It's not even that ...or MSNBC and CNN would actually have an audience. They're White House steno pools, just copying down what the administration officials say and passing it along.
HuffPo - "Why Smokers Should Be Shamed" (and by extension, vapers)
- Thread starter Roger_Lafayette
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
It's not even that ...or MSNBC and CNN would actually have an audience. They're White House steno pools, just copying down what the administration officials say and passing it along.
The problem with her is that she doesn't realize how her own completely non-essential tastes and choices harm others. No one lives on this planet without impacting others. Industrialized nations are the worst. The militant non-smokers... for some reason... think they don't harm anyone or anything for the sake of their own choices.
I trust The Economist. I might not agree w/ their politics, but they're pretty careful w/ their facts. So are some of the wire services, like AP (generally). UPI/AFP/Reuters not so much. BBC is pretty decent, too, as is NHK. Frontline and Pro Publica don't do a bad job. And whle I might not believe everything I read in Slate, Foriegn Affairs or The Atlantic ... cases in which the writer has an axe to grind are clear and up-front. I can handle the odd screed, or any other opinion piece which isn't being disguised as "reporting."
That said (and I won't answer any argument here, because I don't want to get too far off topic), I believe Americans get the press that we like. If we wanted something like NHK or BBC, we'd demand it. We don't - in fact in many ways what we seem to favor is often not much better than RT. In part that's because we like being anti-intellectual. (And it may have saved us from certain excesses of European-style dogma, so it's not an entirely bad thing.) But I digress
I trust The Economist.
You would. It's a neo-leftist, Keyesian publication.... for those who might think 'ecomomist' might mean 'pro-business'. IOW, just the opposite, of what one might think.
I might not agree w/ their politics, but they're pretty careful w/ their facts. So are some of the wire services, like AP (generally). UPI/AFP/Reuters not so much. BBC is pretty decent, too, as is NHK. Frontline and Pro Publica don't do a bad job. And whle I might not believe everything I read in Slate, Foriegn Affairs or The Atlantic ... cases in which the writer has an axe to grind are clear and up-front. I can handle the odd screed, or any other opinion piece which isn't being disguised as "reporting."
That said (and I won't answer any argument here, because I don't want to get too far off topic), I believe Americans get the press that we like. If we wanted something like NHK or BBC, we'd demand it. We don't - in fact in many ways what we seem to favor is often not much better than RT. In part that's because we like being anti-intellectual. (And it may have saved us from certain excesses of European-style dogma, so it's not an entirely bad thing.) But I digress
If you said "anti-faux intellectual", I might agree.
I trust The Economist. I might not agree w/ their politics, but they're pretty careful w/ their facts. So are some of the wire services, like AP (generally). UPI/AFP/Reuters not so much. BBC is pretty decent, too, as is NHK. Frontline and Pro Publica don't do a bad job. And whle I might not believe everything I read in Slate, Foriegn Affairs or The Atlantic ... cases in which the writer has an axe to grind are clear and up-front. I can handle the odd screed, or any other opinion piece which isn't being disguised as "reporting."
That said (and I won't answer any argument here, because I don't want to get too far off topic), I believe Americans get the press that we like. If we wanted something like NHK or BBC, we'd demand it. We don't - in fact in many ways what we seem to favor is often not much better than RT. In part that's because we like being anti-intellectual. (And it may have saved us from certain excesses of European-style dogma, so it's not an entirely bad thing.) But I digress
I'm going to stay OT for one post because yours brought a smile to my face. Before I retired, business took me to the UK a few times. TV was a bit bland, but I got fascinated with a couple sports I still don't fully understand, snooker and cricket. I started getting the idea what snooker was, but cricket still baffles me.
Anyway, the one trip I made had a big match between the UK ans S. Africa. It was like a 5 day event and they had replays at night as well as reporting during the news and in the papers. What I was seeing and what they were reporting didn't seem to correlate. To me, S Africa seemed to be destroying the English lads, but the reports were about how great they were doing. My business trip ended and I headed home before it was over. The last paper I saw was at the airport, The Mail, before boarding raving about the English squad.
This bothered me a lot so I looked up the on line version on Monday to see the final results. I had to laugh. They did get destroyed and all the nice talk was over. They totally blasted the effort of the English team. At least I was right about what I was watching. I asked my uncle about the reporting since he lived in the UK for 27 years. He told me the press doesn't like to discourage a team when they're in the middle of a match. I suppose that's a problem when a game takes days instead of hours. Now back on topic.
Bramble, I have to agree. I've been in rooms where I literally gagged at the smell of some obnoxious perfume that some woman, for some reason, thought the smell was pleasant. If it got too unbearable, I'd just leave.
If you said "anti-faux intellectual", I might agree.
Your response has been noted.
Nothing but a snooty troll. She reminds me of Ann Coulter.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I worked with a woman who would spray this horrible body spray at her desk across from me all day.
But this article author... I'll bet she doesn't do that.
I'll bet that she drives a car spewing second hand exhaust particles which eventually settle and become third hand exhaust particles.
She probably gets her clothes drycleaned which leaves residual chemicals all over the place. Cosmetics are quite toxic too and much of it is tested needlessly on animals. Facial scrub microbeads are pollution the oceans.
What part of the natural environment do her eating habits destroy?
Does she consume quinoa despite the fact that it's being exported from South America when the people there scarcely have enough for their own nutrition?
Is she buying cheap goods from places that produce them with slave labor?
Is any of her plastic trash part of the Pacific Garbage Patch?
Oh believe me I can come up with 1001 ways that everyone is causing harm to someone else. While each of us should be conscious of how we live, and be considerate of the bigger world around us... no one can escape it because we didn't create this world, we can only do the best we can with it.
FWIW, I think smokers should be considerate. Most of them are, most are so used to being bullied in fact they sometimes apologize for their own existence. I do know people who will have severe asthma attacks from SHS, no one wants to inflict that on anyone. But tobacco is a legal product and adults have a right to use it.
But this business of hating people because they do something that pollutes or inconveniences another, or because it's unhealthy... after my years in environmental and vegan activism, it doesn't get pretty when those folks start on me their self-righteous bovine defecation. I don't judge and hate on people for doing things that I don't do, I have never reached one single person by shaming or shunning anyone or for allowing myself to think for one minute that I am somehow better than anyone else. I'm not, no one is -- but this woman doesn't know that about herself.
Bram bam, I'll bet she even uses air fresheners in her home, maybe even those plug in kind that result in THAF that has no half life.
Yes, it's a ploy commonly used by those who want to recruit people who are mentally lazy and will just follow the majority consensus because to think for themselves would mean activating brain cells and then who knows what would happen. Heck they may have to revise long held beliefs and relationships as a result!
People don't change. There used to be witch hunts and lynch mobs to name only two of the atrocities of man's treatment of his fellow man. I hope this kind of hate-speak doesn't evolve into anything that bad but, truly, if history is to be recognized, it could.
The hate-speak now is used to justify stealing from you in taxes and regulation. However as John Locke put it in his Two Treatises of Government, (paraphrasing) 'if someone would steal from you, they've already established they are willing to violate your rights, and if a situation existed ...'
Locke - partial quote: "... I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else."
I posted this in another thread where this horrible hate speech was mentioned.
If that kind of dual posting is not ok, please remove the posting and leave the link to this thread:
Thought e cigs were inoffensive. - Page 5
This horrible hate speech is precisely the kind of behavior described in Tobakkonacht. (preface available online).
When they start trying to "shame" smokers by making them wear a yellow star on their clothing, that it will be the very last opportunity for the people to take action. Before the signs go up, saying "Anybody who wears this star is an enemy of our people."
... Anybody who knows the German history of the 20th century will know what happened next in a country that started to "shame" a part of its population. It is my home country. I know.
And no. There is no difference.
The good people of Germany stood idly by. Until it was too late.
Now, the good people of another country are standing idly by. . . .
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
Martin Niemoeller
If that kind of dual posting is not ok, please remove the posting and leave the link to this thread:
Thought e cigs were inoffensive. - Page 5
This horrible hate speech is precisely the kind of behavior described in Tobakkonacht. (preface available online).
When they start trying to "shame" smokers by making them wear a yellow star on their clothing, that it will be the very last opportunity for the people to take action. Before the signs go up, saying "Anybody who wears this star is an enemy of our people."
... Anybody who knows the German history of the 20th century will know what happened next in a country that started to "shame" a part of its population. It is my home country. I know.
And no. There is no difference.
The good people of Germany stood idly by. Until it was too late.
Now, the good people of another country are standing idly by. . . .
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
Martin Niemoeller
Yes, Anjaffm, I thought of you actually and deliberately didn't mention Germany in my post but Hitler also waged an anti-smoking campaign using shaming. I first read about it here via a link I can't find now. Its a mentality and it doesn't matter what country. Its a human condition and, IMHO, has become more and more evident as our societies become more secular. I'm certainly no holy roller and don't attend church but, truly, the traditional teachings of many religions (though, yes, they've been used to polarize by the corrupt) at least kept man's morality in the forefront. I don't mean this to hijack the OP nor turn the thread into a controversy on it but am just saying morality has decreased as secularism has increased. At least that's what I've seen in my lifetime. Does that mean the religious leaders haven't used their positions to turn people into hateful sheep too. Yes, of course they have but the overall climate/culture of countries do seem to deteorate when people of faith are forced underground or also shamed due to their faith or traditional values based on it. The haters, power mongers and greedy will use ANYTHING to polarize and that includes religion but it did/does have its positive place in individual values that, again IMHO, should not be hidden due to shaming.
It's a bit (a very small bit, comparatively, I know) how I feel in a 'smoking designated area' and the looks you get by 'passers-by'.
That quote was posted earlier and there are many variations with the original wording in question. Sometimes it's "Catholics", instead of "Socialists", depending on who's quoting it
And it doesn't make much sense when it was the 'National Socialists' who came for 'Socialists'.... but whatever the wording, it still does depict the slippery slope quite well..... First they came ... - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...
http://scott.hayes.org/thoughts/niemoller.html
Last edited:
@Kent C:
Yes, that sounds a little confusing, unless you were extensively educated in German history (which I was).
The "National Socialists" were the Nazis. "NATIonalsozialisten". When you pronounce the word in German, it starts with the sound "NAZI". Thus, the "Nazi"s. The Socialists were a completely different political party. And one whom the Nazis exterminated during their rule. Same as the Communists. They destroyed all who were different from them. As is common in dictatorships.
This quote is my favorite quote when it comes to the slippery slope and people standing idly by, watching things happen. To others. Until they happen to them.
This is the original, in German: Martin-Niemöller-Stiftung - /daszitat
1. Communists, 2. Social Democrats, 3. Trade Unionists, 4. myself
The quote is often different in English. To suit the audience. (Probably because "Communists" do not receive much sympathy in ... parts of the English-speaking world).
..................
And I posted a comment under that horrible hate article:
And I got this text under my comment now:
I bet you a bottle of liquid that they will not publish that comment
Yes, that sounds a little confusing, unless you were extensively educated in German history (which I was).
The "National Socialists" were the Nazis. "NATIonalsozialisten". When you pronounce the word in German, it starts with the sound "NAZI". Thus, the "Nazi"s. The Socialists were a completely different political party. And one whom the Nazis exterminated during their rule. Same as the Communists. They destroyed all who were different from them. As is common in dictatorships.
This quote is my favorite quote when it comes to the slippery slope and people standing idly by, watching things happen. To others. Until they happen to them.
This is the original, in German: Martin-Niemöller-Stiftung - /daszitat
1. Communists, 2. Social Democrats, 3. Trade Unionists, 4. myself
The quote is often different in English. To suit the audience. (Probably because "Communists" do not receive much sympathy in ... parts of the English-speaking world).
..................
And I posted a comment under that horrible hate article:
And I got this text under my comment now:
I bet you a bottle of liquid that they will not publish that comment
@Kent C:
Yes, that sounds a little confusing, unless you were extensively educated in German history (which I was).
The "National Socialists" were the Nazis. "NATIonalsozialisten". When you pronounce the word in German, it starts with the sound "NAZI". Thus, the "Nazi"s. The Socialists were a completely different political party. And one whom the Nazis exterminated during their rule. Same as the Communists. They destroyed all who were different from them. As is common in dictatorships.
This quote is my favorite quote when it comes to the slippery slope and people standing idly by, watching things happen. To others. Until they happen to them.
This is the original, in German: Martin-Niemöller-Stiftung - /daszitat
1. Communists, 2. Social Democrats, 3. Trade Unionists, 4. myself
The quote is often different in English. To suit the audience. (Probably because "Communists" do not receive much sympathy in ... parts of the English-speaking world).
..................
And I posted a comment under that horrible hate article:
And I got this text under my comment now:
I bet you a bottle of liquid that they will not publish that comment
Unfortunately censorship is still very much alive. Some people don't want to be confused with the facts and just want to blend in with the rest of the herd. Good for you for bringing attention to a very sobering trend in society.
Thank you for your consideration, dear.
I do not mind, though. That time in history is a dark spot on the history of my country, yes. It does, however, provide a very valuable lesson for those who are willing to learn from history.
And yes, Hitler was the first .. uhm.. head of government ... who actively pursued an anti-smoking policy. To keep "the master race" clean and healthy so that they could produce a lot of little "master race" offspring. See here: Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "For the children" so to speak. Gotta have a lot of healthy boys to send off as cannon fodder in your planned war, you know.
As to religion:
Well I am not religious. I have my reasons.
One of them being that, as a child, I was force-fed a kind of "if you do not pray to God and accept Jesus as your savior, then you will roast in hell" - religion. A kind of "It does not make sense to your human mind. So you have to believe!" - religion. Where all of my questions about .. not-so-nice .. stories in the Bible went unanswered.
Another of them being that - in Germany - you have to pay church tax (deducted from your paycheck) unless you go to City Hall and officially renounce your church membership. And pay a fee for that opting-out, too.
Thank you, but no thank you. I can think for myself. And I will most certainly not pay for a service that I do not use.
I do not mind people being religious though, as long as they find happiness in their faith.
And as long as they do not attempt to force their beliefs down my throat. (Which you, patkin, are by no means doing. Not at all).
But nowadays, health is the new religion. Propagated, ominpresent, force-fed to people, raised to an "ideal" that we "should" all strive for, and producing the same kind of haters and witch-hunters that organized religion used to produce. And who attempt to frighten the masses with open lies.
In English, you say "Health Nazis". In German, we say "Health Taliban". Same thing.
To my mind, values are important. They can be based in religion. But they do not have to be.
And of course, if the only "religion" that people chase after is money, greed and the unachievable ideal of "100% perfect health", then yes, it looks sad for society.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked