Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

New London Mayor
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

trueblue

Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines

Posted: Wed May 11, 2016 1:48 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Mr. Trump's response to the election of London's new mayor: "I was happy to see that."

Quote:

“I think it’s a very good thing, and I hope he does a very good job because frankly that would be very, very good.”

Asked why, Mr. Trump said, “Because I think if he does a great job, it will really — you lead by example, always lead by example. If he does a good job and frankly if he does a great job, that would be a terrific thing.”

I think we can safely leave it to Swartz and trueblue to refute Mr. Trump, with whom they seem to vigorously disagree.

Fox, you are not usually one for deflecting....why start now?

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed May 11, 2016 2:03 am Post subject:

trueblue wrote:

Fox wrote:

Mr. Trump's response to the election of London's new mayor: "I was happy to see that."

Quote:

I think we can safely leave it to Swartz and trueblue to refute Mr. Trump, with whom they seem to vigorously disagree.

Fox, you are not usually one for deflecting....why start now?

Deflecting from what? I simply came across Mr. Trump's opinion on the matter today and realized it was relevant both to this thread in general and the positions of two posters here specifically. Was I incorrect in believing that you disagreed with the opinion he stated here and would care to refute it? When I said something not entirely dissimilar, you suggested it was "the dumbing down and decay of western culture" and "the downfall of western society." Do Mr. Trump's words represent the same thing? I would not have mentioned your name were I not curious as to what you thought about it.

Plain Meaning

Joined: 18 Oct 2014

Posted: Wed May 11, 2016 2:20 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

trueblue wrote:

Fox wrote:

Mr. Trump's response to the election of London's new mayor: "I was happy to see that."

Quote:

I think we can safely leave it to Swartz and trueblue to refute Mr. Trump, with whom they seem to vigorously disagree.

Fox, you are not usually one for deflecting....why start now?

Its good posting hygiene, honestly, to simply post something you have seen elsewhere which is germane to the topic, and maybe a couple of sentences, or paragraphs, of comments.

I notice a couple of behaviors on this board. First, some people will no longer post from the sources they trust the most because they do not want to open themselves to attack based on attack-the-source. Second, people will bump an original poster's thread, and somehow the original poster will get indignant about it (why?!? even controversy bumps the thread). Third, people will post endless self-preening reply-tit-for-tats without a break of sources in between.

The board would get better if:

(a) people stopped incessantly attacking sources, i.e. we can learn something from any source;

(b) people posted where they got their information (yes, I realize what I am asking for here), and people did not assume that a poster got their opinion only from the article presented (i.e. the article fleshes out an idea I had and did the work for me, or I presented the article even though I disagree with substantial portions of it);

and

(c) people just calmed down a little bit and made some level of peace with the opposition view.

Plain Meaning

Joined: 18 Oct 2014

Posted: Wed May 11, 2016 6:42 pm Post subject:

Sadiq Khan's stand quickly compels the Donald to bow to his courage

Quote:

Donald Trump has demoted his proposed Muslim immigration ban to a mere “suggestion.”

In a radio interview with Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade on Wednesday, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee softened his call to temporarily prohibit Muslims from entering the United States.

“We have a serious problem. It’s a temporary ban. It hasn’t been called for yet. Nobody’s done it. This is just a suggestion until we find out what’s going on,” Trump said.

. . .

Trump’s comments came one day after he claimed he would make an “exception” for London’s first Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, to enter the U.S.

“There will always be exceptions,” he told The New York Times on Tuesday, while adding he was happy Khan was elected in that city.

The Donald would probably have jettisoned his silly, half-baked, off-the-cuff, demagouging, thought-experiment to ban all Muslims (even from tourist visas?), temporarily of course!, because it was totally unworkable. So, I am not saying that Sadiq Khan caused him to do it. I am saying that Sadiq Khan caused him to do more quickly, perhaps a lot more quickly, than he would have had to otherwise.

So, already I am a fan of this mayor of London. He just made American politics a little less stupid.

Swartz

Joined: 19 Dec 2014

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 2:09 pm Post subject:

Quote:

I am a fan of this mayor of London

Says king cuck to the surprise of no one.

Good article below: The Fall of London

Quote:

Of all the great sorrows that may attend a dispossession or defeat, perhaps the greatest is that it should go unmourned. Few examples in the annals of poetry come as close to capturing this particular sense of despair as Robert Burns’ “Strathallan’s Lament.” The poem recalls the efforts of forces in Britain, especially Scotland, to restore a Catholic British monarch, and later his descendants, to the throne of Great Britain after they had been deposed by Parliament during the ‘Glorious Revolution.’ The last gasp of these ‘Jacobite rebellions’ (1688—1746) took place at the Battle of Culloden in Scotland in 1746, where the army of ‘Bonnie’ Prince Charlie was conclusively routed. Although William Drummond, 4th Viscount Strathallan and one of Prince Charles’ leading warriors, died valiantly on the field, in his poem Burns imagines Strathallan surviving and finding refuge in a cave after the battle. Embattled by storms outside the cave and by the tempests within his own psyche, Strathallen is left alone with the anguish of a cause utterly vanquished and “without a friend” — and a defeat destined to be forever unmourned.

This powerful poem came to mind one evening recently as I pondered the loss of London, an ancient and pivotal capital of our people and our culture. Much worse than the events recalled by Burns, there have been no rebellions attempting to hold back this awful dispossession. The city was scene to no last stands; no immortal final words were uttered. “Ruin’s wheel” has driven over us too subtly for there to be any hint of the epic or the romantic in our creeping racial death. Across the broad spectrum of our movement, and its multiplying media platforms, there is indeed a great rage against our broader demographic decline. Yet accompanying this rage is a less articulated feeling — the feeling that unless we bring about a great awakening we shall all be like Strathallan in our own way; our cries struggling to reach beyond the cave our enemies have pushed us into. Meanwhile we are only too aware that the fate of London will be replicated at an ever-increasing pace and in disparate and formerly White enclaves over the next few decades.

Although the problem is widespread, I’ve been provoked by two recent events to give particular attention to London. The first was the election of the city’s first Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan. Alarmed as I was by the advent of a Muslim mayor, I actually view Khan’s race and religion to be of only secondary importance to the broader context of his election. After all, the sleepwalking constituencies of Britain have been ceding political power to outsiders ever since they began electing Jews in the early nineteenth century, Indians in the 1890s, Africans in the 1980s, and Muslims from the Indian subcontinent since 2001. As I see it, Khan would merely represent just another nail in the coffin of White British autonomy if it wasn’t for the fact that there was something fundamentally different about this election. The difference lay in the fact that London has passed a demographic tipping point from which, barring the advent of revolution, it is unlikely to recover.

The nature and implications of this tipping point have been summarized succinctly by Matthew Goodwin, a wretched and mediocre professor of politics at the University of Kent, who has made a profitable career for himself as a self-styled expert on the nation’s patriots and nationalists. Although David Cameron’s Conservative Party is as much a part of the treasonous assault on Britain as the Labour Party, the former is still seen as more appealing to Whites. And while the Conservatives have been able to mobilize White votes to some success in the past, Goodwin argues that it may have lost its stake in the capital permanently:

In 2004 and 2008, there was still an opportunity for the Conservatives to mobilize opposition to a Labour movement and mobilize a Whiter vote, particular in the outer boroughs of London — areas where there was less diversity and where there were more socially conservative voters. I would argue that, fast forward almost 10 years, that those areas in turn have become less receptive to that style of politics. They’ve become more diverse, some groups have moved in and some have moved out and other groups have moved in. As a consequence, I just don’t think the same amount of electoral potential was there for the Conservative Party that was there in the earlier years.
Matthew Goodwin: “Some groups have moved in and some have moved out.”

As far as scholarly descriptions of wholesale ethnic displacements go, “some groups have moved in and some have moved out” must rank among the most sterile, anodyne, disingenuous and cowardly. The end of Britain as an ethnically homogenous state can be traced back to the arrival of the SS Empire Windrush in 1948, but higher ethnic birth rates, loopholes in existing immigration legislation, and the undemocratic introduction of later legislation have all conspired to open the gates of Britain to the world. The 1991 census revealed that the White population of the entire nation had declined to 94.1%. By 2001 the figure had dropped to 91.3%. Then came New Labour, which aimed to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity.” The policies of Tony Blair’s government contributed to a 2011 census that revealed that across Britain, the indigenous White British population accounted for only 80.5% of the total.

The pace of immigration continues to increase at a terrifying rate, with the release of figures just days ago showing that record numbers of jobless immigrants have been pouring into Britain under the supposedly conservative government of David Cameron. Thousands have arrived today. More will arrive tomorrow. And so it goes on. London is the epicenter of this great dispossession. By 2001 the British population of London had already fallen to a catastrophic 58%. By 2011 the figure was 45%. We can safely assume that by 2021 the British will be a rarity on the increasingly desolate streets of what was once a shining beacon of the genius of European civilization.

As the population of the city has changed, so has its social character. We see the familiar and predictable increase in the crimes that accompany a multicultural onslaught. In the last year alone there has been an overall increase in violent crime of 27%, with a 36% increase in sex crimes and a 14% increase in homicide. Bear in mind that this is an annual increase, and that if we were to compare present crime statistics with those from a more ethnically homogenous era, the true image of decay would be even more profound.

The specific patterns of the criminal rot are equally predictable. Data reluctantly released under the Freedom of Information Act by the Specialist Crimes and Operations division of London’s Metropolitan Police revealed that Blacks, Asians (covering Indians and Pakistanis) and those from the Middle East were over-represented in sexual crimes to a staggering degree. The Telegraph reports that “the majority of men held responsible by police for gun crimes, robberies and street crimes are black.”

As public services begin their steady and inevitable descent, Whites are contributing a disproportionate level of effort to keep the city going. Young Whites were consistently well-represented in last year’s employment and tax-paying statistics while London’s Black and Asian demographic has seen a 50% rise in long-term unemployment. Taking the country as a whole into consideration, the most recent government statistics show that the unemployment rate of Britain’s ethnic minorities has stubbornly hovered at around twice the rate of Whites. As the shadow justice secretary in 2015, Sadiq Khan was among the first to attempt to explain this disparity by reference to “White racism.” Now that he is mayor of the city in which Whites are vanishing by the day, one wonders if Khan will continue to blame “White prejudice” even when the only remaining Whites are in the form of decomposing statues and on the damp canvasses of the city’s neglected galleries and museums.

Pushing the White man out in fact seems to one of Khan’s goals based on his recent statement that there are “too many White men” on London’s transport board. Mr. Khan obviously prefers diversity to efficiency. In fact, I am quite prepared to agree with senior London conservative David Dean, who was recently suspended from the party for informing a White voter that, if Khan was elected mayor, “as a White man … you will be a pariah in your own town. Khan will treat you like dirt.” It is a sad and tragic commentary on the current condition of our people that this voter, his suicidal sense of morality obviously offended, was moved to complain to Dean’s party rather than accept his sage advice.

Sadiq Khan is like the modern “Lord of the Manor” who inherits a crumbling estate long past its days of glory; its riches and charm long since squandered and glutted upon by the corrupt and the feckless. The remaining treasures it possesses are entirely wasted. In what must rank among the least surprising news stories ever put to print, Jonah Albert, a curatorial fellow at London’s National Gallery, has written that getting the city’s “black people to check out art is an uphill struggle.” Mr Albert and his colleagues in cultural establishments across London will encounter many more “uphill struggles” as the demographic life of the city continues its descent into the abyss.

Let me be very clear, the London that was is gone, and it has been gone for some time. Sadiq Khan was elected on a multicultural vote, and it is a decaying and pungent multicultural fiefdom that he will oversee. Modern London’s sole surviving grace is that it bears the same name it did in a different epoch, when it possessed a different life under a different people. It is a meagre inheritance.

Not that you would consider Khan’s prize a cheap one given the extravagancies of Britain’s Jewish journalism. One of Khan’s most ardent cheerleaders is Guardian editor Jonathan Freedland, a figure I have previously profiled. During Khan’s mayoral campaign Freedland wrote an article encouraging Jews to vote for him because “he speaks our language” (that of a “minority”) and promised extra security for Jewish synagogues and schools and to protect Jewish (as well as Muslim) slaughter practices from government intrusion.

Once the votes were counted, Freedland was beside himself with delight, remarking that “the symbolism is potent. London, the most diverse city on the planet and one of the great cities of the world, has chosen a Muslim as its leader.” Although Khan is a bland personality, utterly devoid of charisma, Freedland has been working tirelessly to propagandize this non-entity in an effort to raise his national and international profile. One gets the distinct impression that the steps for Khan to become Prime Minister are already being laid. After just one brief CNN interview, Freedland took to Twitter to describe Khan as an “international phenom,” when the reality is that few international politicians know anything about him, and care even less.

Nor can Khan’s election even be seen, as the masters of media would like it to be seen, as a crowning glory of “tolerance.” Although pocket-lining liars at the Financial Times have described Khan’s election as “a remarkable triumph over the racial and religious tensions that have bedevilled other European capitals,” it is perfectly clear that Khan was elected by a new London. His victory is built on nothing less than the importation of a new electorate. The “racial and religious tensions” have certainly been resolved — but not by cultural and ideological shifts, or the abandonment of “racism.” They have been resolved by driving the White man from one of his ancient capitals. The idea of an interracial voting consensus in London is the stuff of pure fantasy.

The differences between White and non-White political aspirations in fact couldn’t be more stark. Of the Whites that remain, recent surveys have shown that immigration remains their number one concern, while for non-Whites the priorities are housing, the economy, and a public health care system that they barely contribute to. Right up to the end, it seems, Whites will cling to their concerns about immigration without ever making a real stand against it. They have been forced by the surrounding culture, and years of indoctrination, to remain silent about their dispossession.

While London’s Whites have lost their power at the ballot, and while they were always denied the right to vote on the waves of migration they were subjected to, they have indicated their true opinion on London’s condition by performing a steady exodus. Disenfranchised by a hijacked political system, voting with their feet is all that remains. Eric Kaufman, a part-Jewish professor of Politics at the University of London, has explained unequivocally that “White British people have opted to leave an increasingly diverse London.” He cites geographer John Stillwell of Leeds University, who noticed there “were large shifts of Whites from diverse wards in London to less diverse wards in the outer suburbs, and an even more dramatic White outflow from relatively White wards of London to other parts of England and Wales.”

In the London district of Barking and Dagenham, a third of the White British population departed between 2001 and 2011. Most of those Whites remaining are low-income or unemployed tenants of council-owned property, suggesting that they only remain because they can’t afford to leave and are therefore trapped. Kaufman compares these findings with statistics from the U.S. where “White Americans tend to leave or avoid “majority minority” neighbourhoods and seek out areas which are over 70 percent White. Given the large increase in Hispanic and Asian populations in America, this is resulting in ever larger heavily-minority zones in America’s most diverse metropolitan areas.”

A pattern is thus established where more and more of our urban centres are being lost to non-Whites. Extrapolating logically from current trends in demographics, crime and economics, we can predict that when enough time has elapsed and enough Whites have departed, the major cities of our civilization will fully collapse, with all of the economic and social effects that that will entail. One can then imagine that the non-White urban populations will increasingly disperse into more rural White enclaves in order to seek a share in the resources and infrastructure in existence there. In this second phase of mass displacement, there will be no areas into which a further “White flight” can take place and the process of mass ethnic displacement will be more or less complete. At the conclusion of this stage, one can expect economic and social failure on a national scale, with the same urban patterns of crime and decay now operating on a country-wide scale. With nowhere left to run, the subconscious antagonism towards non-White ethnic groups implicit in decisions to avoid co-habiting with them (regardless of more conscious disavowals of “racism”) would force White populations into a conscious acknowledgement of racial realities and interests. At this point, if not any earlier, history suggests that civil conflict along ethnic and racial lines would be an inevitability. Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood.” This is our children’s future.

We can already perceive these grim events on the horizon with great clarity. Yet so many of our people continue to drown out the alarms that must resonate deep in their consciousness. They are the drunken guest at a party who wants to keep dancing long after the music has stopped. Reason has been abandoned.

The BBC recently aired a documentary titled “The Last Whites of the East End,” the second reason why I have been moved to focus on London in this particular article. The film explored the rapid decline of the White population of London’s Newham district (17% during the last census, now estimated at 12%) and how dramatically life has changed among its remaining White inhabitants. Although the documentary predictably avoided posing the moral question of this great displacement, and equally avoided any discussion of the undemocratic manner in which it was brought about, it has been subject to a furious reaction from the advocates of multiculturalism. One complaint branded The Last Whites of the East End “White supremacist propaganda”. Apparently the definition of “White supremacist” now extends to people like 90-year-old Eileen Storey who left her home of almost a century for the refuge of Norfolk, or another elderly lady who had the temerity to say that “the life that we knew is finished.” The documentary is a deeply sad and tragic chronicle. Its sole crime appears to have been that it broke a significant taboo. Our demographic decline, we are informed, should be a silent one.

While White liberals living away from the epicenter of the transformation cling to ideological fantasies about equality and integration, The Last Whites of the East End provides a glimpse of White awakening as displacement spreads. Those confronted with racial realities on their doorstep do not suffer delusions for long. Former East End resident Peter Bell, 66, told interviewers: “I mean no disrespect to the Muslim community, but I don’t think they want to be part of the traditions here. I hear words like ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘community’ and I think it’s nonsense. We are in an area that has massive unemployment and that is about to become overcrowded. You feel ostracised. People feel like they are being forced out. I moved to Hornchurch 12 years ago and I don’t regret it one bit.” Referring to the disconnect between liberal political elites and the people confronting their multicultural projects, Mr Bell said he would “love it if the Prime Minister or some of our MPs would come out of Upton Park station and then live in Green Street for two weeks. That would change their minds. People who haven’t been for many years come out of Upton Park station and say ‘I can’t believe what’s happened here; it could be Baghdad.’”

Our media manipulators continue to indoctrinate us with the lie that a multicultural paradise lies on the horizon. But we can already see the horizon in our midst. It is not paradise that looms but crime, ostracism, decay, dispossession and decline. The White residents of Newham, and London in general, are receiving a true education in the meaning of “diversity.” To the old men and women who wave a tearful farewell to their long-held home, it will forever possess a new definition. To the middle-aged couple who move to the countryside, multiculturalism will forever be synonymous with the introduction of non-White youths into their daughter’s high school, bringing with them knives, drugs and a mentality moulded in the distant and humid tropics.

I have thus far related a tragic and saddening tale. That it certainly is. But let us not end on a despondent note but rather look at the task at hand. London, and so many other cities like it, must be retaken. This is an imperative of both our past and our future. Let me recall one of the great stories about the great Anglo-Irish Antarctic explorer Ernest Shackleton, who called London home for most of his life. Before embarking on his first major adventure Shackleton placed an advertisement in the London Times. It read: “Men wanted for hazardous journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honor and recognition in case of success.”

Ladies and Gentlemen, all of us in this movement are aboard a ship of sorts. We are on a fateful expedition. It is hazardous, the wages are small, and the times are dark indeed. Success may or may not be possible. But honor and recognition, and the secured existence of our descendants are the prize if we should succeed. I am sure that Strathallen, as he stood on the field at Culloden, knew in his heart that his chances of victory were slim. He fought on, and was remembered. And so, in the ancient spirit of our people, let us get to work.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/05/the-fall-of-london-thoughts-on-white-dispossession/

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 2:24 pm Post subject:

I can see where you get your overwrought prose style from.

Swartz

Joined: 19 Dec 2014

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 2:34 pm Post subject:

Leon wrote:

I can see where you get your overwrought prose style from.

From Andrew Joyce? Please. Your continual commentary on this matter is nothing more than a reflection of the degree to which you've been dumbed down. That you think others should simplify their language to please plebs like yourself is bizarre.

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 3:12 pm Post subject:

Swartz wrote:

Leon wrote:

I can see where you get your overwrought prose style from.

You seem to be an evangelical for this stuff, and admire Trump who talks at an elementary school level, so perhaps it is not as bizarre as you think. Also, simplifying your writing so it is clearer and more succinct is hardly dumbing it down, but rather is the key to good writing.

trueblue

Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 4:02 pm Post subject:

Leon wrote:

Swartz wrote:

Leon wrote:

I can see where you get your overwrought prose style from.

I agree with Leon on that (though not a slap on Swartz). Learning how utilize the "less is more" concept with writing skills is quite difficult. Writing a 1 page history precis on a 400 page book is quite the challenge. But, it is a useful skill.

Swartz

Joined: 19 Dec 2014

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 5:50 pm Post subject:

Leon wrote:

Swartz wrote:

Leon wrote:

I can see where you get your overwrought prose style from.

As I've told you before, you're just not that bright, Leon. You're conflating two different things in the exact same way you have before, first of all, but here's how it is: you communicate at a low level, Leon. You, understand? Your grammar is poor. And the 'clarity and succinctness' you want to preach to me about evade you time and again, since you routinely fail to make coherent statements using any type of language. The last time you tried to challenge me, you delivered one of your standard performances where you made completely disjointed statements, fumbled with language at every turn, then ran away when I deconstructed the nonsense you were trying to pass off as political analysis.

Yet here you are again, nipping my heels like a sad little puppy. Utilize some awareness, son.

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 6:03 pm Post subject:

Swartz wrote:

Leon wrote:

Swartz wrote:

Leon wrote:

I can see where you get your overwrought prose style from.

Its funny, because you are one of least self aware people I have ever seen, which has been a running theme in my comments to you. If you feel like I have been incoherent, perhaps its because you were unable to understand me.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 6:19 pm Post subject:

Leon wrote:

Also, simplifying your writing so it is clearer and more succinct is hardly dumbing it down, but rather is the key to good writing.

I haven't seen Swartz write anything which was excessive in its rhetorical complexity, such that it would be in need of, or even necesssarily benefit from, simplification. Sometimes he leans towards the vague side in what he writes, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that so long as vagueness serves as a starting point in a shared striving towards increased clarity rather than as a rhetorical shield. Neither of you really seem interested in such a project, though, so it baffles me why you even bother to interact with one another. You and I have had plenty of reasonably vigorous disagreements, and those disagreements have even been puncutated by personal jabs at times, but I generally felt like you were at least trying to engage me. Generally speaking, it does not seem as if you really care to engage Swartz; you have dismissed him, and he you, before the conversation even begins, so why have it? It's a shame, because you two are sufficiently different in your convictions that some genuinely informative and productive dialogues could emerge, but instead all we receive is a lesson in why political dialogue has become virtually impossible in our society.

Last edited by Fox on Thu Jun 02, 2016 6:29 pm; edited 1 time in total

Swartz

Joined: 19 Dec 2014

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 6:27 pm Post subject:

Leon wrote:

Swartz wrote:

Leon wrote:

Swartz wrote:

Leon wrote:

I can see where you get your overwrought prose style from.

Since you have trouble communicating even using plain language, that's what you should focus on improving first. When you're able to clear that up and express yourself in a more coherent manner, then perhaps you'll appear more credible when you attempt to critique others.

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 6:33 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

Also, simplifying your writing so it is clearer and more succinct is hardly dumbing it down, but rather is the key to good writing.

I haven't seen Swartz write anything which is excessive in its rhetorical complexity, such that it would be in need of, or even benefit from, simplification. Sometimes he leans towards the vague side in what he writes, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that so long as vagueness serves as a starting point in a shared striving towards increased clarity rather than a rhetorical shield. Neither of you really seem interested in such a project, though, so it baffles me why you even bother to interact with one another. You and I have had plenty of reasonably intense disagreements, and those disagreements have even been puncutated by personal jabs at times, but I generally felt like you were at least trying to engage me. Generally speaking, it does not seem as if you really care to engage Swartz; you have dismissed him, and he you, before the conversation even begins, so why have it?

You are right. Its become something of a bad habit. I said before that I had an anthropological interest in people who think like Swartz, and I was not joking. Ive noticed that the sort of language he uses is similar to other ideologues, which is interesting. Its more of a case of engaging how someone thinks than what they think, which is probably not entirely fair.

And of course you edited it while I was writing. It is hard to have dialogue with anyone who is already absolutely convinced of something. Political dialogue is still very possible, but hard to do online I think. Too much personal identity has become tied into politics or ideologies, its become a shorthand for who you are.

Swartz

Joined: 19 Dec 2014

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 7:46 pm Post subject:

Leon wrote:

[Its become something of a bad habit.

You have a lot of maturing to do, Leon. Like most who have been programmed by the left, you exist in a state of arrested development, and that is partly why your responses consistently lack topical value, substance, and general correctness (assuming you were able to get your point across in a coherent manner to begin with). Labeling me an ideologue and playing off your childish interjections as some kind of personal 'anthropological interest' won't fool as many as you think, nor will your bizarre critique of others' communication styles when your own is so transparently inadequate. Stop the constant social signaling, stop replying when you have nothing to say, focus on improving yourself instead of vying for the attention of others, and start acting like a man instead of a catty little girl.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe