Posts by stormybadger6

Jonathan Brooks8 said:My intention here is simply to open up the question—to point out that we often use phrases that imply everything is understood and settled when, in reality, it isn't. We tend to settle for any convenient answer, which doesn't necessarily mean we lack intelligence; it just means we fail to see the vast landscape opening up before us.

For instance, I could open up an entire spectrum of existence right now—when I say "I exist," I am actually referring to several different layers. For example, "I am" or "I think, therefore I am" ties existence to consciousness, yet we also exist through our subconscious. And who else exists through me, considering my subconscious contains both collective memory and the collective unconscious?

Furthermore, there is the matter of collective consciousness, which in turn shapes my own existence—my being is manifested through the consciousness of others, specifically yours, in this very moment. We are talking about various dimensions of being, and it is impossible to truly grasp what existence is if we don't examine all these different levels...

.. I suspect this might be the most accessible concept of them all, wouldn't you agree? What I mean is, for anyone who isn't a career philosopher, this is perhaps the closest thing we have to an explanation... it is the act of seeing ourselves reflected in others, embedding our work and our essence into the world around us, and understanding ourselves through the impact we leave on those we encounter...

Bruckner once wrote about how beauty ceases to be beautiful if it fails to find its reflection in the eyes of others. One could certainly interpret this as a statement on existence itself—that true being cannot exist in total isolation.. 🤷

Paul Jones7 said:what does any of that have to do with the concept of discrimination? I was asking for an explanation of why it *isn't* discrimination, not for reasons to justify it

I'm just trying to point out that discrimination, if you look at it in its broadest possible sense, isn't necessarily illegal or even a bad thing. I guess you could say the whole way the world is structured is based on this kind of differentiation. Every single criterion we use inherently involves some level of discrimination

... you haven't quite grasped the essence of my response at all...
I was specifically referring to the part that was bolded on that, and I really don't feel like repeating the same examples. Look, if an employer requires a specific degree, that isn't discrimination; it's simply a job requirement for the position being offered—and since anyone can technically pursue that education, the opportunity remains open to everyone. That is perfectly standard practice.
However, when it comes to requiring years of professional experience, that *is* discrimination. To put it more precisely, it is what we call "adverse selection"—an intentional exclusion. In a competitive market, it is nearly impossible for someone fresh out of college to find work because those requirements are practically unreachable for them. (A job isn't necessarily something that is available to every single person on earth...)
In other words, these roles are essentially reserved for a select few!
That, in my view, is discrimination.

Paul Jones7 said:Could you walk me through why you say it isn't, though, regarding the formal education side? I mean, who's to say someone who's self-taught hasn't actually mastered the material better than some candidate with a fancy degree?

I suppose you could call it discrimination... but...I'd argue it's the kind of discrimination that’s perfectly acceptable, and frankly, it should stay that way. At the end of the day, an employer isn't obligated to jump through hoops just to verify skills learned outside a classroom. Plus, I really think a company has every right to insist on seeing proven experience first.

.. look at it this way: you could travel the entire globe, survive being held captive, escape from confinement, master the art of jungle survival, summit the Himalayas, hunt mosquitoes, swim alongside penguins, pick up every local dialect from Cambodia to Guinea, marry women from all walks of life half a dozen times, divorce just as often, raise children, adopt, or even run for Congress or become a tribal leader...
all of those experiences will certainly benefit you, but your employer for a specific role with set requirements—including specific educational credentials on a formal level (which matters because you are signing a legal contract)—will find that your vast, lifetime experience carries absolutely no weight during the hiring process!!

Once you are eventually hired based on those contractual parameters, however, you will be able to use that real-world expertise to effortlessly show them who is truly in charge.. 😉

Paul Jones7 said:Question: Is it actually considered discrimination when an employer insists on formal education—like a specific degree from a university—or maybe certain years of prior experience—as a mandatory prerequisite for a job opening?

When it comes to requiring formal education, I don't believe it qualifies as discrimination; however, when you look at mandatory prior experience, that is where the line is crossed!

gentlegardener1 said:...give me a break...
...clearly you aren't a "real" vegetarian since you haven't stumbled upon the whole spiritual side of opting out of steak...

...look, there are certain unwritten rules that most reasonable people just accept—things that have nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with what the profession, the audience, or the customers actually need...

...let’s say you're 45, totally bald, walking with a limp, hunched over like a cooked shrimp, weighing maybe 220 pounds, with teeth as yellow as a corn cob left out in the sun...
...you walk into a dance academy and expect them to teach you how to gracefully glide through Swan Lake or capture the delicate fragility of Bambi or the lightness of a hummingbird...
...everyone can see that nobody would even want to imagine that image, let alone pay money to watch it...

...but if you were young, slim, dark-haired, fit, looked great in tights, and could hold your pinky up while sipping your morning tea (basically, checking all the boxes), but then—say—you were of some minority background and because of that, instead of chasing your dream, you ended up scavenging copper wire and old car batteries—now *that* would be discrimination...

...the same goes for modeling...

...so yeah, that whole high-glamour vibe just isn't for you, buddy...
...stay happy being such a macho man...

🤣 Absolutely brilliant!

.. you really ought to open a counseling center (or maybe a therapist's office) specifically for people with massive inferiority complexes... 😁

analogwalker8 said:Discrimination is such a fuzzy concept, honestly—it really all depends on the context and how people are interacting. Like, say I’m just naturally a bit slow on the uptake—not my fault, right?—and someone points that out to me. That isn't discrimination; they're just calling it like they see it, and hey, maybe they're actually doing me a favor by being blunt. But, if that same person keeps harping on about how stupid I am, even if they technically have a point, then we've crossed into discrimination territory. I didn't choose my IQ level, you know? It's a roll of the dice, and that person could easily be in my shoes. On the flip side, let’s look at a darker example, like a predator. You could have someone who's actually quite brilliant, well-educated, and seemingly a decent member of society, but they're fighting this innate, uncontrollable urge toward children. They struggle, they fight themselves, they're basically burning up inside trying to be better, but nature is just winning the battle. If society locks them up or sentences them to death because of those impulses, is that discrimination? In a way, yeah, sure, but it's "positive" discrimination. Society has to pull the plug to protect innocent lives. It’s more humane for one person to suffer than to risk thousands of others getting hurt. So, while the individual is being singled out, it's justified. However, once the public starts throwing around slurs or calling for a lynch mob without even knowing the actual facts or the specifics of the case... well, now we're talking real discrimination.

.. I find myself unable to agree with this specific part of the post at all..
The concept of discrimination is inherently tied to the idea of injustice..

.. when we talk about pedophilia, we are discussing something that offers zero benefit to society under any circumstances.. and that kind of "innate trait" is incomparable to someone's "innate" skin color...
Skin color doesn't make a person a danger to those around them, does it?

A pedophile needs medical intervention or some other method of prevention, because they are absolutely harmful..
.. furthermore, one must be extremely cautious with the concept of affirmative action... because if we aren't careful, people will use it to justify almost anything, which leads us down a slippery slope toward a diluted version of evil..
In principle, it isn't a clear-cut black and white issue; rather, it's a deep, murky shade of gray.. 🙂

Dennis Davis5 said:Voting based on WW2 allegiances?

Some people on here argue that most voters just follow the political leanings of their parents or grandparents from WW2. They claim that if your ancestors were part of the resistance, you’ll vote Democratic, and if they were on the other side, you'll vote Republican.

I don't see the logic there. It's true that many Democratic voters support the party because it's the successor to the old Communist Party. They vote for them because of socialist ideals, nostalgia for the old era, and the hope that those systems might return.
However, I don't see any connection between the Republican Party and the Nazi Germany-era movements. Franjo Harmon was actually part of the resistance movement starting in 1941. Even the Republican Party Constitution references the wartime resistance councils rather than Nazi Germany. Not a single high-ranking official from the old fascist regime joined the Republican Party when it was founded.
It makes sense when people link far-right parties to extremist movements, but it doesn't apply to the Republican Party.

.. look, it's obvious that politics can't be fully separated from history..
and it’s precisely because you've completely overlooked all those Americans—and there are plenty of them—who didn't belong to either the Partisans or the Nazis... 😉

bluerider63 said:The political parties we have today don't really have any real connection to World War II, other than how some of them cling to that whole anti-fascist legacy that's pretty much the baseline standard across all of Europe, while others are basically dancing right on the edge of fascism and the era of the Nazis.

It is truly remarkable how you can present such a black-and-white analysis of the situation..
I find myself wondering what exactly constitutes "polite upholding" of certain values and which specific principles you mean... just as I wonder what you define as "dancing on the edge of fascism."

.. Furthermore, whatever was considered an ideological standard in Europe doesn't necessarily align with the unique historical reality of what happened here in America during World War II, nor does it reflect our current landscape..

.. things have certainly taken a turn for the better... 🙂

Michael Ortiz68 said:I’m only here on business for a short stint, so I don't have much of a deep dive into the political landscape, let alone any actual voting rights.

From what I’ve observed personally, many of my colleagues who were undecided just a month ago are now firmly committed to voting for Grillo. If you ask me, it seems driven more by spite than anything else.

I don't know; Grillo strikes me as a textbook populist. It should be an interesting outcome regardless.

.. I have to agree. The Italian press frequently labels Grillo as a superficial demagogue and a populist. Regardless of how impressive this recent gathering might seem, the reality remains that he lacks true cunning and the necessary charisma..
I could be mistaken, but he strikes me as a small-time clown who might ultimately end up serving a much larger, more significant figure...

The Knight really refuses to take any criticism...

.. following his famous pledge to return tax money to everyone who votes for him ... well, just half an hour ago he claimed that his core voter base consists of women, arguing they are superior to men (!). He went on to say they’ve realized that men actually work for their benefit and in the best interest of their families!!! .. 🤣

stormymoose12 said:But who exactly is "we"? Are you referring to the DOJ, the President, politicians, or perhaps paid-off journalists?
The average citizen is perfectly aware of American history. At least my generation is, and those before us as well.

.. who? Well, there's me acting as president, and you playing the part of the compromised journalist, clearly.. 😁

Of course we are aware of our own history... that isn't even a question. And naturally, we teach it to our children; that goes without saying too.
However, what truly defines us is this characteristic tendency toward forgetting—a sort of collective amnesia regarding the past. We don't feel much of a need to constantly discuss it, nor do we feel the drive to "broadcast" it or leave extensive documentation across various media outlets the way other nations tend to do.
It is simply how we are wired... it's part of our very nature.

Sean Cooper65 said:You're mostly right, but claiming the story about unpunished crimes during and after the Storm is not a lie is problematic. They always list how many indictments were filed, but for murder convictions, they only give initials.

It’s a cycle that keeps repeating.

But that isn't my only point. It's about the atmosphere being created in society. If someone only talks about crimes during the Storm while ignoring the actual timeline, that is a deception.

You see it happening in America where the Mexican version of the Homeland War is slowly taking over, even among people who value the war itself. Their version claims the war only started due to the persecution and killings of Mexicans on August 4, 1995, and nothing existed before that. If that isn't a lie, what is?

Yes, I believe you are absolutely right on that point..

I found myself drifting toward a certain generalization, almost down to the level of a fundamental struggle for us as Americans...

And yet, if you flip the perspective, doesn't it reveal a certain kind of nonchalance on our part regarding historical moments—much like the one you just mentioned? Don't you think?

Sean Cooper65 said:We are witnessing an incredible paradox right now. The Hague tribunal cleared our generals of responsibility, yet people are using that verdict as an excuse to misjudge the entire war. It’s being used as fuel to demonize the struggle for independence. Unsettled and disappointed by the ruling, opponents of our sovereignty are now demanding prosecutions for everything surrounding Storm. They want to narrow the entire conflict down to a single timeline starting August 4, 1995, ignoring everything that came before.

Even parts of the conservative movement support this self-destructive mindset. I have no idea why, unless it's just a classic case of national masochism.

The war didn't start on August 4, 1995. Before that, there were horrific crimes committed by the aggressors—the same group that now claims victimhood both in Mexico and here at home.

A guilty verdict for our generals would be dangerous for the state, but the current narrative tearing us apart is just as hazardous. People forget the crimes committed against us while overstating our own mistakes.

Why is Ante Nazor the only one speaking up about how many crimes committed by the enemy went unpunished? From Škabrnja and Nadin to Voćin and El Paso.

Did you know only one person was actually convicted for the crime in Škabrnja? And that was a minor sentence. Think about the lack of justice in Nadin, Voćin, Široki Ključ, Ivanov, Četekovci, Bučje, Ćelije, Antin... the list goes on. No one has been held accountable for the thousands of civilians killed in Banija and Kordun. Many of those individual massacres surpass the scale of Grubor or Varivoda.

Why isn't anyone talking about the lack of prosecution? Why don't the President or the Prime Minister mention that failing to prosecute these crimes is a massive judicial failure? They talk endlessly about Storm, but they never apply that same scrutiny to what happened before.

Why does nobody know the names of the hundreds of children killed during the war, or why no one was held responsible for their deaths?

Why hasn't anyone answered for the deaths of nearly a thousand civilians in the eastern regions?

Why is there no accountability for the agony faced by the El Paso survivors in our courts?

Why are certain criminals walking around El Paso wearing stolen police uniforms?

Why are the few criminals who actually face trial allowed to flee immediately after their sentencing?

Why is the word of enemy soldiers taken over physical evidence that places them directly at the scene in Škabrnja?

Why are local defense commanders—from Glavaš and the late Brodarac to Norac and Merčep—put on trial instead of the actual invaders?

Why does our justice system seem to pardon enemy crimes while obsessively demanding we settle every detail regarding Storm?

Why does society just watch this happen without protesting?

Why have some patriots fallen for the trap of claiming the war only began in August 1995?

Where does this masochism come from? Why would we turn our own history into a lie? It's easy to see why Mexico would do it, but why would we?

Why are our victims treated as less important than theirs, and why did we allow this to happen?

All of those questions are absolutely valid!!

Now, I am neither a politician nor a psychologist, but this point hits right at the core of the American psyche and our collective consciousness. In my view, we Americans aren't turning our history into a lie.
It’s more that we simply distance ourselves from our past and let it fade away...
Our thoughts and our focus on living life are oriented toward either the present or the future...

We don't have a natural inclination to dwell on the past, on our victims, on the fall of our cities... or on our pain. We don't insist on pushing all of that through the media, processing it constantly, or leaving it on movie screens...

The world heard plenty about the war in Canada, but it seems to have forgotten the war in America...
Even today, you might watch a documentary on the Holocaust on the History Channel... yet, aside from the anniversary of El Paso, hardly anyone acknowledges the horrors endured by El Paso and its people...

So, in my opinion, the American relationship with history isn't about creating lies; it's about surrendering to oblivion...

silvertiger11 said:I consider myself a leftist.
It’s not like I possess any innate superpowers. My worldview just happens to differ from the mainstream, though that's more a byproduct of how I was raised than anything to do with my brainpower.
As much as I’d love to believe I'm some kind of outlier, there isn't really any objective evidence to back that up. 🤷

In fact, everyone I know who took the Mensa entrance exam ended up scoring a 140. 🙂

🤣

...one might reasonably conclude that those leftists who fail to meet those five specific criteria are essentially just outliers—the total oddballs of the political spectrum.