. 

Rather than removing a public statue of Jesus, how would you feel about adding in other religious statues with the Jesus statue? For example, a statue of Buddha and a statue of Shiva next to the Jesus statue?

[crab12]

@Serotoninluv Currently, I don't see us coming to an agreement on this. That's why we want our own space to live as we want and we will not bother you living the way you want in your community. That's the best compromise I can come up with right now.

Edited June 26, 2020 by crab12

[Forestluv]

7 minutes ago, crab12 said:

@Serotoninluv Currently, I don't see us coming to an agreement on this. That's why we want our own space to live as we want and we will not bother you living the way you want in your community. That's the best compromise I can come up with right now.

This is the idea of private space. We have private space at home, churches and private colleges.

Are you saying that you want public space to be converted into private space for Christians? For example, creating a town in which only Christians are allowed to live? And any non-Christian visitors would need to obey the Christian rules of the town? . If so, would this Christian town have autonomy from a federal government?

[crab12]

5 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

This is the idea of private space. We have private space at home, churches and private colleges.

Are you saying that you want public space to be converted into private space for Christians? For example, creating a town in which only Christians are allowed to live? And any non-Christian visitors would need to obey the Christian rules of the town? . If so, would this Christian town have autonomy from a federal government?

Something like that, the details would have to be worked out. This is only a broad vision currently.

[Forestluv]

22 minutes ago, crab12 said:

Something like that, the details would have to be worked out. This is only a broad vision currently.

I can see that desire, yet I think it would be very difficult to do. Even if we created a Christian town, there is still interactions with public resources. It would be very difficult to have a fully autonomous town or state. Theoretically, it can somewhat be done on a small scale, such as Native American Indian reservations and Amish communities have a lot of autonomy, yet it would be very difficult to do on a large scale. The world is too inter-connected. As well, it would be difficult to get all the Christians in the town to agree on all policies. There are many different interpretations of scriptures, morals and values. It’s hard to create and maintain one set of Christian interpretations, principals and rules that everyone agrees upon. It can be done on a small scale, like within a church community. Yet it would be very difficult to do on a large scale.

[crab12]

Just now, Serotoninluv said:

I can see that desire, yet I think it would be very difficult to do. Even if we created a Christian town, there is still interactions with public resources. It would be very difficult to have a fully autonomous town or state. Theoretically, it can somewhat be done on a small scale, such as Native American Indian reservations have a lot of autonomy, yet it would be very difficult to do on a large scale. The world is too inter-connected. 

If we can work something out that is acceptable to us, we'll be on your side in this struggle. Indian reserves sounds extremely bad, but the general direction is right.

[Forestluv]

10 minutes ago, crab12 said:

If we can work something out that is acceptable to us, we'll be on your side in this struggle. Indian reserves sounds extremely bad, but the general direction is right.

This would be extremely difficult to do on a large scale. Here is just one challenge from within the Christian community: Methodists in my state are arguing over how to treat LGBTQ. Some Conservative Methodists are saying LGBTQ should not be allowed in the church community. Moderate Methodists are saying LGBTQ should be allowed in the church community, yet not allowed to be Pastors. Progressive Methodists want LGBTQ members to be allowed to become pastors. Each group is interpreting scripture differently and wants different rules. The Methodists are splitting up over this is my state. Imagine if my state was a full “Methodist State”. They have argued about this for years and will not compromise. They are now splitting up into different groups. Would they split into different Methodist states? And how would that work? They are all mixed together. Various Conservative, Moderate and Progressive Methodists have bought houses, work jobs, send their kids to school. They are all inter-twined. And who would get the nice parts of the states and who gets the crappier parts of the state? It would be super hard to segregate them all into three separate mini states. 

[crab12]

15 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

This would be extremely difficult to do on a large scale. Here is just one challenge from within the Christian community: Methodists in my state are arguing over how to treat LGBTQ. Some Conservative Methodists are saying LGBTQ should not be allowed in the church community. Moderate Methodists are saying LGBTQ should be allowed in the church community, yet not allowed to be Pastors. Progressive Methodists want LGBTQ members to be allowed to become pastors. Each group is interpreting scripture differently and wants different rules. The Methodists are splitting up over this is my state. Imagine if my state was a full “Methodist State”. They have argued about this for years and will not compromise. They are now splitting up into different groups. Would they split into different Methodist states? And how would that work? They are all mixed together. Various Conservative, Moderate and Progressive Methodists have bought houses, work jobs, send their kids to school. They are all inter-twined. And who would get the nice parts of the states and who gets the crappier parts of the state? It would be super hard to segregate them all into three separate mini states. 

I have no illusions over how difficult these negotiations are going to be. If we both come from a place of not wanting to screw each other over and we both genuinely want to reach a deal that is satisfactory to both of us, it can be done.

it's better than fighting each other to the death.

Also, it's kinda pointless to speculate over this, as most people on the conservative side want to keep the US as a whole as it is now, yet they are deeply unsatisfied with how things are developing and they really have no direction or idea how to proceed.

Edited June 26, 2020 by crab12

[Akemrelax]

I thought people in America had a right to defend against a tyrannical government. He is just stating his right. 

If you’re that worried about people taking over the government why don’t you take down the second amendment?

It can’t be “they’re only allowed to defend if I think it’s a tyrannical government.” 

[Onemanwolfpac]

On 26/06/2020 at 3:07 PM, Serotoninluv said:

Hawk Newsome is complex and nuanced. To portray him as a scary terrorist that wants to start a militia to overthrow the government is intellectually lazy and fear mongering. Below is an in-depth interview with Hawk for anyone who actually wants to learn about his experience, philosophy and what he and blm are protesting for.

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/black-lives-matter-activist-hawk-newsome-on-the-takeout-2282020/#x

Yes. And I hope more people become open to considering another perspective and contemplate his message. I’m not saying he has the only message of value. I think he has an important message that has value for the future progress of America. 

America needs to come to terms with the treatment of black people, immigrants, LGBTQ and mass incarceration to progress forward. 

I don't care what he claims to protest. What he said is terrorism and given the abundance of looting, rioting, and insanity, there should be no excuse for it. The left explaining away this crap + cancel culture & & &  ban for anybody on the right is crap. 

 

On 26/06/2020 at 2:11 PM, crab12 said:

I meant being unapologetic, not threatening with violence. Being unapologetic does not lead to Nazism. But it is a necessary component of achieving a WIN-WIN resolve for this conflict. Unless both parties are fully satisfied with the resolve, the conflict will just keep growing and growing in the shadows and explode at one point. If you look at India's civil war the tensions accumulated over a period of time in a very similar fashion.

That isn't a argument any different then hitler and the naxis. Hitler is unapologetic too. You wut? 

The left unapologetic on steroids. Lol jenna marble apology. Jpeg. Lol democrats kneeling im simp fashion to blm. Blm leader that made a comment which is terrorism if taken literally and the riots are occurring. 

The comments and the riots coincide with what i already know and see. I don't see peaceful protests. I see tantrums and wanting handouts. 

Left couldn't be more apologetic. 

[Onemanwolfpac]

On 26/06/2020 at 5:59 PM, Akemrelax said:

I thought people in America had a right to defend against a tyrannical government. He is just stating his right. 

If you’re that worried about people taking over the government why don’t you take down the second amendment?

It can’t be “they’re only allowed to defend if I think it’s a tyrannical government.” 

No. That's terrorism bro. The comments are unacceptable and not a call to peaceful protest. The comments and riots are no coincidence. I am not surprised. Again, the intellectual dishonesty and response is telling. 

I don't need to hear about blm. I know what the leader stands for and everyone who simping.

 

A lot of people here on the forum could do themselves a lot of Good buying and reading Power vs Force. The book would do more for the community then the Democrats and blm ever had. 

[Forestluv]

29 minutes ago, Onemanwolfpac said:

I don't care what he claims to protest.

Open your mind and learn. You have a pre-conceived ideology and are not willing to see nuances. I do not agree 100% with Hawk or his strategy. Yet, you are mischaracterizing his position. You are so close-minded that you will not even consider what he is actually trying to accomplish. You literally say "I don't care what he claims to protest" and refuse to learn about what he is actually describing. You’ve already made up your mind without hearing him out and  you want to spread your pre-conceived ideology about him. That's not going to cut it. Be here to learn, grow and expand. 

Watch Leo’s video on open-mindedness. 

 

[Akemrelax]

9 minutes ago, Onemanwolfpac said:

No. That's terrorism bro. The comments are unacceptable and not a call to peaceful protest. The comments and riots are no coincidence. I am not surprised. Again, the intellectual dishonesty and response is telling. 

The people have the right to defend against a tyrannical government! That’s why y’all have the second amendment.

If the government doesn’t treat black people right then they have the right to burn the system down, that’s what he said.

Again, if you’re sooooo worried about people becoming terrorists then take away their weapons . The intellectual dishonesty is on your side buddy.

[Epikur]

11 minutes ago, Akemrelax said:

The people have the right to defend against a tyrannical government! That’s why y’all have the second amendment.

If the government doesn’t treat black people right then they have the right to burn the system down, that’s what he said.

Again, if you’re sooooo worried about people becoming terrorists then take away their weapons . The intellectual dishonesty is on your side buddy.

If you think this government is a Tyranny you might want to check the definition of Tyranny. In the US there is still democracy.

By that logic every group can say the government is a Tyranny and start fighting against it. 

You might very much look like a terrorist very fast. It's normal that in a country like the US millions of people are angry. It's a mess to govern such a big country with opposite views on everything. You can not herd cats. It's basically impossible. 

The right size for a country seems to be 8 million people. The US is an empire. What can you expect from an empire?