i've explained previously that liberal is a complicated word. but, i think it makes the most sense to define it relative to it's origins, and in contrast with it's opposite.
i think that this is the most basic definition, and all of the others follow.
conservative: somebody that thinks that human nature is fixed. ex: hobbes, burke. liberal: somebody that thinks that human nature is malleable, or does not exist at all. ex: rousseau, locke.
this is fundamental, and it derives anarchists and socialists from liberals, as they should be derived. if you argue carefully, you can get to almost every ideological split from this basic breakdown. if you haven't thought about this, try it: you'll no doubt be surprised by how effective it is - because it is historical. it was what conservatives and liberals were at one point explicitly arguing about.
science is not yet clear on this point, but it currently leans very strongly towards no fixed human nature. in the end, the debate will need to return to the answer and move forwards from there. once science has an answer, the people that want bipartisanship will have a model to move forwards with; the synthesis will become truly attainable. or, it will be if they accept the answer.
as silly as this is, i actually think it brings up a good point. in a world where national boundaries are falling and nation-states are giving way to regional associations, leave it to scotland to demand independence.
the thing is i can't figure out what they want out of this, besides some vapid emotional attachment to some long dead cultural identity. because the scots need to protect their catholic faith. or their language?
the historic context of the anglo-scot fighting is generally over-simplified, to the point that people don't really get it. scotland was generally used as a conduit for papal interests. scottish independence was never a real option; they had the ability to chose between being vassals of the english or vassals of the pope. the pope was constantly seeking to punish the english. the catholic forces attacked repeatedly from the north. but all we ever hear about is how the scots have been colonized by the dastardly english, severely warping the entire discourse. papal propaganda is very widespread and seems to really capitalize on a certain level of historical ignorance.
i really don't think this is at all different. the french are prying scotland away, yet again. this really isn't a referendum on scottish independence (ffs, it's 2014), it's a referendum on whether scotland should integrate directly with the british or european economic and financial systems. to leave britain is to enter europe in a way that the british elite will never agree to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vDzf-wSbk
Stark Clark
Scotland isn't a catholic nation, the largest religion is the Church of Scotland which is Protestant.
jessica
+Stark Clark scotland has historically been a part of the catholic alliance, which was usually dominated by a french emperor that was a puppet of the papacy.
i was being facetious.
James Red
+deathtokoalas you can real off all your book knowledge about Scotland all you want but I who actually am Scottish and have lived here my entire life know that we are not a Catholic nation and that we do want independance to finally free us from the corrupt democracy that is Westminster! We make more money than the whole of the UK. We should be able to make our own decisions without requesting if its okay to English men way way down south.
jessica
+James Red do you really think it's the english that are stealing your money, rather than the bankers and shareholders not just in scotland but throughout the world? do you not think you might gain a thing or two in return for what you send out?
but, more to the point, how does taking the british out of the equation eliminate the corruption? why don't you realize the corruption is in the institution and will merely shift?
and has it crossed your mind that you may be better off working with the british to fight off the bankers and corporate managers than splitting yourselves in two, thereby making it easier to continue to beat you down?
(deleted response)
jessica
if that's your answer, you're being divided and conquered.
but the scots are quite good at being conquered, aren't they?
Stark Clark
+deathtokoalas The Scottish reformation was in 1560. The English reformation started in 1534, but was repealed in 1553 by queen Mary I, which caused a rockier road to reformation including the Rising of the Northern in 1569, which yes I realise was to put a Scottish catholic on the throne, but it was then her son who finally started to try finish reformation under the Stuarts in 1603 which led to the War of the Three Kingdoms and the English Civil War.
jessica
+Stark Clark the franco-scottish alliance was the scottish alliance that preceded the anglo-scottish alliance, and took on pro-catholic and anti-english traits at various points during it's history, most prominently during the tudor period.
Stark Clark
+deathtokoalas The Franco-Scottish alliance ended in 1560 with the reformation during the Tudor period. Then the Stuarts inherited the English throne and finally but brutally and bloodily caused reformation in full in England.
jessica
+Stark Clark right. that's the basis underlying the facetious nature of my comment.
i mean, what are you, an american or something? you seem to have no concept of irony or sarcasm.
Jordan Kay
I agree independence dosnt mean shit this day and age the global elite run it all.
Sept 12, 2014
so, the grocery store is getting propertarian about it's shopping carts. it's kind of hard to blame them, because people in the neighbourhood aren't being good anarchists.
i was thinking about it on the way home, and it's actually a great topic to use in an introductory discourse. there might be this misperception that it's unruly hooligan anarchists stealing the shopping carts. the actual reality is that it's the anarchists that bring them back, because they understand them as socially owned property. but, the fact that people take them in the first place indicates a level of intuition towards the idea of social ownership.
and isn't it obvious that people ought to be able to take the carts home? i'm just not quite sure why it isn't so obvious that they should bring them back. laziness only gets you so far, here. i mean, i've walked by houses with four or five on their yard, indicating they're not even bringing them back when they get more food.
i might suggest it lies in the perception of property. that intuition towards social ownership may be overpowered by the enforced hierarchical guilt that keeps propertarianism in place. that is, they may be "stealing" the carts because they figure they ought to be able to use them, but then they can't rationalize it, and figure once they've stolen it it becomes theirs. then they just "steal" more. there could even be fear of consequence regarding being caught "stealing" them when they bring them back. but i'm just making wild guesses, and i'd really like to get a better understanding of this.
me? i'm a good anarchist, so i always return the public property as soon as i'm done using it, so other people can use it. that's the basis of a system of social ownership.
there's been a few times where i've been halfway home, realized my neck was sore, pulled a cart off somebody's lawn and then brought it back to their lawn when i was done. that's taking temporary control of a public good and returning it how i found it.
there's also been a few times where somebody has asked me for the cart on the way back to the store and i've given it to them - although i make sure they promise to bring it back to the store. it wasn't even for groceries a few times. one woman had a broken stroller and used it to get her kid home. another guy had a bag of soil. that's the way this ought to work.
the thing is that the level of social responsibility to make it work doesn't seem to be absent. people are taking the carts home, indicating they get it. but what's suppressing the responsibility to bring them back?
the answer to this isn't locking carts down or whatever other silly approach the store might come up with, it's talking to people and trying to understand why they're not being good anarchists.
sept 9, 2014
it's a question of using proportional amounts of force. yeah, she was coming at him, but he's a running back and she's not. i doubt he meant to knock her out, but it's not the point. in a situation like that, the much stronger person needs to be aware of how much stronger he is and restrain the person that's coming at him until they calm down.
the nfl is sending a message, and it's a worthwhile message to send, but you can't help but feel a little bad for the guy. i don't know the context, but i don't get a one-sided pattern of domestic abuse out of the video. what i get is basically an accident of self-defense coming out of a dysfunctional relationship.
after doing a little googling, what i'm getting out of this fiasco is really just another example of out-of-control, sensationalist media.
and it didn't just ruin this guy's career - it fucked his wife's life up, too. the supposed victim, that is - who realizes it's the kind of accident that happens when adults play rough with each other.
aa
But if you closely in the beginning he hit her in the face and that's when she charged or walked towards him to hit him. But honestly I don't feel bad, no matter what you don't hit a women. He obviously knows his strength compare to hers.He has the option to walk away and leave.
jessica
she hit him before they got on the elevator, but i don't think there's any insight to be gained from figuring out who hit who first. what i would conclude from watching the video is that they have somewhat of a physical relationship and push each other around a little when they argue. that is not the same thing as assault or abuse.
generally, women that are battered demonstrate a healthy level of fear towards their partners. that's the point of the violence - to control. there's no indication of that in the video. she was entirely confident that she could lunge at him without serious harm, and probably would have escaped serious harm were it not for the enclosed space, where he doesn't have the option to back off that he might have normally taken.
i'm not suggesting he didn't overreact, but this isn't what the media is presenting it as.
ts
That is in no way self defense. One, he has a bunch of weight on her, he's an NFL star, and he's a grown man. If it were self defense the spitting would have been enough. He punched her twice. Not only that, she was not even physically bothering him once they stepped foot onto the elevator. Self defense is a bullshit excuse right now.
jessica
c'mon - she obviously lunged at him, and he knocked her when she was on the way there. what you're saying is true - i stated it myself - but i think the error in your reasoning is that it's logical. in a situation like that, humans don't have time to carefully weigh all of the options that are available to them and come to a rational conclusion. instead, they break down to instinct, which is "fight or flight" and react on an impulse as to which is better for survival. the thing is he's trapped in the corner of an elevator. she probably jumps him all the time, and he probably generally backs off or dodges her - he is, after all, a pretty good running back, so he's good at that. but, when flight isn't an option, all that's left is to fight and what takes over is that instinct and what drives the behaviour is the impulse.
now, he could have and should have tried to restrain her as his "fight" response. but, that he didn't react in the best way possible doesn't mean it's a "vicious attack".
(deleted reply)
jessica
meh. there's some logic to that, and it's applicable to most people you aren't building a family with, but relationships require a certain egalitarian basis to be effective. they can both - and no doubt did - realize the guy's superior strength. that doesn't mean she should be afraid of him, it means he's gotta be careful. on the other hand, she might be considerably more intelligent than him and they might both be aware of that. it doesn't mean she should talk down to him, it means she should be patient.
AfriSynergyNews
True, he should have restrained her. Jay Z
reacted in the best way with Beyonce's sister in the elevator. Ray
reacted badly. If one or both of them were drunk, this can elevate
latent behaviors.
jessica
i just watched that video and what jay z seems to demonstrate is the "freeze" response to fight-or-flight. beyonce's sister really scared the fuck out of him. ray wasn't nearly as frightened. also, it seems to have been the other people in the elevator that were responsible for restraining her, who weren't stuck in hormonal overdrive.
Isaiah From the Nati
If he a lot bigger DONT PICK THAT FIGHT. I'm 15 but u don't see me fighting big ass grown men then saying they should be punished cause I'm a minor
jessica
it's not a comparable situation though, isaiah. you're smart not to pick fights with bigger kids or adults, but in a relationship there's a basis of trust that has to transcend issues like physical strength. you'll understand that as you grow older.
sh
Jay Z was not "scared the f.." by Beyonce's sister and froze up, he was smart. Restraining someone often gets re-characterized as mutual combat, resulting in both parties getting arrested, or more often the case, just the guy. He was smart to simply take the blows, and let a third-party do the separating / restraining.
jessica
but, again, that is not how people react in situations of conflict. what happens is your autonomous nervous system kicks in, and you're driven by impulse to flee if you can, fight if you think you have a chance and freeze if there's no way out. there's a tremendous amount of ignorance about this in our legal culture that really needs to be aggressively addressed.
nb
When tobacco companies say, " Tobacco is bad for your health and can cause cancer", and you still smoke. The tobcacco company is no longer to blame! What people seem to forget is that a white cop hits a black lady and they promote the cop, but I get it cops don't break the law only people in the NFL and in MMA.
tp
what does this have to do with race?
jessica
i think the media coverage has a pretty strong racial context underlying it, even if it's not explicitly stated. the headlines seem to be barely a step down from
PRIMITIVE NEGRO SAVAGELY CANNIBALIZES WIFE
are your white daughters safe?
jj
Correct. A lot of the media outrage is fake. TMZ is out to make a quick buck at anybody's expense. She MARRIED him. Obviously she has forgiven and moved on. If she married him afterwards and admitted to instigating and contributed to the fight, then people outside the relationship need to stay out.
jessica
i think there's a place for friends and family members to react to warning signals. and i'd take it as one, no doubt. but we don't have any valid prerogative to sit here from a distance and make judgements on other people's value systems.
jm
In what way almost the same? As I see it, what you are doing is "fanning racial flame" without one iota of proof. That's not right unless you can back it up with something besides inflammatory remarks--just who said "primitive negro or even IMPLIED it--besides you just now?
jessica
well, this very video is full of racist comments, if you'd take the time to look.
the american media has found more sophisticated ways to be racist, which deal with certain code words and contexts. it's engineered to be difficult to deconstruct, but it's there when you really disassemble it.
nb
What happened to that white cop that groud-n-pounded that black lady? Did he get a promotion? Another medal from the mayor?
jessica
what i'm trying to get across is that, while it might be true that he didn't hit her hard and the rail technically knocked her out, he should have been more aware of the potential consequences. legally, the concept in tort law is called "duty of care". it means he has a responsibility to ensure that he carries out "reasonable foresight" in ensuring his actions don't cause harm. if it was a stranger, i'd agree he should be responsible for medical costs.
wp
I don't think his intention was to knock her out. I think he underestimated his own strength. His couple of swats (I don't think they were closed-fisted) were too much for her face. He didn't keep at it, or even seem angry; I think he was surprised when her feet fell out from under her. He got counseling, she forgave him, and they got married. I don't think it implies he's a serial woman-beater or that it will happen again. It has nothing to do with football, but I understand their money comes from fans, who have now seen the video. The media makes money at his expense, too, and that's the price of being famous. I don't condone what he did, but I feel sorry for him and wish the media would leave him alone.
jessica
the energy rush triggered in the fight response from the sns as a result of being cornered could very well have contributed to a slap that was much harder than intended. that's a lot of factors that neither of them had any grasp of as things were happening.
sept 8, 2014
the thing about kids that do pranks like this is that they want to get punished. it's a status issue. the more you punish them, the bigger their trophy and the more they can brag about it. getting retributive is something that's going to make you feel better about yourself, not something that's going to address the issue or otherwise correct their behaviour.
the ideal "punishment" would be for them to sit in the auditorium as student after student walks up to the microphone and verbally berates them for it, followed by loud audience applause. this would get the point across that the behaviour isn't "cool" and isn't going to help them make friends or get laid. so, ideally, this parade would include their friends, family members, people they have a crush on, etc.
....and, yes, they should get community service, too.
we wake up today to announce that justin trudeau has just been re-elected to his fifth consecutive majority government. he has long represented the world's last safe space for free trade and market economics. to celebrate this victory for globalism, the liberals have decided to renew the canada-canada free trade agreement (ccfta). let's see what justin has to say.
"we are proud that canadians have once again affirmed their support for global trade. we would like to celebrate with our trading partners. but, as we are the only country left that believes in free trade, we will instead renew our agreement with ourselves. after all of these years, the ccfta remains a pillar in solipsistic global trade relations."
do you still hold out hope for a return to nafta?
"did my father outlive laurier?"
president swift was on vacation in the bahamas and could not be reached for comment.
i think that the truth is that the prime minister and his foreign affairs minister are out of step with the party, and the way this has to end - soon - is that the party has to make that fact clear.
there is an excellent opportunity here for a caucus pushback. and, the timing to take it is right.
i really think the liberals should be offering to renegotiate nafta right now. and, if they paint themselves as these rigorous defenders of this failed global trade order, their support is going to collapse towards the ndp. they must be doing everything they possibly can to avoid the perception that they're the only thing standing between donald trump and the destruction of nafta.
it's going to be especially strange, because canadians do not expect the liberals to uncritically support these trade agreements. the reality in parliament is a little bit different, of course, but the canadian spectrum (in the minds of canadians...) is as follows:
conservatives: support the letter and the law of nafta. liberals: support the premise of free trade with the united states, but would like to renegotiate nafta. ndp: do not support free trade with the united states.
these are caricatures, but they are the positions that canadians expect the parties to take. so, if the liberals take the traditional conservative position, the spectrum will shift: liberal support will collapse - not due to the trade position, exactly, but because it signals an ideological change in the party that nobody really fully realized happened. this is potentially realigning. and, i don't think the party realizes it.
they absolutely need to indicate that they have reservations with this agreement and want the opportunity to open it up. this is imperative. they cannot just let this fiasco run through with the perception that they don't want to open the agreement in place...
even hillary clinton understood this. the problem is that nobody believed her. the liberals don't have this credibility problem - or at least they don't yet. they're about to develop it. and, it will be devastating.
if trudeau fucks this up by realigning the liberal party with the traditional conservative party position on nafta, the subsequent electoral collapse will be his legacy.