New here

Been here a few days. I really like the idea. I understand why the rules are the way they are at THR and generally approve of it. I would like to be able to discuss politics on occasion, though - and without the all-out warfare that characterizes most online political discussions.

As for the crickets, yeah. I'm just going to post a lot and hope everyone else does too.
 
We'll see if this NTT site catches fire. I recognize several handles from THR. For my sake, I've been staying away from politics and the craziness as of late. :poop:
In years past I have been happy to argue politics with just about anyone. Even if we had widely disparate ideas about something, there was always the assumption that we were all basically sharing the same goals. I don't think that's true any more. A significant portion of Americans now apparently are rooting for no less than the destruction of western civilization, and that makes them my enemy.
 

Ed Ames

Member
Eh. There is a problem with people conflating the status quo with “western civilization”. They aren’t the same.

Western Civilization has survived for thousands of years, passing through many forms you wouldn’t find familiar at all. It flows like water to fit whatever space it finds itself in. It will survive anything short of an extinction level event. It doesn’t really need to be defended because it’s so fluid that attacks pass right through, and generally end up soaked in it rather than doing it any harm.

The status quo, on the other hand, is just what is, now. It’s fragile, and people are constantly feeling the need to defend it. But the fact that a thing is the status quo doesn’t say that the thing is good, it just says it’s normal. Status quo doesn’t describe quality (good or bad) just prevalence.

You can’t read something like https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/little-rebellionquotation and tell me that folks like Thomas Jefferson wouldn’t think there is a very big difference between the status quo in the US today, and civilization.
 

Ed Ames

Member
Nah, it was quite pointed. Harsh, some would say.

If you don’t think it applies to you, well...how does what you view as Western Civilization differ from the Status Quo? Perhaps it’s the status quo that existed before recent legislation or other social changes you dislike?
 

Ed Ames

Member
I’m not making assumptions, just challenges. I’ll know you by your rebuttal (or lack of one).

OK, maybe a bit of an assumption, based on where you are posting, but there is a bit of diversity here so my initial assumptions are by necessity tentative and easily swayed by your response.
 
I’ll know you by your rebuttal (or lack of one).
Well, no, you won't. You would know only what, in my opinion, is the difference between "Western civilization" and "status quo". I still suspect you are looking to pigeon hole and thus dismiss.

Beyond that, a full answer to your question would essentially require a thorough review of western civilization and then an in-depth "compare and contrast" between it and what we have been doing in the U.S. over the past days/years/centuries. I'm tempted to refer you to Will and Ariel Durant and instruct you to come back when you've finished, but that would be a little too, well, you.

I also could list a few of the high points of western civilization in the broadest of terms (things like representative government, guarantees of basic freedoms and equality, and respect for literature, art, science and history) and point out how today's left seems actively angered by those things, but then you could just dismiss that all as "status quo" and smugly declare "victory".

So instead I think I'm going to go fix dinner.
 

Ed Ames

Member
Eh. I can infer points of view from words and actions.

Besides which, you could just say, “no I think there are a lot of problems with the status quo that should be addressed, such as ______, and my reason for thinking Western Civilization is under attack is the current status quo.” That would have staked a claim to not just supporting the status quo without going into comparisons.

I’ve read Durant. Eleven volumes over more time than I care to admit. It was more than a few years ago but doing so is a big part of why I think that people who say there is an attack on Western Civilization are probably actually seeing an attack on the status quo.
 

Ed Ames

Member
Do you feel like you failed? At this point you have only defined your point of view relative to your enemy. You say today’s left is trying to destroy western civilization, and that’s bad. That doesn’t say whether you consider yourself old left something or else. Not much of a pigeonhole but if that’s what you are after you’ll have to accept it or say more about your views.

As it happens, I would agree with you if you said that today’s left is doing harmful things to forward their view of what western civilization should be. I also think today’s right is doing the same thing. That’s just one way that both sides are failing.

But I’m not here to pigeonhole, I’m here to exchange ideas. Well, I’m actually here because my first impression after finding out about this forum from THR was that the place was letting the racism flag fly without challenge and, after a bit of consideration, I decided to argue rather than ignore. But that isn’t directed at you, as I haven’t seen you represent your own views.
 
But I’m not here to pigeonhole,
I’m actually here because my first impression after finding out about this forum from THR was that the place was letting the racism flag fly without challenge and, after a bit of consideration, I decided to argue rather than ignore.
Wow. You came specifically to argue with perceived racists, that are also your alleged friends on another?
ReallySo we’re all racist if we don’t agree, regardless of topic?
Talk about Pigeon Holed and rammed in there with a broom stick!

I came for the humor, probably leaving if liberal labels start flying around instead of supporting ideas for your statement.

One of the reasons I enjoy THR moderation...
 
Top