Political & Social Debate

Danishface

Hello Everyone,

In order to maintain civil discourse and keep thematically appropriate content in its rightful place on the forum, this thread has been created for all political & social debate.

Do note this is not a thread for attacking, provoking or otherwise inflammatory remarks towards one another.  This thread will be locked if it is determined that conversations are breaking our Terms of Service or if it is seen as too hostile of a thread

We're a part of a (more or less) sophisticated society of pipe smokers, let's please (more or less) act like it.

Regards,

motie2

Thank you.

thebadgerpiper

👍

No matter what side of the aisle we’re on in this, we’re all brothers of the briar. Brothers can fight and be mean to each other sometimes, but we’re bonded by our hobby and part of a brotherhood that unites us all. 

I may not be happy at all with the state of the US this past year, and I may disagree with others on controversial topics (though you won’t really hear my opinions here), but in the end there’s no other group I’d rather smoke a pipe with. 

Never forget that. In a world where both sides are guilty at times of making it an “us vs them” mentality, you can choose a different path and still hold onto your beliefs. 

I hope this doesn’t sound hokey, but even though I haven’t been on as much as I’d like this past year, I love you all, and think of the group often. 

So when there’s debate in here, let’s leave those feelings here, shake hands, and enjoy a drink and pipe together. 

Danishface

@thebadgerpiper Well said my friend.  I whole heartedly agree.  

opipeman

@Danishface;
Thank you for intervening. I consider them both brothers, and I can't pick a dog in this fight. They both have a lot to offer and I hope this settles it.

vtgrad2003

@opipeman
I'm not kissing him...no siree-bob! 

opipeman

@vtgrad2003;
That creates a mental image that is very disturbing!

motie2

SWMBO recommends we show this to our wives, daughters, and female acquaintances.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2Rm05DMBUY

AnantaAndroscoggin

I've long held the opinion that pro-rape republicans ought to have their vasectomies or castrations performed with a roto-tiller.

PappyJoe

@AnantaAndroscoggin
Not all republicans are "pro-rape" as you term it, just as not all democrats are "pro-pedophiles" or "pro-sexual abusers."

AnantaAndroscoggin

Very true, but only republican politicians go out and make speeches in public about how "rape is impossible."

PappyJoe

@AnantaAndroscoggin

I have never heard a politician actually say that.

Don't mean it's not true, just that I personally have not heard an elected politician say that. 

PappyJoe

@AnantaAndroscoggin
On the other hand, you have...

Bill Clinton
Harvey Weinstein
Jeffrey Epstein
Mel Reynolds
Gary Condit
John Edwards
Anthony Weiner
Al Franken
Andrew Cuomo 

motie2

vtgrad2003

France is arguably the #2 most liberal country in the EU outside of the Netherlands...

https://www.newsweek.com/macron-france-reject-american-woke-culture-thats-racializing-their-country-1634706

motie2

vtgrad2003

Here is an interesting bit I found for a paper I am currently writing looking at the differences between traditional/secular countries and collectivist/individualistic countries and how they impact income inequality across nations. Below is data from a massive study conducted by the World Values Survey which interviews people in various countries around the world, asking a list of questions that try to gauge the societal attitudes in these respective categories. I have peeled out the USA data only. It seems to be a well conducted survey and I've used it before in some of my publications. Each time period below represents a "wave" within which the survey was conducted.

Why this is interesting is that you can see that while the U.S. has gradually been becoming more secular over the years, it remains more individualistic. To me, this makes sense. For example, church attendance has been declining over the years (something of a proxy for more secularism), yet we continue to embrace individual freedoms such as gun rights. In fact, it appears as though individualism has been on the increase since the 2005 wave was conducted--although 3 data points don't make an empirical regularity, the trend is there all the same. 

Continued on next post...

vtgrad2003

USA Data Only

Negative is more traditional, positive is more secular

-1.030218    1990-1994

-1.253937    1995-1998

-.8988685    1999-2004

-.6443458     2005-2009

-.3738331     2010-2014

.3756115       2017-2020

Negative is more collectivist, positive is more individualistic

1.265233    1990-1994

1.40786      1995-1998

1.650931    1999-2004

1.308575     2005-2009

1.390593     2010-2014

1.461046     2017-2020

This seems to back up the premise I've outlined on here many times that the collectivist (i.e., Marxist) attitudes of late is simply a cycle that will eventually peter out as it does every generation or so, and that Americans will always seem to appreciate more individualistic policies and reject collectivist ones as too extreme. 

PappyJoe

@vtgrad2003
Interesting....

But it would be more interesting if you could explain what the numbers represent? Number of people interviewed? How much money was spent? Number of strands of tobacco in a 50 gram tin of ribbon cut?

vtgrad2003

@PappyJoe

I'll take your questions as points to be addressed:
Point 1: the cardinal value of the numbers themselves doesn't mean much, but ordinally they do, and as I mentioned earlier, whether they are negative or positive also has considerable meaning.

So, for instance, take the collectivist/individualistic numbers. They are all positive meaning that the country is individualistic-leaning and does not lean to the collectivist side; for example, a country with a 0.00 number in this column means the society is split in their sociological beliefs in that area--you could almost say they are indifferent whether they have collectivist/individualistic ideals or not. That said, 1.46 means the respondents (on average) are more individualistic in 2017 than they are in 2005 where the number is only 1.30, and this is where the ordinality of the numbers mean something. 

Point 2: Here is a link to the description page of the data and you can navigate anywhere you want to in here to find whatever descriptive statistics you need. To answer your question directly, here is a quote from a different page on this site

"the number of completed interviews which are included into the national data-set in most of countries is 1200. Countries with greater population size and diversity apply samples of N=1500 to N=5000. Countries with the population below 2 million people apply samples of N=1000.
The main method of data collection in the WVS survey is face-to-face interview at respondent’s home / place of residence. Other interview modes employed in WVS-7 include postal survey, self-administered online survey, and telephone interview (in combination with other surveying techniques)." 

https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp

Point 3: Not enough, I can promise you that! 

PappyJoe

@vtgrad2003
Thanks for the explanation and the link. I was just curious as to how they arrived at the numbers and how they assigned the numbers. 

As for things running in cycles, that should be apparent to anyone who studies history with an open mind. The decline and fall of the Roman Empire could be used as an an example of how societal changes from a more conservative to a more liberal entitled society can contribute to a collapse. The Roman Legions at one time was only comprised of Roman citizens. Towards the end of the empire, the legions had to start conscripting men from the areas they conquered because Roman citizens felt serving was beneath them. 

At least that’s what I think I remember being taught in the late 1960s. 

Zouave

I heard a great discussion the other day about the "moral fatigue" experienced towards the end of reconstruction in the post civil war U.S. it was asked how could the north turn such a blind eye to the horrible conditions and failure of the government to step in and enforce the hard won advancements in civil rights. The conclusion was what was refered to a a moral fatigue, where the country just couldn't collectively contend with social changes that the radical republicans pushed forward. Consequently there was a collapse in will power to follow through with more righteous upheaval.  Compound that with the moral failings within the Grant administration and the Democratic parties call for reform.....ironically, and it was just the perfect storm.  Like I said, it's just a theory and up for debate, but one could infer that a similar moral fatigue may find a foothold within the population once again. 

vtgrad2003

@Zouave

Shortly after the war and at about the same period you mention, 1890's I believe or somewhere thereabout, we have the moniker 'yellow dog democrat' coined...i.e., someone that would vote for a 'yaller dog' than vote for a republican, which to a great extent is an outcome of the "moral fatigue" you mention. We see that now with increasingly 'entrenched' voters on the left and right, and with a waning and therefore increasingly important independent voter block. 

 (Side note: remember, back then, ideologies of the parties were reversed from what they are perceived to be now, particularly with regard to government (over)reach). 

PappyJoe

@vtgrad2003 @Zouave

People tend to forget that the ideologies of the parties were polar opposite of what they are portrayed as now. Those on the left like to call the republicans as the party of the KKK when reality is it was southern democrats who basically founded and ran the KKK. While Politifact may try to whitewash the involvement of democrats in forming the KKK by pointing out that the KKK was started as a fraternal order by some former Confederate generals, the truth is that the majority of the south were democrats at the time and the organization had a lot of support from democratic politicians.

This discussion is taking me back to my Sophomore year in high school which was spent in Greenville, Ms. We had moved from SE Texas to Greenville because my father changed companies he worked for. In Texas, Civics/Social Studies were a sophomore level class, in Mississippi it was a senior level class so I was placed in the class with older students. It was an interesting experience as the teacher had the desks arranged in a circle in the room and he taught from a podium in the middle of the circle. He said students should look at each other and not the back of the heads.

Anyway. Two things he said that have stuck with me for some reason.

1. He said one of the differences between the North and South was how they viewed Blacks. He said that people in the South "loved" Black individuals but hated the Black race while people in the North "loved" the Black race but hated the individuals. 

2. Cultural Society (I think that was what he called it.) is like a pendulum swinging back and forth. The attitudes of society is always swinging from one end of the political spectrum to the other. Events happen which push the pendulum so far to the right that it creates a backlash which propels it back to the left and vice versa. One example he liked to use was Prohibition in the United States as pushing the pendulum too far to the right and the backlash was the rise of illegal alcohol sales, speak easies and the rise of organized crime propelling the pendulum back leading to the repeal of prohibition in 1933. 

vtgrad2003

@PappyJoe @Zouave

And that KKK/democrat connection lasted well into the 20th century. If anyone remembers the Exalted Cyclops, Sen. Robert Byrd (Dem, WV), who once wrote

"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

And that was in 1944.

All of your points above are very well taken and I couldn't have phrased them better myself. 

PappyJoe

@vtgrad2003
And Byrd only served in the Senate for about 50 years until he died in 2010.

This is the way a political discussion should take place. 

bbrown626

My turn to lob a grenade into the discussion!

Critical Race Theory - A legitimate academic theory concerning racism or an extension of European Marxism?

I will add my thoughts later...
 

RockyMountainBriar

My thoughts are simple….like me🤓…..BS.

vtgrad2003

It's neither, in my opinion. To me, it's simply a new way to continue the drumbeat that all whites are racists. To me it's obvious that democrats have finally latched onto a way to perpetuate racial division into the foreseeable future, especially since the Sharptons and Jacksons of the country are too old to perform that duty anymore. 

Londy3

Politicians suck.
Demand term limits.

PappyJoe

I'm always confused when politicians or called "Honorable." If a regular citizen did what some of the "Honorable" politicians did, that citizen would wind up in jail.

Demand term Limits.