Tim is at the apex of hypocritical CEOs. He's a complete pushover when it comes to China, and will cut every corner regarding privacy when it comes to making a buck there. In the U.S. however, he'll fight tooth and nail when it comes to helping the feds in unlock a terrorist phone.
Well, and even fund organizations trying to shut-down free-speech in the USA.
bshank said: China is a sovereign country. Apple does business there. Apple’s policy is compliance wherever it does business.
While at the same time taking 'moral' stands in the USA. I think we get this... we're just pointing out the hypocrisy.
Jesus christ, which part of “Apple is a US company and not a Chinese one” is so hard for you to understand? The US part, or the not-Chinese part?
And please, do tell us how Cook is funding organizations trying to shut down free speech. This ought to be good...
Damn! I thought it was an Irish company! Fooled me!
Nope, that's where their European subsidiary is based and where its tax obligations reside for the region.
What? They make their phones in China, Taiwan and India. Now your saying they're based in Europe? What?
Tim is at the apex of hypocritical CEOs. He's a complete pushover when it comes to China, and will cut every corner regarding privacy when it comes to making a buck there. In the U.S. however, he'll fight tooth and nail when it comes to helping the feds in unlock a terrorist phone.
Well, and even fund organizations trying to shut-down free-speech in the USA.
bshank said: China is a sovereign country. Apple does business there. Apple’s policy is compliance wherever it does business.
While at the same time taking 'moral' stands in the USA. I think we get this... we're just pointing out the hypocrisy.
Jesus christ, which part of “Apple is a US company and not a Chinese one” is so hard for you to understand? The US part, or the not-Chinese part?
And please, do tell us how Cook is funding organizations trying to shut down free speech. This ought to be good...
Damn! I thought it was an Irish company! Fooled me!
Nope, that's where their European subsidiary is based and where its tax obligations reside for the region.
What? They make their phones in China, Taiwan and India. Now your saying they're based in Europe? What?
You know exactly what he means...stop being a douche!
gatorguy said: To be fair Mr. Cook does feel he, and by extension Apple, has a "moral obligation" to speak out when he sees inequality or hate on display. According to PatentlyApple the problem is it's a selective moral obligation that depends on the source of that hate or inequality. You might disagree of course.
I disagree on a few points, but yes, that's the general idea. MLK would disagree with the SPLC and much that both the Left and Right are doing these days. Cook is citing morality when it favors him, then ducking behind laws when it doesn't.
And, yes, I'm sure it does match his worldview. I'm not just picking on him here, as I have some standing on this (M.A. in a related field). When you don't have objective morality (which I doubt Cook does) as part of your worldview, you're typically reduced to a form of ethics that depends on social norms, likes/dislikes, etc. and it's usually localized. (And, most people who hold such views haven't sat down to consider the implications.)
anantksundaram said: Do you not see that there is an important distinction between the issue in the memo you trot out and the complexities of doing business in another legal jurisdiction? What is the legal conundrum, if any, he’s dealing with in the memo you cite?
That's just part of the problem. Legality ≠ morality. When he's on USA turf, he has no problem pushing against 'legal' if he thinks it crosses his morality. When he's elsewhere, he hides behind legality to drop his moral standards. You can't have it both ways within a consistent worldview.
dewme said: Please take a look at the topics under "What We Do" on the US Dept of State home page.
I'm hoping Trump is somewhat a wrecking ball, though I'm not sure he will be (the leash already seems pretty short). What has been going on with USA foreign policy for the last couple decades can easily be classified as evil. If the public won't clean house, then let the wrecking begin.
StrangeDays said: The SPLC a terrorist org? You are completely delusional if that's what you're suggesting, so thanks for making your crank-factor clear. The SPLC's entire premise is based on freedom of speech and the press.
"The Student Press Law Center is an advocate for student First Amendment rights, for freedom of online speech, and for open government on campus. The SPLC provides information, training and legal assistance at no charge to student journalists and the educators who work with them."
As for China -- Apple is based in the USA, which is its corporate headquarters. It is a US citizen, and as such is entitled to participate in our democratic republic. It has the legal right to do so. None of this is the case for Apple in China.
You argument is as flimsy as my stating this one -- that if you are a proponent of democracy then it's your moral obligation to pack your bags and champion this cause in China. You believe in democracy don't you? Then why in god's name aren't you in China beating the drum for democracy! Or in Saudi Arabia? What's stopping you, Mr. Werks? Why are you not overseas spending your savings promoting your values? It's your moral imperative by your own reasoning! Right? Wrong. It's a stupid argument, and the reason it's stupid is why you're here and not there doing what you're asking Apple to do.
But I get it, you're mad they don't make the Macs you remember and Cook is supportive of gay rights.
And, I'm not quite getting the connection that if I support democracy (as a good governmental principal) how that obligates me to go to China. But, anyway, no I don't support a straight out democracy. The Constitution (and Republic) nature - when well run - is crucial.
nht said: He's stil a crank though for labelling people he disagrees with as terrorists and hate groups as opposed to real terrorists and hate groups. SPLC, like all organizations, has issues I agree with and those I don't.
It's what *they* do with people with whom they disagree that is the problem.
GeorgeBMac said: While I agree with your points, SPLC stands for "Southern Poverty Law Center" and it got its start with a lawyer Morris Dees fighting civil rights cases. It has since broadened its scope to identify discriminatory hate groups and often brings civil litigation against them -- so the hate groups tend to hate the SPLC even more than the minority groups they are organized to hate. Haters hate nothing more than to be hated.
No, it has become a super-funded political action organization. They put people and organizations on their 'hate list' who disagree with their ideologies. They twist, distort, and defame any who they oppose (yes, *some* on the list deserve it, but they lump everyone together). Actual terrorist incidents have been provoked by their actions. They are *EASILY* as, or more responsible, for the violence they encourage as the white nationalists were for what resulted in Charlottesville.
I suppose terrorist organization was a bit exaggerated, if you compare them to, say ISIS. But, in going with how people these days are generally labeling radical-ideology hate groups, terrorists, they fit that bill. (i.e.: if the 'white nationalists' are terrorists, then SPLC is too)
A US Senator talking about moral obligations? I just don't quite know how to react to that.
To be fair Mr. Cook does feel he, and by extension Apple, has a "moral obligation" to speak out when he sees inequality or hate on display. According to PatentlyApple the problem is it's a selective moral obligation that depends on the source of that hate or inequality. You might disagree of course. http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2017/08/apples-ceo-sends-out-another-preachy-memo.html
Regarding China specifically Mr. Cook really has little choice other than "kiss the ring" IMO. Apple can't afford to alienate Chinese leadership, something Cook is more comfortable doing and worries about less when he does so in Western countries. I don't think he's too concerned with aggravating US or EU leaders. Not eh Chinese tho. Apple absolutely needs Chinese manufacturing and cooperation and they've put themselves in the position of needing the immense Chinese iPhone revenue. Chinese leaders have no qualms about curtailing companies that avoid playing ball with them, so Apple plays ball while very gently nudging Chinese leadership to be more open.
Stop conflating things (per your usual style).
Do you not see that there is an important distinction between the issue in the memo you trot out and the complexities of doing business in another legal jurisdiction? What is the legal conundrum, if any, he’s dealing with in the memo you cite?
Did you even read my post?? There's an entire paragraph about the distinction and it begins with "regarding China" in case you can't find it. :eyeroll:
Given his premise, it’s a pretty idiotic and irrelevant paragraph.
GeorgeBMac said: While I agree with your points, SPLC stands for "Southern Poverty Law Center" and it got its start with a lawyer Morris Dees fighting civil rights cases. It has since broadened its scope to identify discriminatory hate groups and often brings civil litigation against them -- so the hate groups tend to hate the SPLC even more than the minority groups they are organized to hate. Haters hate nothing more than to be hated.
No, it has become a super-funded political action organization. They put people and organizations on their 'hate list' who disagree with their ideologies. They twist, distort, and defame any who they oppose (yes, *some* on the list deserve it, but they lump everyone together). Actual terrorist incidents have been provoked by their actions. They are *EASILY* as, or more responsible, for the violence they encourage as the white nationalists were for what resulted in Charlottesville.
I suppose terrorist organization was a bit exaggerated, if you compare them to, say ISIS. But, in going with how people these days are generally labeling radical-ideology hate groups, terrorists, they fit that bill. (i.e.: if the 'white nationalists' are terrorists, then SPLC is too)
White nationalists are considered terrorists in large part because followers of their beliefs have blown up federal buildings. McVeigh was inspired by the Turner Diaries. More recently you have Wade Michael Page in 2012 who killed 6 in a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, Dylan Roof that killed 9 in a black church in 2015, The list of individual killings (mostly of LEOs) is quite long.
In 2014 LEOs were surveyed as to what they thought the top terrorist threats they faced. The top 5?
Sovereign Citizens Jihadis (yep #2) Militia/Patriots Racist Skinheads Neo-Nazis
Semi-amusingly the most concerning on the left are: Extreme Animal Rightists in 6th place. Who beat out the KKK in 8th place (behind radical treehuggers in 7th, how embarrassing).
The Sovereign Citizens movement got their start as an offshoot of the Posse Comitatus white supremacy group.
If you hang around guys wearing swastikas don't be overly surprised to be tarred by that brush when "peaceful protests" explode like in Charlottesville.
One of the fundamental problems is that WWII vets of the Great Generation have died out. Ones who have seen true evil and fought it. Now some of their grandkids think what they fought against is fashionable. Me, I hate commies and nazis. It is amazing to me that anyone would think the Russians are our friends or Putin is a swell guy. Seriously WTF? Once a Soviet KGB thug, always a Soviet KGB thug. Those guys are the bad guys and always have been.
Equating the SPLC to white supremacists as equal terrorists is plain stupid.
nht said: Me, I hate commies and nazis. It is amazing to me that anyone would think the Russians are our friends or Putin is a swell guy. Seriously WTF? Once a Soviet KGB thug, always a Soviet KGB thug. Those guys are the bad guys and always have been.
The Russians weren’t the commies. Seriously. What the fuck, indeed. Bone up on your history. Look in particular at what the soviet leaders said about Russians. I’ve always hated how the media interchanged “Soviet Union” and “Russia” during the Cold War. Why, just because it was the most populous part of the USSR? No, there was far more reason than that; it fit the narrative.
As for the topic at hand, the SPLC does no one any favors but themselves. CgWerks is dead on with his assessment.
Tim is at the apex of hypocritical CEOs. He's a complete pushover when it comes to China, and will cut every corner regarding privacy when it comes to making a buck there. In the U.S. however, he'll fight tooth and nail when it comes to helping the feds in unlock a terrorist phone.
Well, and even fund organizations trying to shut-down free-speech in the USA.
bshank said: China is a sovereign country. Apple does business there. Apple’s policy is compliance wherever it does business.
While at the same time taking 'moral' stands in the USA. I think we get this... we're just pointing out the hypocrisy.
Jesus christ, which part of “Apple is a US company and not a Chinese one” is so hard for you to understand? The US part, or the not-Chinese part?
And please, do tell us how Cook is funding organizations trying to shut down free speech. This ought to be good...
Damn! I thought it was an Irish company! Fooled me!
Nope, that's where their European subsidiary is based and where its tax obligations reside for the region.
What? They make their phones in China, Taiwan and India. Now your saying they're based in Europe? What?
You know exactly what he means...stop being a douche!
Yeh, I do know what he means. The trouble is, he doesn't know what I mean.
GeorgeBMac said: While I agree with your points, SPLC stands for "Southern Poverty Law Center" and it got its start with a lawyer Morris Dees fighting civil rights cases. It has since broadened its scope to identify discriminatory hate groups and often brings civil litigation against them -- so the hate groups tend to hate the SPLC even more than the minority groups they are organized to hate. Haters hate nothing more than to be hated.
No, it has become a super-funded political action organization. They put people and organizations on their 'hate list' who disagree with their ideologies. They twist, distort, and defame any who they oppose (yes, *some* on the list deserve it, but they lump everyone together). Actual terrorist incidents have been provoked by their actions. They are *EASILY* as, or more responsible, for the violence they encourage as the white nationalists were for what resulted in Charlottesville.
I suppose terrorist organization was a bit exaggerated, if you compare them to, say ISIS. But, in going with how people these days are generally labeling radical-ideology hate groups, terrorists, they fit that bill. (i.e.: if the 'white nationalists' are terrorists, then SPLC is too)
Yeh, that's a pretty good synopsis of what the hate groups say about them. And, in today's world of Alternative Facts, some will believe it.
nht said: Me, I hate commies and nazis. It is amazing to me that anyone would think the Russians are our friends or Putin is a swell guy. Seriously WTF? Once a Soviet KGB thug, always a Soviet KGB thug. Those guys are the bad guys and always have been.
The Russians weren’t the commies. Seriously. What the fuck, indeed. Bone up on your history. Look in particular at what the soviet leaders said about Russians. I’ve always hated how the media interchanged “Soviet Union” and “Russia” during the Cold War. Why, just because it was the most populous part of the USSR? No, there was far more reason than that; it fit the narrative.
As for the topic at hand, the SPLC does no one any favors but themselves. CgWerks is dead on with his assessment.
Today, they aren't. Control of the country is now mostly in the hands of what can only be described as the Russian Mafia -- a loose connection of closely held governmental military and spy agencies combined with private Gestapo like para-military/intelligence operations as well as supposedly legitimate corporations... (Which, by the way, appears to be the model for Trump's MAGA).
But, in the era NHT was speaking of, they were very much communist. They were the heart and soul of the communist movement whose goal was to cover the world with their movement. The one where Khrushchev announced: "We Will Bury You!" (And, they very nearly did).
Unlike NHT, I never hated the communists. In fact, I admired what they had accomplished: Not only were their scientific and technical achievements equal to ours but sociologically, in many ways they had more to offer poor countries of the world than we did (and that was the core of the cold war and the Vietnam War). But, that said, they were also a brutal, totalitarian system that crushed any and all hope of what we call "freedom".
But, capitalism seems to work best where people have the basics of food, clothing and shelter (or the means of attaining them) while communism seems to work best where people's basic needs are unattainable -- such as where the peasant family has been living on the plantation in squalor and poverty for generations, the communists can and did give them freedom from their squalor while us capitalists essentially offered them more of the same. (Raw capitalism thrived here in the U.S. because there was always a way out of the squalor if one was willing to take the chance and work hard. But those conditions do not always exist in other countries and they are beginning to not exist here anymore)
Both systems have advantages and disadvantages -- particularly in their extreme forms. Unfortunately, when things are not going well, the extremism becomes far more saleable -- as it did in our last election.
As for the SPLC, CgWerks is dead wrong with his assessment. It is based on the propaganda of the hate groups the SPLC opposes.
But, in the era NHT was speaking of, they were very much communist. They were the heart and soul of the communist movement…
They weren’t. Just look at the damn stats.
Not only were their scientific and technical achievements equal to ours…
But, capitalism seems to work best where people have the basics of food, clothing and shelter (or the means of attaining them) while communism seems to work best where people’s basic needs are unattainable…
Huh; you got that right. When Marx was alive, the proletariat was starving, had almost nothing but the essentials to survive–albeit barely, and had to work to the bone to make ends meet. Today, the middle class and–even the lower class in the West–is able to afford a computer, a car, more than plenty of food, and perhaps even a pet. And it wasn’t because of marxism. It was because the average worker–starting in the post-WWII era–made huge gains in average collective wealth as manufacturing and global communication improved. Marxism is an outdated ideology. The average middle and lower class workers in America has a significantly higher standard of living now than any other time in history. Complaining that the bourgeoise is richer now is just pure envy. It was a valid argument back in those days because of how separated the social classes were. It’s not a valid argument anymore. At least not in America. You can say, “It’s principles!” but principles don’t hold much weight unless you can back them up somehow through application. And we all know how that turned out. Every time.
Both systems have advantages and disadvantages -- particularly in their extreme forms. Unfortunately, when things are not going well, the extremism becomes far more saleable -- as it did in our last election.
But extremism lost the last election handily. Granted, part of the reason for that was “moderates” (who support the exact same thing) stealing a primary and refusing to show their hands so quickly, but hey.
As for the SPLC, CgWerks is dead wrong with his assessment. It is based on the propaganda of the hate groups the SPLC opposes.
Well now, what we need is for the both of you to provide evidence of your claims.
nht said: Me, I hate commies and nazis. It is amazing to me that anyone would think the Russians are our friends or Putin is a swell guy. Seriously WTF? Once a Soviet KGB thug, always a Soviet KGB thug. Those guys are the bad guys and always have been.
The Russians weren’t the commies. Seriously. What the fuck, indeed. Bone up on your history. Look in particular at what the soviet leaders said about Russians. I’ve always hated how the media interchanged “Soviet Union” and “Russia” during the Cold War. Why, just because it was the most populous part of the USSR? No, there was far more reason than that; it fit the narrative.
As for the topic at hand, the SPLC does no one any favors but themselves. CgWerks is dead on with his assessment.
Lenin was Russian. The country was the Russian Empire before it fell to the reds. Claiming the Soviet Union wasn’t Russia because some of the leaders were Georgians and Ukrainian is like claiming the Russian Empire wasn’t Russia because the Tsar were Of German descent (starting with Peter before his wife Catherine offed him).
It fit the narrative because it was true. The Soviet Union wasn’t dominated by Georgia even if Stalin was Georgian. It was the successor state to the Russian Empire.
The country was the Russian Empire before it fell to the reds.
Emphasis on ‘was’.
It fit the narrative because it was true.
lol
It was the successor state to the Russian Empire.
In what way? “It sits in the same place” isn’t how that’s defined, otherwise Poland would be considered “successor to the Vandals.”
In the same way that the PRC is the successor state to the ROC and the ROC was the successor to the Qing Dynasty (whos ruling elite wasn’t Han Chinese).
Posession of territory is 9/10ths. Especially if the new people in charge are in charge because of an internal revolution rather than external conquest.
The Republic of Poland is the successor state to the Kingdom of Poland despite hiatus of the partition.
Whatever you want to call them Russians, Soviets, whatever a KGB thug is always a KGB thug.
But, in the era NHT was speaking of, they were very much communist. They were the heart and soul of the communist movement…
They weren’t. Just look at the damn stats.
Not only were their scientific and technical achievements equal to ours…
But, capitalism seems to work best where people have the basics of food, clothing and shelter (or the means of attaining them) while communism seems to work best where people’s basic needs are unattainable…
Huh; you got that right. When Marx was alive, the proletariat was starving, had almost nothing but the essentials to survive–albeit barely, and had to work to the bone to make ends meet. Today, the middle class and–even the lower class in the West–is able to afford a computer, a car, more than plenty of food, and perhaps even a pet. And it wasn’t because of marxism. It was because the average worker–starting in the post-WWII era–made huge gains in average collective wealth as manufacturing and global communication improved. Marxism is an outdated ideology. The average middle and lower class workers in America has a significantly higher standard of living now than any other time in history. Complaining that the bourgeoise is richer now is just pure envy. It was a valid argument back in those days because of how separated the social classes were. It’s not a valid argument anymore. At least not in America. You can say, “It’s principles!” but principles don’t hold much weight unless you can back them up somehow through application. And we all know how that turned out. Every time.
Both systems have advantages and disadvantages -- particularly in their extreme forms. Unfortunately, when things are not going well, the extremism becomes far more saleable -- as it did in our last election.
But extremism lost the last election handily. Granted, part of the reason for that was “moderates” (who support the exact same thing) stealing a primary and refusing to show their hands so quickly, but hey.
As for the SPLC, CgWerks is dead wrong with his assessment. It is based on the propaganda of the hate groups the SPLC opposes.
Well now, what we need is for the both of you to provide evidence of your claims.
So Communist Russia wasn't communist? ... and the rest goes downhill from there...
But, in the era NHT was speaking of, they were very much communist. They were the heart and soul of the communist movement…
They weren’t. Just look at the damn stats.
Not only were their scientific and technical achievements equal to ours…
But, capitalism seems to work best where people have the basics of food, clothing and shelter (or the means of attaining them) while communism seems to work best where people’s basic needs are unattainable…
Huh; you got that right. When Marx was alive, the proletariat was starving, had almost nothing but the essentials to survive–albeit barely, and had to work to the bone to make ends meet. Today, the middle class and–even the lower class in the West–is able to afford a computer, a car, more than plenty of food, and perhaps even a pet. And it wasn’t because of marxism. It was because the average worker–starting in the post-WWII era–made huge gains in average collective wealth as manufacturing and global communication improved. Marxism is an outdated ideology. The average middle and lower class workers in America has a significantly higher standard of living now than any other time in history. Complaining that the bourgeoise is richer now is just pure envy. It was a valid argument back in those days because of how separated the social classes were. It’s not a valid argument anymore. At least not in America. You can say, “It’s principles!” but principles don’t hold much weight unless you can back them up somehow through application. And we all know how that turned out. Every time.
Both systems have advantages and disadvantages -- particularly in their extreme forms. Unfortunately, when things are not going well, the extremism becomes far more saleable -- as it did in our last election.
But extremism lost the last election handily. Granted, part of the reason for that was “moderates” (who support the exact same thing) stealing a primary and refusing to show their hands so quickly, but hey.
As for the SPLC, CgWerks is dead wrong with his assessment. It is based on the propaganda of the hate groups the SPLC opposes.
Well now, what we need is for the both of you to provide evidence of your claims.
So Communist Russia wasn't communist? ... and the rest goes downhill from there...
No, he's arguing the Communists weren't Russian. As far as why I hate communists the family body count in the previous 2 generations is rather high.
For you communism is an abstract social political concept. For others it is more visceral.
But, in the era NHT was speaking of, they were very much communist. They were the heart and soul of the communist movement…
They weren’t. Just look at the damn stats.
Not only were their scientific and technical achievements equal to ours…
But, capitalism seems to work best where people have the basics of food, clothing and shelter (or the means of attaining them) while communism seems to work best where people’s basic needs are unattainable…
Huh; you got that right. When Marx was alive, the proletariat was starving, had almost nothing but the essentials to survive–albeit barely, and had to work to the bone to make ends meet. Today, the middle class and–even the lower class in the West–is able to afford a computer, a car, more than plenty of food, and perhaps even a pet. And it wasn’t because of marxism. It was because the average worker–starting in the post-WWII era–made huge gains in average collective wealth as manufacturing and global communication improved. Marxism is an outdated ideology. The average middle and lower class workers in America has a significantly higher standard of living now than any other time in history. Complaining that the bourgeoise is richer now is just pure envy. It was a valid argument back in those days because of how separated the social classes were. It’s not a valid argument anymore. At least not in America. You can say, “It’s principles!” but principles don’t hold much weight unless you can back them up somehow through application. And we all know how that turned out. Every time.
Both systems have advantages and disadvantages -- particularly in their extreme forms. Unfortunately, when things are not going well, the extremism becomes far more saleable -- as it did in our last election.
But extremism lost the last election handily. Granted, part of the reason for that was “moderates” (who support the exact same thing) stealing a primary and refusing to show their hands so quickly, but hey.
As for the SPLC, CgWerks is dead wrong with his assessment. It is based on the propaganda of the hate groups the SPLC opposes.
Well now, what we need is for the both of you to provide evidence of your claims.
So Communist Russia wasn't communist? ... and the rest goes downhill from there...
No, he's arguing the Communists weren't Russian. As far as why I hate communists the family body count in the previous 2 generations is rather high.
For you communism is an abstract social political concept. For others it is more visceral.
No, its not abstract at all. I grew up when we were fighting a war of influence with Communist Russia. We were trying to spread our democracy throughout the world and they were trying to spread their communism throughout the world. It was a serious struggle with serious consequences -- and we each thought we had the better system.
But it was one that we often lost because many third world countries (like Cuba & China and others, many others) preferred communism and aligned themselves with Russia & Soviet Union. In the final analysis that's what the Vietnam war was all about: Would Vietnam be under communist or capitalist influence? We couldn't let those "dirty Commies" walk in and take it -- and 50,000 Americans died trying to stop them.
As a kid and as a young man it puzzled me that, if Communism was THAT bad, then why did so many prefer it? Unfortunately, you simply weren't allowed to ask that question. The worst insult that could hurled at a kid was: "You're a Commie, Faggot!"
nht said: White nationalists are considered terrorists in large part because followers of their beliefs have blown up federal buildings. McVeigh... ... The Sovereign Citizens movement got their start as an offshoot of the Posse Comitatus white supremacy group.
... If you hang around guys wearing swastikas don't be overly surprised to be tarred by that brush when "peaceful protests" explode like in Charlottesville. ... Equating the SPLC to white supremacists as equal terrorists is plain stupid.
How about James Hodgkinson or Floyd Lee Corkins III? Fortunately, neither was able to do as much damage as others, but it's similar kind of dehumanization and thinking behind their actions. A top expert on USA political extremism noted about SPLC, "specialized a highly developed and ritualized form of defamation ... a way of harming and isolating people by denying their humanity and trying to convert them into something that deserves to be hated and eliminated."
As I said previously, terrorism is maybe too strong a term if we're comparing them to other more violent organizations (or at least with more violence in their history). But, they operate in a terroristic manner in how they dehumanize, label people, list people, and direct hate at them.
re: Posse Comitatus - I grew up during their rise to 'fame' and actually lived not all that far away.
Yes, white nationalists groups can certainly be quite dangerous and their ideology is terrible. No argument there. That doesn't excuse the SPLC, though.
re: Charlottesville - that's a whole other discussion... those weren't Nazis, but appeared to be similar to the Svoboda party 'blood and soil' that Obama, Hillary, and McCain supported when trying to regime change in the Ukraine. There was one guy (same guy) with a Nazi flag and swastikas, though, who curiously made it into most of the MSM photos. I could discuss this for hours, but the whole thing smells setup in so many ways.
But, I'm kind of missing the connection to SPLC here other than that you're saying, 'white supremacists are bad'.... well, no duh. So are Islamic terrorists. So are SPLC... they are just a bit more mellow kind of bad.
I actually know people who are on the SPLC hate list (and no, not for anything to do with racism). My gosh, they've got the American Family Association on their list. It's a 'your ideology doesn't match ours' list more than anything.
GeorgeBMac said: Yeh, that's a pretty good synopsis of what the hate groups say about them. And, in today's world of Alternative Facts, some will believe it.
So, Dr. Michael Brown, theologian, linguistics expert... Jewish Christian, etc. is a hate group? Or, my fellow apologist, Dr. James R White is a hate group? Maybe you should question who has the alternative facts here. Sheesh! And, re: super-funded, last I checked, they were heading towards $half-a-billion.
GeorgeBMac said: No, its not abstract at all. I grew up when we were fighting a war of influence with Communist Russia. We were trying to spread our democracy throughout the world and they were trying to spread their communism throughout the world. It was a serious struggle with serious consequences -- and we each thought we had the better system.
And then, as we transitioned more into a corporate oligarchy, our 'brave' leaders found that re-stoking the Cold War could be extremely profitable, and a great excuse for regime change and all manner of mischief that might benefit 'US interests.'
Comments
And, yes, I'm sure it does match his worldview. I'm not just picking on him here, as I have some standing on this (M.A. in a related field). When you don't have objective morality (which I doubt Cook does) as part of your worldview, you're typically reduced to a form of ethics that depends on social norms, likes/dislikes, etc. and it's usually localized. (And, most people who hold such views haven't sat down to consider the implications.)
That's just part of the problem. Legality ≠ morality. When he's on USA turf, he has no problem pushing against 'legal' if he thinks it crosses his morality. When he's elsewhere, he hides behind legality to drop his moral standards. You can't have it both ways within a consistent worldview.
I'm hoping Trump is somewhat a wrecking ball, though I'm not sure he will be (the leash already seems pretty short). What has been going on with USA foreign policy for the last couple decades can easily be classified as evil. If the public won't clean house, then let the wrecking begin.
Heh, no I'm talking about this: https://www.splcenter.org (to whom Cook actually donated).
And, I'm not quite getting the connection that if I support democracy (as a good governmental principal) how that obligates me to go to China. But, anyway, no I don't support a straight out democracy. The Constitution (and Republic) nature - when well run - is crucial.
It's what *they* do with people with whom they disagree that is the problem.
I suppose terrorist organization was a bit exaggerated, if you compare them to, say ISIS. But, in going with how people these days are generally labeling radical-ideology hate groups, terrorists, they fit that bill. (i.e.: if the 'white nationalists' are terrorists, then SPLC is too)
In 2014 LEOs were surveyed as to what they thought the top terrorist threats they faced. The top 5?
Sovereign Citizens
Jihadis (yep #2)
Militia/Patriots
Racist Skinheads
Neo-Nazis
Semi-amusingly the most concerning on the left are: Extreme Animal Rightists in 6th place. Who beat out the KKK in 8th place (behind radical treehuggers in 7th, how embarrassing).
The Sovereign Citizens movement got their start as an offshoot of the Posse Comitatus white supremacy group.
https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_UnderstandingLawEnforcementIntelligenceProcesses_July2014.pdf
If you hang around guys wearing swastikas don't be overly surprised to be tarred by that brush when "peaceful protests" explode like in Charlottesville.
One of the fundamental problems is that WWII vets of the Great Generation have died out. Ones who have seen true evil and fought it. Now some of their grandkids think what they fought against is fashionable. Me, I hate commies and nazis. It is amazing to me that anyone would think the Russians are our friends or Putin is a swell guy. Seriously WTF? Once a Soviet KGB thug, always a Soviet KGB thug. Those guys are the bad guys and always have been.
Equating the SPLC to white supremacists as equal terrorists is plain stupid.
As for the topic at hand, the SPLC does no one any favors but themselves. CgWerks is dead on with his assessment.
But, in the era NHT was speaking of, they were very much communist. They were the heart and soul of the communist movement whose goal was to cover the world with their movement. The one where Khrushchev announced: "We Will Bury You!" (And, they very nearly did).
Unlike NHT, I never hated the communists. In fact, I admired what they had accomplished: Not only were their scientific and technical achievements equal to ours but sociologically, in many ways they had more to offer poor countries of the world than we did (and that was the core of the cold war and the Vietnam War). But, that said, they were also a brutal, totalitarian system that crushed any and all hope of what we call "freedom".
But, capitalism seems to work best where people have the basics of food, clothing and shelter (or the means of attaining them) while communism seems to work best where people's basic needs are unattainable -- such as where the peasant family has been living on the plantation in squalor and poverty for generations, the communists can and did give them freedom from their squalor while us capitalists essentially offered them more of the same. (Raw capitalism thrived here in the U.S. because there was always a way out of the squalor if one was willing to take the chance and work hard. But those conditions do not always exist in other countries and they are beginning to not exist here anymore)
Both systems have advantages and disadvantages -- particularly in their extreme forms. Unfortunately, when things are not going well, the extremism becomes far more saleable -- as it did in our last election.
As for the SPLC, CgWerks is dead wrong with his assessment. It is based on the propaganda of the hate groups the SPLC opposes.
Huh; you got that right. When Marx was alive, the proletariat was starving, had almost nothing but the essentials to survive–albeit barely, and had to work to the bone to make ends meet. Today, the middle class and–even the lower class in the West–is able to afford a computer, a car, more than plenty of food, and perhaps even a pet. And it wasn’t because of marxism. It was because the average worker–starting in the post-WWII era–made huge gains in average collective wealth as manufacturing and global communication improved. Marxism is an outdated ideology. The average middle and lower class workers in America has a significantly higher standard of living now than any other time in history. Complaining that the bourgeoise is richer now is just pure envy. It was a valid argument back in those days because of how separated the social classes were. It’s not a valid argument anymore. At least not in America. You can say, “It’s principles!” but principles don’t hold much weight unless you can back them up somehow through application. And we all know how that turned out. Every time.But extremism lost the last election handily. Granted, part of the reason for that was “moderates” (who support the exact same thing) stealing a primary and refusing to show their hands so quickly, but hey.
Well now, what we need is for the both of you to provide evidence of your claims.
It fit the narrative because it was true. The Soviet Union wasn’t dominated by Georgia even if Stalin was Georgian. It was the successor state to the Russian Empire.
Emphasis on ‘was’.
lol
In what way? “It sits in the same place” isn’t how that’s defined, otherwise Poland would be considered “successor to the Vandals.”
Posession of territory is 9/10ths. Especially if the new people in charge are in charge because of an internal revolution rather than external conquest.
The Republic of Poland is the successor state to the Kingdom of Poland despite hiatus of the partition.
Whatever you want to call them Russians, Soviets, whatever a KGB thug is always a KGB thug.
... and the rest goes downhill from there...
As far as why I hate communists the family body count in the previous 2 generations is rather high.
For you communism is an abstract social political concept. For others it is more visceral.
But it was one that we often lost because many third world countries (like Cuba & China and others, many others) preferred communism and aligned themselves with Russia & Soviet Union. In the final analysis that's what the Vietnam war was all about: Would Vietnam be under communist or capitalist influence? We couldn't let those "dirty Commies" walk in and take it -- and 50,000 Americans died trying to stop them.
As a kid and as a young man it puzzled me that, if Communism was THAT bad, then why did so many prefer it? Unfortunately, you simply weren't allowed to ask that question. The worst insult that could hurled at a kid was: "You're a Commie, Faggot!"
As I said previously, terrorism is maybe too strong a term if we're comparing them to other more violent organizations (or at least with more violence in their history). But, they operate in a terroristic manner in how they dehumanize, label people, list people, and direct hate at them.
re: Posse Comitatus - I grew up during their rise to 'fame' and actually lived not all that far away.
Yes, white nationalists groups can certainly be quite dangerous and their ideology is terrible. No argument there. That doesn't excuse the SPLC, though.
re: Charlottesville - that's a whole other discussion... those weren't Nazis, but appeared to be similar to the Svoboda party 'blood and soil' that Obama, Hillary, and McCain supported when trying to regime change in the Ukraine. There was one guy (same guy) with a Nazi flag and swastikas, though, who curiously made it into most of the MSM photos. I could discuss this for hours, but the whole thing smells setup in so many ways.
But, I'm kind of missing the connection to SPLC here other than that you're saying, 'white supremacists are bad'.... well, no duh. So are Islamic terrorists. So are SPLC... they are just a bit more mellow kind of bad.
I actually know people who are on the SPLC hate list (and no, not for anything to do with racism). My gosh, they've got the American Family Association on their list. It's a 'your ideology doesn't match ours' list more than anything.
So, Dr. Michael Brown, theologian, linguistics expert... Jewish Christian, etc. is a hate group? Or, my fellow apologist, Dr. James R White is a hate group? Maybe you should question who has the alternative facts here. Sheesh! And, re: super-funded, last I checked, they were heading towards $half-a-billion.