Your contention is that these two colleges are representative of the modern left? :ok:

Let's be fair, there is no 'true' leftist among American political officials -- thank god for that.. And I don't consider Bernie a socialist, regardless whatever he calls himself. Nor do I consider Trump a right winger (or conservative). Trump has no (coherent nor consistent) ideology. His opinion is more changeable than the weather. The Republicans take him seriously, but not literally, the Democrats take him literally, but seriously. Trump is not the president the USA needs, but probably the president the democrats deserve.

[Delete] @Baden

Trump pushes ban on 'bump stocks' — devices that turn weapons into 'machine guns'.

Trump Administration Looking at Bankruptcy Options for Student Debt.

So he can do some good things.

This is for leftists and crazies like @Wayfarer who think Trump is a retard and unfit for office:

At work so can't watch. What's it say?

At work so can't watch. What's it say? — Michael

That Trump got 30/30 on the cognitive test :razz:

That's this test. Being able to pass that just means you don't have Parkinson's or something, not that you're not an idiot and fit to be President.

Or is that all it takes? Being able to name some animals and draw a cube? ;)

Or is that all it takes? Being able to name some animals and draw a cube? ;) — Michael

:rofl: Thing is, people who are mentally impaired by an actual illness (like Alzheimer's, etc.) cannot do those regular tasks. That's precisely the point. People often confuse actual medical disorders with behaviour that is within normal bounds.

"Trump blames Obama for inaction over alleged Russia meddling".

The man who refused to accept that Russia meddled, who refused to enact Russia sanctions, and who hasn't directed the intelligence communities to do anything about Russian interference during the next election.

And regarding Obama's inaction, he tried to speak out about it but was blocked by McConnell. Although he did expel 35 Russian diplomats and closed two of their compounds in response.

What you would hear me say is that there is a legacy from the past, from the colonisation of the Americas, Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand, by (white) Europeans, which was justified by an explicit doctrine of white supremacy. — unenlightened

Hmmm okay, but wasn't it the technological superiority of the Western Europeans at that time that allowed them to subjugate the rest of the world? They may have justified it as white supremacy in some cases (though that depends, because with regards to Eastern Europeans & Russia, it couldn't be justified as White Supremacy). But it was technological superiority that really permitted it to happen.

My guess is that if any of the other races got ahold of technological superiority first and learned to exploit fossil fuels and other natural resources, they would have subjugated the rest of the world themselves, and would have justified it in similar ways. What do you reckon?

But can only think that by covering your eyes and ears to the vast amount of evidence from the media from social scientists, that the attitudes persist, as one would expect them to if one understood the evolution of social attitudes at all. — unenlightened

I agree that the attitudes persisted - they were there in the 60s, 70s, 80s - but those years are long gone now! I really think we have moved beyond that, especially with the internet and the ease of access people now have to others of different nationalities, skin colors, and to knowledge as well.

And a really good example of this persistence is the way, in this very thread, one incident in what the article calls 'a historically black college', of alleged discrimination against whites is taken as of comparable weight to the discrimination against blacks. It is particularly ironic that the black colleges were explicitly set up to educate newly freed slaves who had previously been forbidden by law from being educated. — unenlightened

So a professor getting fired based on skin color isn't a serious case of racism?

President Obama quoted by Trump, and Trump's response:



This disagrees with your version of what happened.

What's my version of what happened?

And regarding Obama's inaction, he tried to speak about it but was blocked by McConnell. — Michael

That one. Clearly, Obama as he was quoted by Trump thought that it is laughable that someone could rig America's elections.

That one. Clearly, Obama as he was quoted by Trump thought that it is laughable that someone would rig America's elections. — Agustino

Obama was referring to Trump's persistent claim that there is systematic voter fraud. See this article that was written at the time:

WASHINGTON — President Obama ridiculed Donald J. Trump on Tuesday for saying that the presidential election was rigged against him, telling Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee, to “stop whining and go try to make his case” to win more votes than Hillary Clinton.

At a news conference in the White House Rose Garden, Mr. Obama said, “I have never seen in my lifetime, or in modern political history, any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections and the election process before votes have even taken place.”

...

On Tuesday, Mr. Trump did not heed Mr. Obama’s warning. While he did not address the president directly, he repeated his claims of an election stolen through voter fraud — singling out, with no evidence, African-American communities as the likely culprits of the fraud.

...

Mrs. Clinton was off the campaign trail on Tuesday, preparing for her final debate with Mr. Trump on Wednesday, so it fell to Mr. Obama to rebut Mr. Trump’s assertions. The president did so with obvious relish.

There is no evidence, he said, that a presidential election has ever been rigged. He said there was little indication that it could be, given that elections are run by state and local authorities, with people from both parties supervising polling sites and ballot counting.

“The notion that somehow if Mr. Trump loses Florida, it is because of those people that you have to watch out for,” he said, his voice thick with sarcasm. “That is both irresponsible and, by the way, doesn’t really show the kind of leadership and toughness that you want out of a president.”

And this doesn't undermine Biden's claim that McConnell blocked Obama from calling out the Russians. In fact, Biden's claim is supported by this article from June 23, about "Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault":

The meeting devolved into a partisan squabble.

“The Dems were, ‘Hey, we have to tell the public,’ ” recalled one participant. But Republicans resisted, arguing that to warn the public that the election was under attack would further Russia’s aim of sapping confidence in the system.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) went further, officials said, voicing skepticism that the underlying intelligence truly supported the White House’s claims. Through a spokeswoman, McConnell declined to comment, citing the secrecy of that meeting.

Key Democrats were stunned by the GOP response and exasperated that the White House seemed willing to let Republican opposition block any pre-election move.

It also quite nicely explains the many (other) ways that Obama did try to do something in response. Here's an interesting part:

Obama also approved a previously undisclosed covert measure that authorized planting cyberweapons in Russia’s infrastructure, the digital equivalent of bombs that could be detonated if the United States found itself in an escalating exchange with Moscow. The project, which Obama approved in a covert-action finding, was still in its planning stages when Obama left office. It would be up to President Trump to decide whether to use the capability.

The claim now isn't that the election was rigged, it's that it was interfered with by a foreign government who influenced the outcome. A rigged election is one in which the outcome is inevitable based on interference.

My guess is that if any of the other races got ahold of technological superiority first and learned to exploit fossil fuels and other natural resources, they would have subjugated the rest of the world themselves, and would have justified it in similar ways. What do you reckon? — Agustino

Who knows, it's certainly possible, but China invented gunpowder, paper, and all kinds of stuff without feeling the need. It's obviously not a racial thing, but it is a cultural thing, and who knows where any culture might have gone if...?

those years are long gone now! I really think we have moved beyond that, especially with the internet and the ease of access people now have to others of different nationalities, skin colors, and to knowledge as well. — Agustino

I do assure you those years have not gone, but continue. Even dinosaurs remain as fossils, and in the imagination, and in the way they influenced the development of the Earth, and that was a very long time ago, before even my time.

So a professor getting fired based on skin color isn't a serious case of racism? — Agustino

Well it's obviously serious for the parties concerned in each case, but the question is in which direction the generality of cases lie. I'm not arguing for the moral superiority of any race or gender, but if you ask me if white people suffer a widespread disadvantage in the culture because of their skin colour, then the answer is that they do not and never have done.

Who knows, it's certainly possible, but China invented gunpowder, paper, and all kinds of stuff without feeling the need. It's obviously not a racial thing, but it is a cultural thing, and who knows where any culture might have gone if...? — unenlightened

Yeah, that is true - China also happened to be the world's largest economy for much of world history. But at the same time, they did not learn how to make use of natural resources on an industrial scale and in a scientific way in the manner, Western Europeans did during and before the Enlightenment. Why didn't they? What made this "scientific revolution" possible in Europe?

With regards to the cultural thing - I'm not sure if that's the answer. China has, in my opinion, a MUCH more developed culture in terms of political strategy, the art of manipulation, warfare, & ethical standards which are much more permissive than the Judaeo-Christian ones of Europeans. I can refer you here to the Three Kingdoms period at the end of the Han Dynastry, or to the earlier Warring States period. China was not externally expansionist (for some reasons - probably geographic), but locally they were as bad as it gets. In fact, the sort of political machinations you find in Chinese strategy manuals, and littered across Chinese history, make their European counterparts (ie, Peloponnesian War, Machiavelli's Prince, Cardinal Richelieu, etc.) seem children's play.

I do assure you those years have not gone, but continue. Even dinosaurs remain as fossils, and in the imagination, and in the way they influenced the development of the Earth, and that was a very long time ago, before even my time. — unenlightened

There might be remnants, but I don't particularly see the kinds of systemic racism where people are frequently fired from their jobs based on racism, and similar issues.

if white people suffer a widespread disadvantage in the culture because of their skin colour, then the answer is that they do not and never have done. — unenlightened

Right, well I agree that they don't suffer a widespread disadvantage because of skin color, at least not in the Western countries. But then, I don't think that other races suffer such a disadvantage based on skin color (there are some exceptions in certain areas, etc. - I'm talking just by and large) in the West.

British people never treated me very well because I was a foreigner (Eastern European thief in your minds :monkey: ), but, you know, I just take it that you people are very nationalistic and proud of your country. I wouldn't see that sort of thing as "racism" per say, unless you did things like make me sit at the back of the bus, make me use a different toilet, etc.

Also, I think there is a big difference on that between the British, and other Western Europeans. From my observations, the British are a lot more likely to be proud of their nationality and dismissive of others.

China also happened to be the world's largest economy for much of world history. But at the same time, they did not learn how to make use of natural resources on an industrial scale and in a scientific way in the manner, Western Europeans did during and before the Enlightenment. Why didn't they? What made this "scientific revolution" possible in Europe? — Agustino

This handy timeline makes it clear that the slave trade predates the Enlightenment, and anything one can seriously call industry as we think of it. It can be more reasonably argued that it was slavery that produced the wealth that allowed the enlightenment and the industrial revolution to get going, and the industrial revolution in turn produced the ending of slavery, with machines that can be turned off when not needed becoming cheaper and more profitable than slaves.

British people never treated me very well because I was a foreigner — Agustino

Well some of us might have other reasons for treating you badly, but let's try not to go there. :fire:

This handy timeline makes it clear that the slave trade predates the Enlightenment, and anything one can seriously call industry as we think of it. — unenlightened

What were the slaves used for? What kind of work did they do? And why didn't earlier peoples, which were arguably a lot better organised than the European countries at that time (thinking now about the Roman Empire) make use of slaves and achieve a scientific revolution?

Well some of us might have other reasons for treating you badly, but let's try not to go there. :fire: — unenlightened

:rofl: But I thought you're the guy who was all about honest talk...

What were the slaves used for? What kind of work did they do? And why didn't earlier peoples, which were arguably a lot better organised than the European countries at that time (thinking now about the Roman Empire) make use of slaves and achieve a scientific revolution? — Agustino

Agriculture, sugar, cotton mainly. I think the crucial developments were in navigation, boatbuilding and guns. I'd guess that the Romans were unable to get far enough away from their own influence to have that overwhelming advantage that enables a total subjugation, but this is another 'what if' question, that is pretty unanswerable except by imagination supported by prejudice.

There's a time for honesty, and a time for moderation; I believe in whichever suits me at the moment. :grimace:

I'd guess that the Romans were unable to get far enough away from their own influence to have that overwhelming advantage that enables a total subjugation — unenlightened

I have trouble following what you mean here.

There's a time for honesty, and a time for moderation; I believe in whichever suits me at the moment. :grimace: — unenlightened

So... you are an authentic opportunist? :lol:

I have trouble following what you mean here. — Agustino

I mean that whatever innovations they made would spread to their potential conquests by osmosis, aka trade. Very different from Europeans with guns reaching cultures that did not have metal.

Guns, Germs, and Steel (1997) by Jared Diamond is a great read on how different societies evolved/developed differently. Diamond has a flair for spotting and avoiding biased tendencies towards understanding/explaining this stuff. Yep, some societies brought their pet germs with them, who just about took out other societies they came across.

Anyway, some groups somehow feeling (and acting) superior to others sure has been, and is, common enough. At least we can address such crap when encountered.

U.S. hate groups proliferate in Trump's first year, watchdog says (Ian Simpson, Reuters, Feb 2018)

Nah.

[Delete] @Baden

http://www.theshovel.com.au/2018/02/22/man-at-centre-of-gun-debate-is-paid-actor/

[Delete] @Baden