The Decline of Western Civilization

[81usaf92]

It seems the world sees only black and white, ones and zeroes, binary thinking. Any understanding of nuance and the importance of shades of gray is not just gone, but is perceived as a sign of mental and moral weakness.

Well it’s an all or none push. You see it everywhere… including this board. You’ll see one side say “the Democrats are evil” and the otherside say “the Republicans are evil”. You’ll never see any willingness to actually try to see another’s point of view.

I watched a documentary about Westboro Baptist Church recently and one part that really struck me was when Phelps’s granddaughter talked about what prompted her to leave. She said “after years of bashing and receiving the same amount of vile back on line and in the community, one person who disagreed with me came up to me and invited me to coffee to discuss my beliefs. It took me by surprise that this person that I believed was destined to hell would actually see me as human and wanted to talk to me”. This civil non judgmental experience changed her life. I think too many people see political events and issues too much like life or death struggles and the opposition as scum and evil to the point you create never ending narrow minded hatred to people you don’t know.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Surely to goodness there's a place for a party that won't go overboard coddling criminals and setting policy around the six-standard-deviation-from-the-mean outlier, but also won't quash debate and non-violent protest.

It seems the world sees only black and white, ones and zeroes, binary thinking. Any understanding of nuance and the importance of shades of gray is not just gone, but is perceived as a sign of mental and moral weakness.

I don't disagree with any of this, Basket.

But shades of grey vanish in the political realm where the voters are, in fact, black and white (and various shades) and can be manipulated. It'd be nice to see a world both where someone could say "the unarmed black kid who jumped the cop and got shot was in the wrong" AND say "what Chauvin and the other three did to George Floyd was, in fact, murder." (This is just one example, we could probably find a dozen in less than a minute.

And anybody who dissents even 1% is either a hopeless snowflake or a hairy-palmed cretin and beneath contempt.

Thinking is tough.
Labeling is easy.
Just like "excuses for why we lost" that never involve the loser actually admitting "we got rejected."

I think a related problem to what you cite here is this: you are advocating long-term solutions that will take time to implement and change society - and the only thing that matters to the elected politicians is (wait for it) the next election. A better society three decades from now doesn't do any politician under the age of 40 any good RIGHT NOW. AOC isn't going to get elected President in 2056 when she's 67 years old because we built a better/more tolerant (whatever) society for two reasons:
1) what matters with politicians is NOW NOW NOW (all of them)
2) she'll be constitutionally ineligible due to the two-term limit when she retires in January 2037.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Well it’s an all or none push. You see it everywhere… including this board. You’ll see one side say “the Democrats are evil” and the otherside say “the Republicans are evil”. You’ll never see any willingness to actually try to see another’s point of view.

This reminds me of something that always puzzled Reagan about his own party.

How did a lot of the changes to government and what it does change? Well, except for the Civil War and the huge majorities FDR had, it basically required incrementalism, the ability and willingness to compromise and "take half a loaf of bread now then come back for more later" (Reagan's way of saying it). Reagan would shake his head at hard right extremists like Jesse Helms, who would lay out all the markers and if ANYTHING varied from what he wanted, he'd vote against something - instead of getting part of what he wanted so, of course, nothing would happen.

And this as you say isn't a Republican thing; remember that infrastructure bill a few years ago that blew a big hole (one of many) into the deficit and the Free Feces Caucus (aka the Squad) all voted against it because it didn't do enough?

Look at Ponytail Guevarra's OWN Tweet on it:



"Everything I want - or the answer is no!"

(I wonder if she's one of those people whose district has benefited from that bill despite her voting against it......oh, of course not, it's only Republicans that do that kind of stuff.....)

With friends like this, Doctor Dementia didn't need enemies.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Over the past few months, I’ve been working closely with our partners in the UK, alongside @POTUS and @VP to ensure Americans' private data remains private and our Constitutional rights and civil liberties are protected.

As a result, the UK has agreed to drop its mandate for Apple to provide a "back door" that would have enabled access to the protected encrypted data of American citizens and encroached on our civil liberties.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1957623737232007638

 

[Huckleberry]

Over the past few months, I’ve been working closely with our partners in the UK, alongside @POTUS and @VP to ensure Americans' private data remains private and our Constitutional rights and civil liberties are protected.

As a result, the UK has agreed to drop its mandate for Apple to provide a "back door" that would have enabled access to the protected encrypted data of American citizens and encroached on our civil liberties.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1957623737232007638

This is an excellent development and one for which the Trump Administration should receive positive recognition. The next step is for the UK to reform or eliminate the actual law.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Loudoun schools suspend boys uncomfortable with biological female student in locker room

Loudoun County Schools suspend boys stduents Stone Bridge High School female school locker room gym bathroom Title IX investigation gender identity policy 8040

wjla.com

LOUDOUN COUNTY, Va. (7News) — Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) will suspend two boys who attend Stone Bridge High School because of their interactions with a female student who identifies as male, and chooses to use the boys' locker room at school.

Earlier this year, 7News Reporter Nick Minock was the first to report that LCPS launched a Title IX investigation into the students after they were recorded on video asking why there was a girl in the boys locker room.

7News was also the first to report that the female student who identifies as male was the one who recorded the video in the locker room -- a violation of district policy.

On Monday, 7News reached out to the school district for a response on the Title IX office’s findings in this case. They did not respond.

The Virginia Attorney General investigated this situation over the summer and determined LCPS utilized an unlawful, discriminatory, and retaliatory Title IX investigation to silence students’ sincerely held religious beliefs. Attorney General Jason Miyares referred the matter to the United States Department of Education Office for Civil Rights and the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division for further investigation. We are waiting to learn whether either or both of those agencies will act on those referrals.

 

[crimsonaudio]

LFI's leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon says the spotlight should now fall on President Emmanuel Macron.

And, while Macron says his next move will be to name a new prime minister, the firebrand LFI leader believes "Macron is now on the front line facing the people. He too must go".

Macron won't go, and certainly won't listen to Mélenchon.

Two other parties on the left, the Greens and Socialists, believe it's their turn to run the country. Marine Tondelier from the Greens has called on Macron to listen to left-wing leaders before naming the next PM.

But Marine Le Pen, whose far right National Rally is leading in the polls, believes he should call parliamentary elections instead.

Dissolving parliament isn't a "whim," she says, "it's an institutional lever to break the deadlock and enable democracy to function".

French government collapses as MPs vote to oust prime minister

French President Emmanuel Macron will name a new prime minister "in a matter of days", his office says.

www.bbc.com

 

[CrimsonJazz]

The Mark of Kaine: How a Senator’s Remarks Border on Constitutional Blasphemy

Below is my column in The Hill on the controversial remarks of Sen. Tim Kaine (D. Va.) denouncing a nominee who believed in natural law and the concept of God-given rights. By the end of the hearin…

jonathanturley.org

Yet Kaine offered a very surprising response in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

“The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government, but come from the Creator — that’s what the Iranian government believes,” he said. “It’s a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Shia (sic) law and targets Sunnis, Bahá’ís, Jews, Christians, and other religious minorities. They do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator. So, the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.”

In fact, Kaine’s view did exist at the founding — and it was rejected. Alexander Hamilton wrote that “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”

Interesting take on the concept of "rights" as we understand them. Kaine kicked the hornets nest here and I'm wondering if this will fizzle out and become nothing or will it become a national discussion. And I wonder what that discussion would look like.

 

[75thru79]

Interesting take on the concept of "rights" as we understand them.

People like this are way more scarier to me than the idiot Trump. At least with Trump I know what I am getting and can deal accordingly. People like Kane, who think government is the be all and end all of existence, are sneaky dangerous. If Government can grant us rights then they can certainly revoke those whenever they feel like it. I like the idea of rights that exist from being a part of humanity and that cannot be taken away by some elected official.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

People like this are way more scarier to me than the idiot Trump. At least with Trump I know what I am getting and can deal accordingly. People like Kane, who think government is the be all and end all of existence, are sneaky dangerous. If Government can grant us rights then they can certainly revoke those whenever they feel like it. I like the idea of rights that exist from being a part of humanity and that cannot be taken away by some elected official.

The late George Carlin did a bit on rights and for the most part, he skewered them as one would expect because he was an atheist. However, when he started explaining why rights aren't rights at all if they come from government, he knocked it out of the park. I can't link it for obvious reasons, but it can easily be found on YouTube. It's no surprise that Kaine and his ilk would love to see the concept of natural rights go away for good nor is it difficult to figure out why.

I haven't been a Christian for very long, so needless to say, I'm still figuring out some things and this topic happens to be one of them. It's an interesting thing to ponder and I wish, wish, wish I could retire so I could read more. For most of my adult life, I viewed rights as more of a delusion because I noticed that they could often be trampled on by bad actors. I'm sort of breaking down my old views and putting them back together in a way that compliments my newfound faith. I wish it was as easy for me as it appears to be for so many others.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

The late George Carlin did a bit on rights and for the most part, he skewered them as one would expect because he was an atheist. However, when he started explaining why rights aren't rights at all if they come from government, he knocked it out of the park. I can't link it for obvious reasons, but it can easily be found on YouTube. It's no surprise that Kaine and his ilk would love to see the concept of natural rights go away for good nor is it difficult to figure out why.

I haven't been a Christian for very long, so needless to say, I'm still figuring out some things and this topic happens to be one of them. It's an interesting thing to ponder and I wish, wish, wish I could retire so I could read more. For most of my adult life, I viewed rights as more of a delusion because I noticed that they could often be trampled on by bad actors. I'm sort of breaking down my old views and putting them back together in a way that compliments my newfound faith. I wish it was as easy for me as it appears to be for so many others.

It's not easy. When I went through the belly of the beast of being diagnosed with a form of cancer with an average five-year survival rate, I realized I had, in effect, become agnostic. Later, I had what I can only characterize as a spiritual reawakening and realized I'd never really been an agnostic. However, I can't begin to characterize myself as orthodox "Christian." (That's "orthodox" with a little "o"), particularly I'm a non-fit with that minority group which has undertaken to capture that title all for themselves alone. Fortunately, I belong to a denomination which is not exclusionary and allows you to define yourself...

 

[mdb-tpet]

The Mark of Kaine: How a Senator’s Remarks Border on Constitutional Blasphemy

Below is my column in The Hill on the controversial remarks of Sen. Tim Kaine (D. Va.) denouncing a nominee who believed in natural law and the concept of God-given rights. By the end of the hearin…

jonathanturley.org

Interesting take on the concept of "rights" as we understand them. Kaine kicked the hornets nest here and I'm wondering if this will fizzle out and become nothing or will it become a national discussion. And I wonder what that discussion would look like.

I can't see any religious background for rights being sustainable or really enforceable on the whole. 1. Religions evolve over time, 2. No two churches have the same doctrine. 3. All it takes is a new prophet to redefine what rights you have and you get what you get without the opportunity to argue and shape the discussion. 4. All I see in our world is circumstantial rights, meaning your status, religion, nationality, sex, time, location, politics, connections all depend on what rights you actually have. We have a relatively long stretch of sustained rights for some groups in our country, but still only for some people.

I wish we really had a solid basis for rights that truly punished those in power for violating those rights, but I just don't see it. For an example, see the Venezuelans gunned down in the Caribbean Sea this week. Maybe those on the boat were breaking a law and/or attacking the US, and maybe they weren't, but they certainly don't have any rights anymore and we won't find out and they can't get any due process to defend themselves either. They should have rights according to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but of course the US didn't sign on to that. I'm not saying they were choir boys, but they were executed at sea for unknown reasons. Nobody in the US Government will pay for taking their lives, nobody will even admit they used excessive force unwarranted for the occasion or crimes being committed. This is just one of a terribly long line of times our country has ignored any sense of rights going all the way back to the colonies and our treatment of natives, indentured servants, and slaves, and it doesn't look like it will stop or slow down anytime soon.

Go ahead and convince me I'm wrong, I'm listening. I'd love to be wrong.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

It's almost like we're an experiment with something that was just made up out of whole cloth. "Rights" almost always become more aligned with what might be called "rules" and attempts at applying them "fairly" (always decided, of course, by a presumably uninterested party that often isn't uninterested).

If "rights" come from government, a change of government changes your so-called "rights."

I grew up with the concept of "God-given rights," usually with an appeal to the Bible and oh yeah something about being "endowed by their Creator." But then I couldn't really find anything in there about "rights", I found a lot about LAWS and I found a lot about punishments for breaking laws as well as some COMMANDS and DEMANDS, but I sure never found even implicitly the concept of "rights" in the Bible.

And yes, I know people far more intelligent than I have mused in circles about this. I recall the episode of "Seinfeld" where Elaine is dating the guy who opposes abortion and at one point when asked what gave her the right, she said, "The Supreme Court!" My immediate thought, without getting into a huge deal here, was, "Yeah, but if that's your argument then all that has to happen is the members of the Court change their minds or get replaced by people who do."

Let's look at it all less romantically, magically, whatever: "rights" are what I get up and scream about long enough until a lawyer cleans out my bank account and a person wearing a robe says, "You're right" or "you're wrong."

Or until the guns come out and the war ensues.

 

[arthurdawg]

"Your rights are determined by the current ruling junta and whether or not you have adequate firearms and men to change their mind about such aspects of life and liberty and the pursuit there of."

---Collected Writings of Arthurdawg, Tidefans.com corpus, c. 2025

 

[Tidewater]

I can't see any religious background for rights being sustainable or really enforceable on the whole. 1. Religions evolve over time, 2. No two churches have the same doctrine. 3. All it takes is a new prophet to redefine what rights you have and you get what you get without the opportunity to argue and shape the discussion. 4. All I see in our world is circumstantial rights, meaning your status, religion, nationality, sex, time, location, politics, connections all depend on what rights you actually have. We have a relatively long stretch of sustained rights for some groups in our country, but still only for some people.

I wish we really had a solid basis for rights that truly punished those in power for violating those rights, but I just don't see it. For an example, see the Venezuelans gunned down in the Caribbean Sea this week. Maybe those on the boat were breaking a law and/or attacking the US, and maybe they weren't, but they certainly don't have any rights anymore and we won't find out and they can't get any due process to defend themselves either. They should have rights according to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but of course the US didn't sign on to that. I'm not saying they were choir boys, but they were executed at sea for unknown reasons. Nobody in the US Government will pay for taking their lives, nobody will even admit they used excessive force unwarranted for the occasion or crimes being committed. This is just one of a terribly long line of times our country has ignored any sense of rights going all the way back to the colonies and our treatment of natives, indentured servants, and slaves, and it doesn't look like it will stop or slow down anytime soon.

Go ahead and convince me I'm wrong, I'm listening. I'd love to be wrong.

It might help that the concept of "natural rights" predates Christianity (Socrates and Cicero) and is dependent on no particular religion at all, although Christian and Jews attribute it to the God of Abraham, Muslims to Allah, etc. The concept stands on its own, regardless of sect and can even be accepted on an entirely atheistic basis. Consider why stealing or murder are "wrong." How do you know they are wrong? Even in the absence of any government, natural law tells you they are wrong. Every human being has an innate moral sense. Natural rights come from the same source.

 

[crimsonaudio]

POLAND: Polish Politician Grzegorz Braun tore down the EUROPEAN UNION FLAG. Wiped his shoes with it, and burned it. Polish Member for the EU Parliament Grzegorz Braun just removed the EU Flag outside Government building . He stated that Poland would not display the symbols of what he called a hostile organization. "This is Poland, not Brussels."

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1965506068890763742

 

[Tidewater]

POLAND: Polish Politician Grzegorz Braun tore down the EUROPEAN UNION FLAG. Wiped his shoes with it, and burned it. Polish Member for the EU Parliament Grzegorz Braun just removed the EU Flag outside Government building . He stated that Poland would not display the symbols of what he called a hostile organization. "This is Poland, not Brussels."

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1965506068890763742

Certainly an attention-getting act. I wonder what specific EU policy he is protesting here.

 

[crimsonaudio]

BREAKING: At this time, absolute chaos is erupting across France as thousands of protesters flood the streets, clashing with police and rioting in opposition to the government’s economic policies.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1965692747979059524

 

[CrimsonJazz]

BREAKING: At this time, absolute chaos is erupting across France as thousands of protesters flood the streets, clashing with police and rioting in opposition to the government’s economic policies.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1965692747979059524

I can't help but wonder if this is a preview of things to come in THIS country at some point.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

He Died with a Microphone in His Hand - First Things

Why has the murder of Charlie Kirk resonated so powerfully through the culture? Is it because he was cut down so brutally in his prime? That he left behind...

firstthings.com

Why has the murder of Charlie Kirk resonated so powerfully through the culture? Is it because he was cut down so brutally in his prime? That he left behind a wife and two very young children? That no one deserves to die that way? Certainly for all of those reasons. But I am convinced there is something more, and it has to do with the fact that he died with a microphone in his hand—not a gun or a knife or a grenade, but a microphone.

In employing this method, Charlie was standing in a venerable tradition that stretches back to ancient times and provides one of the foundations of Western civilization. In the streets and byways of fifth-century b.c. Athens, Socrates spoke, especially to the young, not through diatribes, but through conversations. He asked probing questions, criticized the answers he received, pressed his opponents to formulate their views more exactly, admitted when he hadn’t seen something important, and so forth. Socrates’s greatest disciple Plato gave us, in his famous dialogues, a literary version of these complex conversations. And Plato’s mentee Aristotle cultivated a philosophical school called “peripatetic,” since the learning took place as teacher and student walked together while sharing their points of view. A version of this can be seen in the Oxford and Cambridge university tradition, whereby the real learning takes place not so much through formal lectures as through the back and forth between individual tutors and pupils.

All of this brings me back to Charlie Kirk. Up until his dying moment, Charlie was engaging in a practice that goes back to Socrates and that informs the West at its best. And that is precisely why we all feel so unnerved by his death. We sense that something basic to our civilization, something axiomatic and fundamental, is teetering—and that truly fetid cultural influences have found their way into our institutions and the minds of our kids. My sincere hope and prayer is that we can take renewed inspiration from a courageous and religious man who died, not with a gun in his hand, but rather an instrument of communication.

Bishop Barron knocks it out of the park here. Western Civilization is dying before our very eyes and the Kirk assassination is just more proof of it.