|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rather than wipe NK off the map, they could wait till the next parade in Pyongyong and also target the border areas where the artillery are.
The games over. Nobody is going to sit back and let the North Koreans target Los Angeles if they can't have their own way with South Korea or Japan. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Trump is right on this. Negotiations may still save the peninsula from further conflict, but not with the North; the ideology keeping the Kim regime in power prevents any sort of compromise with the outside, non-Korean world. Instead, China and Russia are the ones who must be brought to the table. Trump appears to have the ability to walk his foot back out of his mouth to work with China, but I don't know if the belligerent Left has beaten the phantom horse of 'Russian election meddling' beyond any hope of reconciliation. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, after noting the evident failure of negotiations, Trump stated that "only one thing will work with North Korea"... Presumably, that would be the actual use of overpowering military force - which would surely result in massive casualties - or (ideally) using the credible threat of military action to pressure China to stop providing vital support to NK - which might work, but is a dangerous strategy with a (hot) head honcho like Trump, who seems inclined to quickly resort to nuclear weapons to get decisive military victory irrespective of the human costs involved ... https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-case-for-brinksmanship-with-north-korea/2017/10/06/f8f93da8-a958-11e7-b3aa-c0e2e1d41e38_story.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
geldedgoat wrote: |
but I don't know if the belligerent Left has beaten the phantom horse of 'Russian election meddling' beyond any hope of reconciliation. |
Do you read or watch any Leftists? I doubt it based on this remark. Most of the Russia hysteria comes from corporate Democrats or center-leftists like Rachel Maddow. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros wrote: |
Do you read or watch any Leftists? I doubt it based on this remark. Most of the Russia hysteria comes from corporate Democrats or center-leftists like Rachel Maddow. |
I think you would have to define the Left out of existence to defend this. It's a daily refrain for every host on Sirius XM's Progress station, including Stephanie Miller, Michaelangelo Signorile, Thom Hartmann, Dean Obeidallah, the Young Turks, and I'm guessing the others that happen to be on while I'm not in the car. As for print, even if a Slate article itself doesn't mention it, the readers in the comments are sure to bring it up if Trump is even remotely relevant to the topic of the article. If you don't consider any of these to be Leftist outlets, then I would be very interested to hear your definition. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
geldedgoat wrote: |
Kuros wrote: |
Do you read or watch any Leftists? I doubt it based on this remark. Most of the Russia hysteria comes from corporate Democrats or center-leftists like Rachel Maddow. |
I think you would have to define the Left out of existence to defend this. It's a daily refrain for every host on Sirius XM's Progress station, including Stephanie Miller, Michaelangelo Signorile, Thom Hartmann, Dean Obeidallah, the Young Turks, and I'm guessing the others that happen to be on while I'm not in the car. As for print, even if a Slate article itself doesn't mention it, the readers in the comments are sure to bring it up if Trump is even remotely relevant to the topic of the article. If you don't consider any of these to be Leftist outlets, then I would be very interested to hear your definition. |
A notable exception might be the likes of Glen Greenwald? It seems to me that he has actively pushed back against the hysteria around Russia in a balanced fashion that rejects the method of operation without reaching dogmatic conclusions about the topic itself. Saying, "Ultimately I don't know, but the way you're going about this is wrong," is honest. I think there are a lot of people who lean "politically left" in a lot of ways who share his sentiments in that regard.
Part of me wants to say there's a kind of "civil war" going on inside of the American Left right now. On one side, you've got an alliance between the "corporate Democrats" and the "identity democrats." On the other hand, you've got the people who were excited about a hypothetical Bernie Sanders Presidency, but repulsed by the notion of a Clinton one. Those are rough categories, and they blend together, but there's a real distinction to be made I think. One could probably analyze it in terms of Blue Tribe vs Grey Tribe.
Quote: |
The Red Tribe is most classically typified by conservative political beliefs, strong evangelical religious beliefs, creationism, opposing gay marriage, owning guns, eating steak, drinking Coca-Cola, driving SUVs, watching lots of TV, enjoying American football, getting conspicuously upset about terrorists and commies, marrying early, divorcing early, shouting “USA IS NUMBER ONE!!!”, and listening to country music.
The Blue Tribe is most classically typified by liberal political beliefs, vague agnosticism, supporting gay rights, thinking guns are barbaric, eating arugula, drinking fancy bottled water, driving Priuses, reading lots of books, being highly educated, mocking American football, feeling vaguely like they should like soccer but never really being able to get into it, getting conspicuously upset about sexists and bigots, marrying later, constantly pointing out how much more civilized European countries are than America, and listening to “everything except country”.
(There is a partly-formed attempt to spin off a Grey Tribe typified by libertarian political beliefs, Dawkins-style atheism, vague annoyance that the question of gay rights even comes up, eating paleo, drinking Soylent, calling in rides on Uber, reading lots of blogs, calling American football “sportsball”, getting conspicuously upset about the War on Drugs and the NSA, and listening to filk – but for our current purposes this is a distraction and they can safely be considered part of the Blue Tribe most of the time) |
It's a point made somewhat in passing in a long essay, but no less the useful for it. Some in the comments section seem to treat "Grey Tribe" as if it reduces to "Libertarians," but I don't think that's the case. Libertarians are probably better classified as "Red Greys," while if anything, "Blue Greys" that would have just thought of themselves as "Blues" while I was growing up, but have felt increasingly uncomfortable with the direction of "Mainstream Blues" over time, are likely more common: people who share a lot of the same impulses as the "Mainstream Blues," but want to approach matters in a more systematic, principled fashion, which forces them to defect when a "the ends justify the means" approach is adopted by people with whom they otherwise might have found common ground.
In the context of this forum, I might hold up Leon ("Mainstream Blue") and myself ("Blue Grey") as examples. If we took a questionnaire, we'd agree on a lot -- in fact, we did take such a political questionnaire once, and had a huge amount of common ground if memory serves -- but he was happy to go along with things I simply can't, and likewise, I find myself open to possibilities to which he found himself objecting, and as a result, he's probably the poster with whom I have the most individual posts discussing disagreements. Expand that to a national level, and you've got the "Mainstream Blue"/"Blue Grey" divide, with all the acrimony entailed by it. Is it reasonable to turn campuses into extra-legal sex-crimes tribunals? A "Mainstream Blue" and a "Blue Grey" would probably probably disagree. Is it reasonable to try to resolve racial disparities in wealth and achievement using explicitly racial policies? A "Mainstream Blue" and a "Blue Grey" would probably probably disagree. Is it reasonable to respond to the impression that a certain police action was incorrect with massive protests and city-damaging riots? A "Mainstream Blue" and a "Blue Grey" would probably probably disagree. Is "diversity" even a legitimate, rational end in itself, rather than something it makes sense to which to be open? A "Mainstream Blue" and a "Blue Grey" would probably probably disagree. Does displacing citizens through free trade and mass immigration make sense? A "Mainstream Blue" and a "Blue Grey" would probably probably disagree. And so on and so forth. And lots of common ground as well, but even regarding that common ground, the intellectual method used to reach it probably differs enough that there's room for tensions to arise should those methods be discussed. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fox wrote: |
A notable exception might be the likes of Glen Greenwald? |
Absolutely, though do you really not agree that he's notable because he is an exception? I try to be diligent about keeping a range of news sources, and with, again, the exception of Greenwald's Intercept, not only does no other "Leftish" outlet push back against the Russian hysteria, but they all have seemingly done their damnedest to make sure images of the KGB are conjured whenever Trump's name is mentioned. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
geldedgoat wrote: |
Fox wrote: |
A notable exception might be the likes of Glen Greenwald? |
Absolutely, though do you really not agree that he's notable because he is an exception? I try to be diligent about keeping a range of news sources, and with, again, the exception of Greenwald's Intercept, not only does no other "Leftish" outlet push back against the Russian hysteria, but they all have seemingly done their damnedest to make sure images of the KGB are conjured whenever Trump's name is mentioned. |
Jacobin Magazine also seemed willing to push back against the Russian narrative, and they're both extremely "Left," fairly "belligerent," and at least somewhat "identitarian." Their motivations do seem less honest and more self-interested to me than those of Mr. Greenwald, though. Perhaps Kuros can provide some more examples; I keep the list of political news sources to which I refer fairly limited, so those two are the only ones which spring to mind for me in particular.
What I'd agree with is that the views about which you're talking are currently ascendant in the broader discourse, because it's the view of the corporate wing of the "Mainstream Blue" tribe, and that's where the money is. Perhaps the corporate/identitarian alliance specifically is what you meant by "belligerent Left," with the intention to exclude any other politically left-leaning individuals or groups? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|