Cory1848

Absolutely. People should be able to marry who they want. To think otherwise is heartless and medieval.

I imagine, an actual “deep state” might form on an ad hoc basis involving not only the military but elements of the courts, the intelligence community, some in the business community and media, some local and national politicians. The power exists to pull this off, but some pretty serious red lines would need to be crossed before such a thing would be considered (e.g., withdrawing from or undermining NATO). However, if such were to simply replace Trump’s oligarchy with another monied class (even one that was not insane) rather than leading to genuine social democracy, setting such a precedent would be fraught.

You’re probably right -- a recent NYT article quotes him admiring how “massive” Greenland is, and how that reason alone means it should be part of the US. I seem to remember when he first raised this issue during his first administration, he was looking at a map and saw Alaska on the left-hand side of the continent, then wondered what that big thing was on the right-hand side, and how owning it would balance things out somehow. I guess it’s just this sort of schoolboy idiocy that will direct US foreign policy for the next few years.

Reminds me of a joke. A child asks his parents, Why is there a Mother’s Day and a Father’s Day, but no Children’s Day? The parent answers, “EVERY day is Children’s Day!” To answer your question, maybe it’s because Black people started out in the US as pieces of personal property, didn’t get the vote (in the US South) until the 1960s, and still face systemic racism (which is what the legal field of critical race theory is all about). Have you ever gone out in public in Black skin? Didn’t think so. Short answer: For White folks in the US, EVERY space is safe space!

And tell me, just why is that. It’s important that a child is raised in a loving environment, and that can be provided by a same-sex couple just as effectively as by a couple that’s a man and woman.

That’s a scream: those who criticize so-called “wokism” and language policing are now the biggest language police of all. So sorry to offend your sense of propriety, but if I prefer to use the term “transwoman” in some contexts, it’s my right to do so.

The amount of misinformation in this thread is truly astonishing. In medieval Europe, Jewish people were permitted to be moneylenders largely because Christians at the time still abided by the biblical injunction against charging interest. However, to say that Jews currently “are basically running the US banking system” is ludicrous and an all-too-common antisemitic trope. Some Palestinian Arabs are descended from ancient Hebrews who converted to Islam (either by force or willingly) during the Arab invasions of the 7th century AD; other Palestinian Arabs were immigrants. To try to sort out the bloodlines at this point seems pointless. There were no universities in the Levant in the 7th century, so to say that Palestinian Arabs were simply not “smart enough” to continue being Jewish is another ludicrous statement. It is not surprising that the Israeli military and intelligence services are among the best in the world; Israel was born out of the trauma of the Holocaust, so self-defense would have been among the new state’s top priorities. (And given that Jewish people have been persecuted in Europe for going on two millennia, it’s no wonder that they have emphasized education and thrift, with the next pogrom always just around the corner.) One poster seems to refer to the theory of Khazar origin of the Ashkenazi Jews; this has been debunked. As another person points out, Ashkenazi Jews have origins in ancient Israel. And, more broadly, the entire notion of “IQ” and the ability to measure comparative intelligence through a standardized test is itself coming under increasing criticism by the scientific community; it seems likely that IQ testing will ultimately be regarded as another scientific dead end, along with phrenology and biological racism, medical humorism, etc. In the end, the Jewish people and the governments they create are no more, and no less, responsible for the maintenance of global civic order than any other groups of people who populate the planet.

Thanks for that video -- really interesting! And well conducted by both sides, as you say. I don’t totally agree with Chomsky on everything (he seems to blame the US more than Russia for the Ukraine war), but I certainly agree with his take on “wokism.” And his presence and lucidity at age 94 is truly inspiring; makes me think I may have 30 good years left ...

Sending Sri Lankan refugees to Saint Helena seems a problematic move. However, there are no “inhabitants” of the Chagos Islands (other than US and British military personnel, who rotate in and out); the original inhabitants were forcibly evacuated (mostly to Mauritius and the Seychelles) in the 1960s because the US wanted to build a military base there (Diego Garcia). As someone else commented, returning the Chagos Islands to Mauritius is the right thing to do, and I think the Mauritian government has promised the Chagossians (or their descendants) a right to return, but I’m sure the US will want to keep its base; not sure if that’s been resolved yet ...

What is it with you guys and “wokism,” which has to be the biggest bogeyman of the past decade? Lots of great movies have been made the past ten years, and if you raised the (non)issue of “wokism” with the people who made them, they’d laugh you off as irrelevant and silly. “Dunkirk,” “All Quiet on the Western Front” (remake), and “1917” are three of the greatest war movies ever made; for horror movies, there’s “Hereditary,” “Under the Skin,” and “Vacancy” among many others. Just about anything by Yorgos Lanthimos (“The Lobster,” “The Killing of a Sacred Deer”), or starring Rebecca Hall (“Christine,” “The Gift,” “The Night House”) or Florence Pugh (“Midsommer,” “Don’t Worry Darling”). Lots of great small-budget films (“Emily the Criminal,” “Never Rarely Sometimes Always”). “Get Out” is like a punch in the face, as is the Coen Brothers’ “A Serious Man” but in a different way. Oscar winners “Oppenheimer” and “Parasite” were amazing films. I’m just rattling off the top of my head. Movies are a matter of taste, for sure; I’m not big on blockbuster-type movies for instance. And lots of great movies were made prior to 2000 as well, going back to “The Birth of a Nation,” a racist screed but brilliantly made for its time. Get out of your rabbit hole and look around, and ween yourself off this “wokism” shtick, it’s really boring.

You guys crack me up. You don't have a clue what women want. And on those occasions when you crawl out of your caves, it must be unsettling to discover that your doctor, your airline pilot, the person interviewing you for a job is a woman. Grow up already.

We apparently have very different ideas about what “feminism” means, and I feel that many of your statements are misguided. (That “feminism promotes the idea that children and husbands are obstacles to happiness”? Where on earth do you dredge this garbage up?) You seem to have some notion that ambitious women are a drag on the men they’re with. Maybe you’ve just had some bad personal experiences; I have no idea. You also have some notion that male-female relationships are sacrosanct. You don’t really know, then, what’s most important about an intimate, (hopefully) life-long relationship: namely, that two people are able to provide a surplus of emotional support to each other on a day-to-day basis, regardless of their gender. As it turns out, the vast majority of such relationships are between men and women, and these usually result in children; I don’t think the minority of same-sex relationships pose any threat to the “fabric of society,” much less the survival of our species. And another thing: a child is much better off being raised in a loving household with two parents of the same sex than they would be if they were raised by a married man and woman who fought and thus created a toxic environment. There is no doubt whatsoever about this. This “mother-child relationship” that you harp on about is of much less importance than the overall environment the child is raised in. Maybe it’s a father (or two fathers) who play the most fundamental role in nurturing a child. What’s wrong with that? A child needs love and encouragement, which are not the exclusive domain of mothers. I simply believe that people -- human beings -- should be equally judged, and encouraged to succeed, and given status, based on their own talents and desires. If you find fault with that, and more if you accuse me of “virtue signaling,” then I have nothing more to say to you. You can take your misogyny -- indeed, your misanthropy, as you seem filled with hatred -- elsewhere.

Well, I don’t know. I also live in Thailand (for almost 20 years total) and have had access to all levels of Thai society, from hi-so connections (via the US embassy) to village gatherings in the boondocks, and it seems to me that “feminism” has a strong presence up and down the line. The country has had two female heads of government (that’s two more than the US), and while women may be underrepresented as heads of large companies, they sure run (and own) a lot of smaller companies and in general seem to do 90 percent of the work in the country. I don’t see that local men have any control over what women do at all (excepting the criminally violent). Plus, Thailand is a very tolerant society and is also broadly accepting of trans people in all occupations. I find all of this very positive. I suppose I’m part of your “influx of feminist men” (from the US), but for me that means simply regarding women as no different from men with respect to their abilities and intelligence -- often, they have more intelligence and leadership potential, as they tend to think less with their body parts than men do. I’d like to think that, despite my “feminism,” I’ve had a positive influence on those Thais I’ve interacted with and become close to over the years; I live comfortably enough, but I’ve helped others do so as well. So tell me, what’s wrong with feminism?

For heaven’s sake, stop your sobbing. If you’re so intimidated by empowered women, or whatever your notion of “feminism” might be, go live with the Taliban in Afghanistan, with whom you might feel more kinship. Really, you only have one life to live: why torture yourself in an environment where working women, women wearing pantsuits, are lurking around every corner? Oh, the horror.

This is only one example (of your second alternative above), from several years ago, but I'm sure there's more. The tobacco industry's fake scientists were a good model for this sort of thing. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry