Yet more keen links one might want to share

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

‘Jihad By Camera’: How U.S.-Trained Afghans Photographed the Soviet Invasion (32 Pics)

Very interesting flipping through those pictures

[Gravdigr]

World Leaders' Valentine's Day Cards

Sample:

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

How a Dirty Old Waffle Iron Became Nike's Holy Grail

Even if ya already know about it, it's a pretty interesting read.

I half-ass knew the story, but this article was SUPER interesting. I didn't know they sold Nikes out of the trunk of a car, but it made me think of Chuck Taylor, the guy who sold Converse All Stars out of the trunk of his car.

[BigV]

Comments equally funny

[Gravdigr]

I didn't even read 'em that time. I usually do.

[Gravdigr]

I think I like David Thorne, and I bet Simon is a total douche.

[Undertoad]

I like David Thorne

you might remember "Missing Missy: A Shannon Production"

[xoxoxoBruce]

Good article from the N Y Times...

What we need is not to disagree less, but to disagree better. And that starts when you turn away the rhetorical dope peddlers — the powerful people on your own side who are profiting from the culture of contempt. As satisfying as it can feel to hear that your foes are irredeemable, stupid and deviant, remember: When you find yourself hating something, someone is making money or winning elections or getting more famous and powerful. Unless a leader is actually teaching you something you didn’t know or expanding your worldview and moral outlook, you are being used.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Of course, there's always room for improvement.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

These people are hired to counter the rhetorical dope peddlers on the other side; because, the other side is not turning away from theirs. Unilaterally turning away from those on your side is how one loses parity (i.e. unilateral disarmament).

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

So, if you hate Nazism, racism, and genocide, someone making money or winning elections or getting more famous and powerful representing your sentiments is a bad thing?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Hmmm, our leaders are elected to teach others something they didn't know or expanding their world view and moral outlook (e.g. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

That's what losers always say to winners...you're just a tool. I suppose it can be cathartic; but, it doesn't change anything.

All in all, the quoted excerpt from that article comes across as a bunch of smollett. YMMV.

[Gravdigr]

When you find yourself hating something, someone is making money or winning elections or getting more famous and powerful. Unless a leader is actually teaching you something you didn’t know or expanding your worldview and moral outlook, you are being used.

Two completely bullshit statements.

[Undertoad]

...author of the forthcoming book “Love Your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save America From the Culture of Contempt”

Well I'm on board

Love your enemies - the greatest and most radical advice ever offered to the human race

[Gravdigr]

Meh, fuck 'em.

Before they fuck you, if possible.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Of course, there's always room for improvement.

There certainly is

These people are hired to counter the rhetorical dope peddlers on the other side; because, the other side is not turning away from theirs. Unilaterally turning away from those on your side is how one loses parity (i.e. unilateral disarmament).

Who, hired by whom, the pundits and talk radio hosts. He saying just because they are on your side of an issue doesn't mean they aren't twisting the truth to flat out lying. Don't listen to them at all.

So, if you hate Nazism, racism, and genocide, someone making money or winning elections or getting more famous and powerful representing your sentiments is a bad thing?

Yes, it's a bad thing, because it's rhetoric from a paid shill and will be received with a negative attitude from the getgo. No possible chance of anyone opposing that position even listening no less thinking about what's said.

Hmmm, our leaders are elected to teach others something they didn't know or expanding their world view and moral outlook (e.g. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

Give me a break, the elected politicians are NOT our leaders. Who the fuck would follow some clown in Washington who's owned by abc or xyz corporation, or maybe Koch or Soros. Our leaders are those pundits and broadcasters people actually listen to... and believe.

That's what losers always say to winners...you're just a tool. I suppose it can be cathartic; but, it doesn't change anything.

They do, I've never heard that. Everyone is being used by a employer, customer, spouse, kids, sometimes willingly, often not.

All in all, the quoted excerpt from that article comes across as a bunch of smollett. YMMV.

I'm not surprised you feel that way since you didn't get it.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Well I'm on board

Love your enemies - the greatest and most radical advice ever offered to the human race

NO NO NO, it's not love your enemies. It's who are your enemies. Just because you disagree with someone about... say the height of a proposed flagpole, doesn't automatically mean you don't agree on what flag to fly.
Disagreeing with somebody does not make them your enemy, and that's what's happening. We're being played, both sides are being played and they're doing it by convincing you that the other guy is an enemy. He may be, but you shouldn't make that assumption.

[sexobon]

You sound like any person I've ever met who backed a loser.

YOU start doing what that quoted paragraph advocates and we'll go from there. I'm not seeing it in your responses.

[tw]

From the NY Times Opinion:

What we need is not to disagree less, but to disagree better. And that starts when you turn away the rhetorical dope peddlers — the powerful people on your own side who are profiting from the culture of contempt.

We wasted almost 5000 servicemen in Iraq on outright and intentional lies. Lies that were rhetoric. Facts (and numbers) exposed those lies. But extremists do not want reasons why. Extremists want to be told how to think. Peddlers easily manipulate the emotional naive.

An extremists is ordered what to think. He will deny anything that disputes rhetoric. A moderate learns facts. Then later comes to a conclusion. How to disagree better? Only become and listen to moderates.

With so many shrills and talk show hosts only pushing the "message of the day", we now have a severe shortage of moderates.

Extremists will not even discuss (admit to) moderates. Since the existence of a moderate quickly defines an extremist. Right wing extremists conclude anyone who disagrees must be a left wing extremist. That way, an extremist need not learn anything. Can ignore all facts to protect emotions. Then turns all discussion into cheapshots and personal insults.

An extremists is an adult who is still a child. He uses a reptilian brain to feel his superiority and righteousness.

We know the Catholic Church has protected - all but promoted - pedophilia. How many are so brainwashed by religion as to deny that reality for so many generations? Even a Pope's closest advisor (from the Philippines) had to be convicted by a secular government - using facts that church always possessed - before the Pope would even consider this pedophile. Another example of an extremist. Facts intentionally ignored for an extremist agenda.

It took how many reams of facts over how many generations to get extremists to even admit the problem exists? First in Boston and then in Philadelphia, how many decades ago? Extremists still refuse to change laws (even in Pennsylvania where so much Catholic Church protected pedophilia was exposed how many times?). Extremists in PA protect pedophiles by obstructing prosecution. That is their decision based only in emotions. They deny facts to protect their rhetoric and emotional beliefs. Classic examples of an extremist. Moderates, instead, learn facts long before letting their emotional (repilitian) brain make any conclusions.

We disagree better only when facts are not intentionally ignored to make a conclusion. How many so hated America as to even believe intentional lies - that Saddam attacked the WTC? How many so hate well understood facts to claim the US government destroyed the WTC? How many are so emotional as to still know vaccines cause autism - because some blond bimbo lied and said it was true. All examples of what drives an extremist - and the resulting confrontations in places like Charlotteville NC, Rwanda and Burundi.

Moderates learn facts before making a conclusion. Wacko extremists knew Saddam had WMD only because liars even 'sexed up' the rhetoric. Extremism is predicated by conclusion generated by emotions - by even ignoring facts - ie climate change or genetically improved foods.

Emotion works when one is an extremist. Extremists subvert 'how to disagree' better. Even deny the existence of moderates to impose emotions (ie insults) into honest discussion.