Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kevin Christensen

On Zion Distant, and Babylon Close

Recommended Posts

I had to smile because I the Op in Home...it says On Zion and Distant, Baby...:P  Oh...laugh people...!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

"Xenophobic" and "reactionary resentment"?

 

You're sure to win hearts and minds

:rolleyes:

 

 

   

Share this post


Link to post

Well, this thread won't last very long, I predict.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, SteveO said:

"Xenophobic" .............................   

Pronounced as in Book of Mormon Zenos, "The Foreigner," who used horticultural motifs in his prophetic commentary on how to get things right.  Thus, Zenophobia would be hatred of Zenos' principles of good ecological stewardship.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

..................................Amazing how much rhetoric and labeling and flag waving and accusing and tweeting really boils down to "Am I my brother's keeper?"....................

Ironically, however, both Republicans and Democrats tend to favor corporate socialism, and socialism for the wealthy elites, and they use patriotism combined with sophistry to mask what they are really doing -- in order to get the great unwashed masses to vote against their own true interests.  They call it "populism," but that is only truly a description of the propaganda objective of the elite effort to gain power and to exercise it only for the benefit of the elites.

The hypocrisy is most evident in utter failure in every endeavor those elites claim to be seeking, from the War on Drugs to Pro-Life policies, both of which are complete failures, with more deaths from overdoses than ever and continuing high infant mortality -- due in the latter case to denial to the poor of prenatal care, post-natal care, and sound healthcare for the mothers.  In the midst of that, has anyone ever heard of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Pronounced as in Book of Mormon Zenos, "The Foreigner," who used horticultural motifs in his prophetic commentary on how to get things right.  Thus, Zenophobia would be hatred of Zenos' principles of good ecological stewardship.

You and I, and everyone reading this knows what “xenophobic” means.  

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, SteveO said:

You and I, and everyone reading this knows what “xenophobic” means.  

I just assumed that you would understand my point, which is not what xenophobic means. I guess I was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Ironically, however, both Republicans and Democrats tend to favor corporate socialism, and socialism for the wealthy elites, and they use patriotism combined with sophistry to mask what they are really doing -- in order to get the great unwashed masses to vote against their own true interests.  They call it "populism," but that is only truly a description of the propaganda objective of the elite effort to gain power and to exercise it only for the benefit of the elites.

Hence the need for Trump.  He may be a salty sailor but he gets the job done for the silent majority.   :ph34r:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I just assumed that you would understand my point, which is not what xenophobic means. I guess I was wrong.

You and I, and everyone reading this knows in what context “xenophobic” was used in the article...drop the act

0151DD2C-0F56-4AD4-AB88-4CB9272B4539.jpeg

 

Edited by SteveO

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SteveO said:

You and I, and everyone reading this knows in what context “xenophobic” was used in the article...drop the act.....................................

You are clearly imagining some absurd fairy tale to suit yourself.  I was referring to the use of horticultural motifs in Zenos' prophetic commentary on how to get things done properly, rather than hatred of good ecological stewardship.  Had you paid close attention to what I actually said, you would have immediately realized that.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, longview said:

Hence the need for Trump.  He may be a salty sailor but he gets the job done for the silent majority.   :ph34r:

That is apparently the evangelical rationale for going whole hog for the "salty sailor" -- the abandonment of all moral rectitude.  However, it was not a majority of any kind, and a majority is not needed in our idiotic electoral system.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are clearly imagining some absurd fairy tale to suit yourself.  I was referring to the use of horticultural motifs in Zenos' prophetic commentary on how to get things done properly, rather than hatred of good ecological stewardship.  Had you paid close attention to what I actually said, you would have immediately realized that.

Robert, my initial comment on this thread was pointing out that labeling political opposition, as the Vox article did, is counterproductive to winning over people to one's point of view.  Labeling Conservatives and Republicans as "Xenophobic" and with "reactionary resentment" is incendiary and off-putting.  It's also ironic in this case, considering it had followed after Nibley's quote on labeling opposition.

I took your comment on "xenophobic," as used in the Vox article about EPA regulations, as an attempt to make it seem less inflammatory by redefining it as a hatred of ecological stewardship.  The context in the article was clearly labeling Republicans and Conservatives as bigots and racists who want to get rid of regulations to grind the faces of the poor (apparently Blacks and Hispanics).  I think its unhelpful when discussing politics in such a divisive time.

I didn't (and still don't) understand what horticultural motifs in Zenos' prophetic commentary had anything to do with anything--but I'll admit it might have gone over my head.  Apologies.  

Edited by SteveO

Share this post


Link to post

Is it impolitic to point out that Scott Pruitt, is not, as we have been seeing publicly demonstrated through current scandals, a paragon of wisdom, honesty and integrity, but a former lobbyist for the industries that the EPA is supposed to regulate, and has, with the vocal approval of Trump, dismantled environmental protections that have proven economic benefits that far outweigh their costs?  

I must admit that I do not find the mention of "xenophobic, reactionary resentment" to be a distortion of public evidence, inappropriate mislabeling, or misleading propaganda, and certainly not grounds to change the subject away from the main point, that the "White House Office of Management and Budget" itself provided the evidence that Vox only reported, that is, that the regulations that Pruitt and Trump have been removing have public benefits that far far outweigh the costs, and that their rationale for doing so, (removing "job killing regulations" to help the economy), has no actual basis.  It  just a transparent bid to cater to very rich, incidentally at the expense of the not rich.  If I am not sufficiently tactful, it is because I am angry.   In the little book, The Lessons of History, the Durrants comment that one of the lessons is that wealth does eventually get redistributed, either the French and Russian way, with violent revolution, or the sensible British way, via taxation.  One of the lessons of the Book of Abraham is that we live in a society of intelligences, that is, it's not all about "me", but rather, always about "us".  If our decisions reflect that, we're better off, as Joseph Smith put it, "each man seeking the interest of his neighbor," rather than the Korihor/Ayn Rand approach. 

I worked for 10 years in downtown Pittsburgh, which, in the heyday of coal and steel, up to the mid 1970s, was amazingly polluted.  Coal is not, and never was clean.  People can sand blast buildings to get the stains of a century off, but lungs are a different matter.  I got here in 2004 and compared to the pictures I have seen, its actually very nice.  I used to walk along the river for my lunch hour, past places that used to be nothing but what William Blake called "dark satanic mills."  If you actually do some history, it is clear that the steel jobs left because the technology of smelting radically changed (what Clayton Christensen calls "disruptive innovation") and that genii will not go back in the bottle.  I very much prefer my technical writing in information technology, a job that itself has also changed radically many times while I have been doing it due to ongoing disruptive innovation.  It's much more sensible to retrain than to try to turn back the clock with MAGA hats, and certainly not sensible or beneficial to say that it's okay to dump coal and mining sludge into streams, rivers, and lakes because that is cheaper. That, I think, is difficult to fit into any viable definition of greatness.  And is the kind of mind that is willing pollute the environment because it is easy and cheap going to be the kind of mind that willingly pays good wages and benefits for employees?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Is it impolitic to point out that Scott Pruitt, is not, as we have been seeing publicly demonstrated through current scandals, a paragon of wisdom, honesty and integrity, but a former lobbyist for the industries that the EPA is supposed to regulate, and has, with the vocal approval of Trump, dismantled environmental protections that have proven economic benefits that far outweigh their costs?  

I must admit that I do not find the mention of "xenophobic, reactionary resentment" to be a distortion of public evidence, inappropriate mislabeling, or misleading propaganda, and certainly not grounds to change the subject away from the main point, that the "White House Office of Management and Budget" itself provided the evidence that Vox only reported, that is, that the regulations that Pruitt and Trump have been removing have public benefits that far far outweigh the costs, and that their rationale for doing so, (removing "job killing regulations" to help the economy), has no actual basis.  It  just a transparent bid to cater to very rich, incidentally at the expense of the not rich.  If I am not sufficiently tactful, it is because I am angry.   In the little book, The Lessons of History, the Durrants comment that one of the lessons is that wealth does eventually get redistributed, either the French and Russian way, with violent revolution, or the sensible British way, via taxation.  One of the lessons of the Book of Abraham is that we live in a society of intelligences, that is, it's not all about "me", but rather, always about "us".  If our decisions reflect that, we're better off, as Joseph Smith put it, "each man seeking the interest of his neighbor," rather than the Korihor/Ayn Rand approach. 

I worked for 10 years in downtown Pittsburgh, which, in the heyday of coal and steel, up to the mid 1970s, was amazingly polluted.  Coal is not, and never was clean.  People can sand blast buildings to get the stains of a century off, but lungs are a different matter.  I got here in 2004 and compared to the pictures I have seen, its actually very nice.  I used to walk along the river for my lunch hour, past places that used to be nothing but what William Blake called "dark satanic mills."  If you actually do some history, it is clear that the steel jobs left because the technology of smelting radically changed (what Clayton Christensen calls "disruptive innovation") and that genii will not go back in the bottle.  I very much prefer my technical writing in information technology, a job that itself has also changed radically many times while I have been doing it due to ongoing disruptive innovation.  It's much more sensible to retrain than to try to turn back the clock with MAGA hats, and certainly not sensible or beneficial to say that it's okay to dump coal and mining sludge into streams, rivers, and lakes because that is cheaper. That, I think, is difficult to fit into any viable definition of greatness.  And is the kind of mind that is willing pollute the environment because it is easy and cheap going to be the kind of mind that willingly pays good wages and benefits for employees?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

To suggest that Republicans oppose regulation because they hate the poor, ie, African Americans and Hispanics?  Yeah, I would say it fails to meet respectful discourse on an already touchy subject.  I didn’t make that unnecessary insinuation distracting from the main point.  The article did.  It doesn’t help the writer make his point, and it immediately turns people off to listening.

The problem is, and I speak only for myself, is when you say the EPA is going to ensure a higher quality of life for everyone, and all I can think of is this:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/gold-king-mine-spill-colorado-rivers-epa-claims/

And I could post links all day over the rampant idiocy of EPA policy infringing on people’s property rights, incompetence, and straight up acts of extortion.  I agree we need regulations, because NO ONE wants dirty air or water.  But if you’re extolling the virtues of government regulation, you need to address the issues that make people adverse to government in the first place.

Further, you’re worried about fossil fuels.  I agree it’s due for a change...to what though?  To this?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/europes-soaring-energy-prices-2013-11

Talk about gouging the poor...give me a viable and economic alternative to coal and gas, and I’ll get behind it.  At the moment, renewable energy at the macro level is impractical as a majority contributor, and at the micro level unaffordable.

Finally, you are communicating via a computer or a smart phone yes?  Just about everything you use that involves electronics involves semi conductors.  You have any idea what goes into making those?  Off the top of my head there’s NF3 (Nitrogen triflouride) which has the greenhouse potency almost 17,000 times that of CO2.  You know how we abate it?  We don’t, it’s released straight to atmosphere.  You know how many fabrication plants there are in the world?  A lot:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_fabrication_plants

You know why we don’t abate it? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

EPA will leave you alone if you pay enough in lobbying.  Nobody cares about NF3 though anyways.  Like I said, you have no problem using the products that require it’s use—and nobody is going to stop using them anytime soon.  So it’s quietly swept under the rug.

It’s not so simple as Republicans just hate the poor and are at war with clean air and water.  The reality is always complicated and not so clean cut.  

BTW, the fab I work at has the best benefits and pay in the valley here in Utah.  Just don’t build your homes by us.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is apparently the evangelical rationale for going whole hog for the "salty sailor" -- the abandonment of all moral rectitude.

All?  It is astonishing that a scholar like you would resort to absolutism?  Trump has in the past been honored and feted by several black activist organizations for his charity and advocacy.  It was only when he became a candidate that they turned the tables and unleashed a horrific attack on him by making up accusations of white supremacism and racism and anti-semitism, etc.  None of those charges were levied on him prior to 2015.

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

However, it was not a majority of any kind, and a majority is not needed in our idiotic electoral system.

Do you hate the Constitution of the U.S.?  That Heavenly Banner?  This is a Republic.  NOT a pure democracy.  NOT a government by mob rule.

The Electoral College was set up by our founding fathers who were strongly inspired by God to provide many kinds of protections.  Such as checks and balances, separation of powers, advise and consent, etc.  If it wasn't for the EC, presidential elections would be overwhelmed by mega-cities that tend to vote in lock-steps.

YES.  It was a good kind of majority which represented many walks of life, different kinds of states, regional interest, etc.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, longview said:

Hence the need for Trump.  He may be a salty sailor but he gets the job done for the silent majority.   :ph34r:

Yes, if you prefer an autocractic banana republic riddled with corruption.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, longview said:

All?  It is astonishing that a scholar like you would resort to absolutism?  Trump has in the past been honored and feted by several black activist organizations for his charity and advocacy.  It was only when he became a candidate that they turned the tables and unleashed a horrific attack on him by making up accusations of white supremacism and racism and anti-semitism, etc.  None of those charges were levied on him prior to 2015.

WRONG!

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, longview said:

All?  It is astonishing that a scholar like you would resort to absolutism?  Trump has in the past been honored and feted by several black activist organizations for his charity and advocacy.  It was only when he became a candidate that they turned the tables and unleashed a horrific attack on him by making up accusations of white supremacism and racism and anti-semitism, etc.  None of those charges were levied on him prior to 2015.

Like his father before  him, Trump has always been an opportunistic and authoritarian figure, and (like Adolf Hitler) has been feted and courted by diverse groups -- including the Clintons, and other opportunists.  There is nothing new in the extreme polarization of America, nor in the hypocrisy of groups which claim that high moral and ethical principles are supposedly of prime importance.  So, if you want to condemn situational ethics, and lack of evenhanded criticism of evil, regardless of who is faulted, then I am with you.  If you are attempting to provide cover for the wholesale evangelical turn to evil, then I don't understand you at all.  Did you learn anything at all from the history of the Third Reich?

4 hours ago, longview said:

Do you hate the Constitution of the U.S.?  That Heavenly Banner?  This is a Republic.  NOT a pure democracy.  NOT a government by mob rule.

Only an idiot would ever suggest that we have a pure Republic, or pure democracy.  Every political scientist knows that we have a mixed system, and fthat the history of the U.S. Constitution has been one of change, such that the basic rights which were once accorded only to white male landowners have now been extended to a range of minorities.  White Southern racists are still angry about that extension of Constitutionalism to non-whites, and they have long preferred mobocracy.  Many of them are evangelicals, who actively reject the teachings of Jesus Christ, and always have.  They love Trump for the same reasons that nearly all Germans loved Adolf Hitler.

4 hours ago, longview said:

The Electoral College was set up by our founding fathers who were strongly inspired by God to provide many kinds of protections.  Such as checks and balances, separation of powers, advise and consent, etc.  If it wasn't for the EC, presidential elections would be overwhelmed by mega-cities that tend to vote in lock-steps.

If the evangelicals actually believed in that Constitution, then they would not so vociferously gerrymander districts so as to deny one-man-one-vote, and they would not actively move to prevent others from voting.  They clearly prefer lock-step racist voting patterns (through denial of franchise to others), even though Trump will never serve their real interests.  You may have noticed that a federal judge just held a governor in contempt for deliberately preventing citizens from registering to vote.  If it made no difference, why is it that Trump continually lies in claiming that he got a majority of the vote?  Why do evangelicals support a pathological liar, adulterer, and traitor to the USA?  Is that what the Founding Fathers had in mind?

4 hours ago, longview said:

YES.  It was a good kind of majority which represented many walks of life, different kinds of states, regional interest, etc.

Yes, a narrow range of ignoramuses did vote for that narcissistic son of a racist (a good German, by the way), and they will reap the whirlwind for doing so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, SteveO said:

Robert, my initial comment on this thread was pointing out that labeling political opposition, as the Vox article did, is counterproductive to winning over people to one's point of view.  Labeling Conservatives and Republicans as "Xenophobic" and with "reactionary resentment" is incendiary and off-putting.  It's also ironic in this case, considering it had followed after Nibley's quote on labeling opposition.

I took your comment on "xenophobic," as used in the Vox article about EPA regulations, as an attempt to make it seem less inflammatory by redefining it as a hatred of ecological stewardship.  The context in the article was clearly labeling Republicans and Conservatives as bigots and racists who want to get rid of regulations to grind the faces of the poor (apparently Blacks and Hispanics).  I think its unhelpful when discussing politics in such a divisive time.

I didn't (and still don't) understand what horticultural motifs in Zenos' prophetic commentary had anything to do with anything--but I'll admit it might have gone over my head.  Apologies.  

I take the non-polar view that the only rational supporters of the EPA rollback are those who can make a big profit on the deal.  Simple as that.  Others who support it for ideological reasons will lose, regardless of their pretended liberal-conservative positions (which are not real in any case, and actually have more to do with emotion and mood than any rational assessment).

If they would get out of that fever swamp and take the POV of BofM Zenos, there might be some hope for all of us.  But you know what "fat chance" means.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, a narrow range of ignoramuses did vote for that narcissistic son of a racist (a good German, by the way), and they will reap the whirlwind for doing so.

And what are we to make of people who accuse those who voted for Hillary, or any other good Democrat these days, as participating in the wholesale slaughter of infants (via abortion), and therefore, they who voted for those abortion-lovers will reap the whirlwind?

I think we will get further by not implicating those whom we disagree politically with evil -- both sides do it, and both sides are wrong.  Neither Trump nor Obama is the devil.  

And perhaps this thread needs to be closed, because the civility has completely leached out of it and turned into political bickering.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...