Lack of Diversity?

Doesn’t happen often but sometimes Facebook throws up something really amusing in a discussion. Once such instance happened when a liberal and fellow traveller of the anti – Trump hate mob tendency decided to redefine bigot. Now this lad likes to style himself a ‘scientist’ (physicist to be exact although his physics falls into the category that is all equations and mathematical speculation with not one demonstrable fact in sight. This is typical of modern science of course, theories which are impossible to test are treated as facts, while inconvenient facts that challenge the theory are ignored.

It seems that to such people the same rules apply when rewriting the dictionary so that the meanings of their favourite words (bigot, racist etc.) are changed to fit their warper world view.

GM Jackson wrote, yesterday (27 February 2017) at 6:11am ·

Is so-and-so really a bigot? These days it’s hard to tell. Bigots are more subtle and clever than they were in days of old when they could just come out and say, “Those people are subhuman scum and should be sent back to the shithole they came from.”

Now days suspected bigots qualify their statements with words like “most,” “some,” “nearly all.” They are careful not to say “all” or “every.” So how can we tell who is a bigot and who isn’t? Consider minority group X. Bigots always go negative on group X. They never ever list one positive thing group X has done.

Chances are excellent that group X has made major contributions to human progress and/or has done many acts of charity–but the guy who insists he’s “not racist!” will never go positive on group X. Never ever! If he did, his head would twist 360 degrees and he would hurl a fountain of green slime out of every orifice.

So next time you hear someone say, “I’m not a bigot,” ask a simple question: “Tell us what you love about group X.”

Ian Thorpe One cannot say groups are responsible for major contributions to human progress. Were ‘Catholics’ responsible for medieval art? Of course not, a small number of highly talented individuals were. Were ‘The English’ responsible for Shakespeare’s plays? N…See More
Like · Reply · 2 · 21 hrs

GM Jackson Oh, nice spin!
Yes, individuals do things too. But that does not mean they can’t cooperate with other individuals to achieve a common goal. Re: your examples. Catholics sponsored a lot of art and architecture. Shakespeare was English and it would be wrong of us to say that English are incapable of any great literary works. It would also be wrong to claim that Jews are incapable of inventing fractional reserve banking.
Like · Reply · 14 hrs · Edited

Ian Thorpe
Ian Thorpe But nobody has said the English are incapable of any great literary works or that the Jewish community would be incapable of creating the banking system. And it is true that some Catholics sponsored works or art. So who is spinning now? The case is that these things are not ascribable to identity groups. When groups collaborate to achieve a common goal they are invariably groups of diverse individuals contributing a wide range of skills.
One of the problems with ‘liberal’ (or more correctly Marxist) thinking is that it lumps people together in identity groups and fails to see the diversity of individuals. Which is of course illiberal.

In another thread under the same post this rather amusing discussion unfolded between someone name Clarence who obviously has a good knowledge of history and some considerable life experience to inform his opinions and ‘Stef’ a liberal bigot who ‘identifies’ as a scientist and shows all the sheep like tendencies of that sub species:

Clarence Woodworth group x can of course encompass white people.


Liz Ellis
Liz Ellis You can be a bigot and not a racist. The most basic definition of a bigot is someone intolerant of other opinions. From Google:
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.See More
Like · Reply · 1 · 23 hrs


GM Jackson

GM Jackson Google doesn’t even know how to spell googol.

Definition of bigotSee More

a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person;…


Stephanie Barr In my opinion, any time *what* you are is more important than *who* you are, you’re dealing with bigotry and prejudice.


Clarence Woodworth You need to add clarifiers, there, Stephanie. “What” as referring to things you can’t change like sex or race. Things you were born with. Otherwise you are condemmning me for having “bigotry and prejudice” against murderers and rapists.


Stephanie Barr Well, *who* you are is what you make of yourself, so I’d include murderers and rapists (also bigots and abusers) in that category.
What you are might not just be things you can’t change: you can change religions, for instance, but they tend to be labels someone else picks thinking they define you. And they don’t. Christian doesn’t make one a good person any more than it guarantees you’re a bad person. Televangelist, however, is something you chose that makes it clear what you, as an individual, worship most.


Clarence Woodworth Murderer, and Rapist are categories, hence my confusion. But otherwise, well said!
Stephanie Barr Clarence Woodworth But they are based on what you’ve done (which makes who you are) not what you happen to be. No one is born a rapist. You have to go out and make that of yourself.

Stephanie Barr Most labels have nothing to do with anything you’ve done, but either factors you can’t change or aspects that really indicate nothing about who you are as a person (immigrant, transgender, particular religion, for example).

Being a rapist says a great deal about *who* you are as an individual.


Clarence Woodworth I disagree: Particular religion does say something about you as an individual. There is a tremendous difference between the beliefs of various forms of Christianity and Islam, for an example. And there are differences between an illegal immigrant and a legal immigrant as an example. One followed the law, one (for whatever reason good or bad) is still a lawbreaker.


Clarence Woodworth In short, we may rightly distinguish groups by certain properties such as WHAT they believe or how they treat other groups. The average German soldier (often drafted or joined merely to defend his homeland which was being invaded on both sides and the Russians were out for revenge) was not criminalized at the end of WW2, even though he (and in a few cases, she) fought for the Nazis. The SS, on the other hand, was made a criminal organization and mere membership was a strike against you. This was based on belief and behavior of those groups of people.


Stephanie Barr Well, for the more part, I’ll have to disagree with you. There are some very compelling reasons to be an illegal immigrant and, UNLESS THEY ARE HURTING SOMEONE, I don’t put itin the same level AUTOMATICALLY, with a criminal act. Anymore than I equate prostitution to make sure your children are fed equates with a sex crime. While I’ll grant you not every sect is the same in any religion, to imply that Islam or Christianity equate with virtue or vice is, in my opinion, disingenuous.

Now, if you want to argue that you are unlikely to be a nice person as a member of Al Qaida or Westboro Baptist church, I can agree with that.

One’s choices are a reflection on who you are. However, someone on the outside, who was not faced with those same choices, should be careful about what they think that really says about that person.


Stephanie Barr There is a good point to be made that allying yourself with groups that distinguish themselves with hateful attitudes does reflect who you are. Not just the SS, but also KKK or other White Supremacists groups for example.
Stephanie Barr Trump supporter.
Clarence Woodworth I’m a Trump supporter 🙂
Stephanie Barr Well, hoist in your own petard, then. Cant support a man with Hitler’s agenda and methods without the stink rubbing off on you.
Clarence Woodworth As for your defense of breaking the law as an illegal immigrant, I wonder what other laws you feel ok with people breaking
Clarence Woodworth Thank you I haven’t laughed so hard in a very, very , very long time 🙂

Stephanie Barr Circumstances and motivations matter. You mentioned “rapists and murderers” – so all soldiers are villains in your book? Or are there justifications for murder?


Clarence Woodworth Words have meaning. “Murderer” has never applied to shooting someone who is trying to kill you or even take you captive and torture you. As for rape, in WW2 we hanged the rather few of our soldiers caught or convicted for rape.
Stephanie Barr Are you going to say that every soldier (just on our side) are shooting in self-defense and the others are all aggressors? Really?
Stephanie Barr How about bombs
Clarence Woodworth So long as they are aimed at strictly military targets, nope. Now if aimed at civilians, its basically state sponsered terrorism. Problem is, in any big war both sides do it.


Clarence Woodworth
Clarence Woodworth Stephanie Barr : And no, I’m saying in war BOTH SIDES are trying to kill each other, so both sides get self defense. War is, after all, what happens when things can’t be resolved peacefully.


Stephanie Barr The point isn’t is it justified. Even military targets have non-militant people in them. The point is, it’s murder. And there are times when it’s justified.
That’s my point. Blanket statements without knowing the specific circumstances was the issue and I gave you an example.


Clarence Woodworth Murder is defined legally. And self-defense and accidents are defenses against murder.


Stephanie Barr The notion that a war is filled with everyone firing in self-defense is whacked. If you think planning to drop a bomb on city and then doing so doesn’t count as murder, you’re part of the problem.


Clarence Woodworth ‘hint’ accidents…as you mentioned Military bases


Stephanie Barr Hiroshima was not a military target. Nor was it an accidentt
Clarence Woodworth Hiroshima was a military target. It’s obvious you know nothing about Hiroshima, who died (about 1/3 of the casulties were soldiers) or about Hiroshima’s importance as the main organizational base for the defense of all of southern Japan in the event of the expected American invasion. The “Targetting Commission” that chose the Atomic bomb targets was specifically looking for military targets, and Hiroshima was by far the best still available.

Stephanie Barr I’ve read multiple books on Hiroshima. And we weren’t out to break the military. The military, in fact, argued against it. We were out to break Japan.

And we’re done here. Rules apply to everyone or they’re meaningless.


Clarence Woodworth You’ve read nothing on Hiroshima, or at least nothing honest. That’s quite obvious. Do you have any idea just how hard it was to get the Japanese to surrender? Even after TWO atomic bombs and the Russian destruction of one of their main armies in China, the Emperor STILL had to break a 3 to 3 tie. And then the next day there was an attempted coup.


Clarence Woodworth These were people willing to kill themselves and take 100 million of their countrymen with them rather than suffer what they considered dishoner. Such a mindset is totally alien to you.
Clarence Woodworth And I just love your ‘rules apply to everyone’ but appparently not tens of millions of illegal immigrants. I was about to argue some of the secondary effects(mostly bad ) of having such a totally open border, but since you ran off with your tail between your legs when I showed you up on Hiroshima, I guess I can save my breath


Stephanie Barr I read what the generals at the time had to say. Or maybe you think you know more.


Stephanie BarrAnd none of it addresses my point. Even people who feel strongly that “murder is wrong” will stand up and defend i a blatant example of it under the “right” circumstances.

You can’t change the rules on what’s fair for your side does and then blame others who are also driven what by what they see as mitigating circumstances.

Well, you can, but you’re a total hypocrite to do so.
Clarence Woodworth No, you didn’t read ‘what the generals at the time had to say”. All you read were some quotes of some after the fact (think I haven’t read those quotes?) and about the Bombing Survey report. You are vastly uninformed, but I guess you can be forgiven because you are female and most females do not focus on military history. I was reading anti- A bomb opinions in the 70 and early 80’s when I was 10 to 15. Since then alot more information has come out: Here’s what I recommend you do: Read about Tarawa. Read about Iwo Jima and read about Okinawa. Consider the cost of a land invasion (the Joint Chiefs of Staffs reports as well as many other studies from that time are available). Read about Operation Ketsugo , the Japanese plan to repel the American invaders (lots of use of suicide planes, boats, and civilians armed with things like molotov cocktails and ancient bows and muskets) and General Hata and his Second Army and what they were tasked with. Their headquarters was Hiroshima. Note we had the Japanese home Islands surrounded. We had control of their air, we had mined both their ocean ports and most of their interior waterways. We didn’t have to invade: we could starve them out. The Japanese h ad a plan for that, and it didn’t involve surrender either. I dare you to read all that and then say that Operation Downfall or starvation wouldn’t have resulted in more casulties on both sides than 2 Atomic bombs


Clarence Woodworth Oh, and keep in mind that the United States -mothers and fathers- lost 400 THOUSAND men to death, and over a million to life changing wounds. And tell me how comfortable you are from your freaking armchair, 75 years later, condemmning them for trying to use a new weapon to end a war and spare themselve more heartbreak.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: