Strauss-Howe Fourth Turning discussions

An alternate home for the community from the legacy Fourth Turning Forum
Bob Butler
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am

Re: Strauss-Howe Fourth Turning discussions

Post by Bob Butler »

John wrote:
Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:42 pm
Anyway, I don't think there's any special demand in this forum for a thread to focus on S&H theory. If any exists, it could be handled in other ways. For example, if someone wants to have a nostalgic discussion of the life and loves of Neil Howe, they could start a Neil Howe thread.
Originally, with the MyBB site flooded with spam and no moderator, your putting up a S&H sub forum made sense. If that was your objective, go for it. If you are no longer interested, you can flood it with junk. Now, with Eric creating the new Facebook site and MyBB being restored, there is less need. In fact, all that is being achieved is dividing the community. Blues migrated to Eric's site, and many fewer blues here. If anything there are too many turning sites.

One thing you could say for Rags, the old MyBB moderator, was that he did not edit for content. You could advocate any position and he would allow it no holds barred. The only problem was if you could not defend your position, endure the criticism. If you want to run a propaganda site, limit your audience to those who agree with you, it will be kind if hard to build a much of an S&H community.

Bob Butler
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am

Re: Strauss-Howe Fourth Turning discussions

Post by Bob Butler »

Guest wrote:
Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:59 pm
There has been no legitimate means to subject the electoral fraud allegations to independent scrutiny. Time and again the courts have refused to investigate on procedural grounds - lack of locus standi, laches (i.e. delay - a doctrine that hitherto has been applied for delays of years but suddenly has applied to delays of days) - anything to avoid addressing the actual evidence.
Sure there is. If there were any real evidence, it could be shown on Fox News or similar sites. If the evidence were real, it could be presented to a judge without risk of being disbarred. Instead, claims are made that the evidence exists, and no evidence. I can only conclude that the evidence doesn't exist. This could easily be disproved by someone, anyone, showing real evidence.

John
Posts: 9936
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Strauss-Howe Fourth Turning discussions

Post by John »

** 09-Jan-2021 World View: S&H Thread

I have no desire to set up a new S&H community. I set up this thread
up mainly for you, and for anyone else who would like to debate with
you, and to keep your trash out of the news thread. But there's no
reason why the people in the current S&H forum should want to come
here when the Facebook site is available, and we know that Facebook
censors Trump or anything pro-Trump, so it's perfect for them.

There's a certain irony in that I've saved the S&H forums twice. When
the first one was shut down, I went through an enormous amount of work
to create the forum archive, which is still available on my web site.
If I hadn't done that, all that content would have been lost forever.

Now I had to save the new S&H forum. I made the proposal, I contacted
the web host, and they contacted Sam, who finally came back and did
his job, so the forum is viable again. Thanks to me.

So I've saved two S&H forums. I realize that no act of kindness goes
unpunished, but I did it anyway.

The other completely laughable and ironic thing is that most people in
this forum disagree with me often. However, you're the only one that
posts volumes of trash.

Bob Butler
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am

Re: Strauss-Howe Fourth Turning discussions

Post by Bob Butler »

John wrote:
Sat Jan 09, 2021 1:18 pm
The other completely laughable and ironic thing is that most people in this forum disagree with me often. However, you're the only one that posts volumes of trash.
Not trash. I present ideas such as ages and tribal thinking which you have not dealt with in Generational Dynamics. As such you can not deal with my real criticisms, but can only respond with insults and flame.

John
Posts: 9936
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Strauss-Howe Fourth Turning discussions

Post by John »

** 09-Jan-2021 World View: Censorship and propaganda

There's one more thing: I haven't censored you in any way. I've
simply kept you from hijacking the news thread, and moved your
posts, unedited, into this thread.

You may recall that back in the other forum I posted something in Eric
the Green's thread, and he demanded that I leave his thread. And so I
left, since I have no desire to have that kind of argument with
anyone.

You should look at this thread as an opportunity. You have your own
S&H thread where you can post (almost) anything you want, and people
are free to argue with you.

You can also still post in other threads, provided that you do so
respectfully.

So, nope. There's no censorship or propaganda site here. You're
thinking of CNN or twitter or facebook.

Bob Butler
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am

Re: Strauss-Howe Fourth Turning discussions

Post by Bob Butler »

John wrote:
Sat Jan 09, 2021 1:50 pm
You can also still post in other threads, provided that you do so
respectfully.

So, nope. There's no censorship or propaganda site here.
My problem at the moment is with other posters posting insults, flame or other junk addressed to me. I try to respond to issues and with ideas respectfully, but my posts are moved anyway. A lot of it I can understand. I wouldn't want the flame and insult posts either. I still feel inclined to respond respectfully anyway. I get the impression of a double standard, that you will tolerate reddish propaganda but censor anything blue. You may watch your decisions if you want to live up to the policies you declare.

Also the S&H thread is flooded with junk. I have provided other places where you can put it, but even this post and this discussion has nothing to do with Strauss and Howe. You seem determined to throttle it. If you avoided a conflict with Eric, you could show a similar respect for Strauss and Howe.

Guest

Re: Strauss-Howe Fourth Turning discussions

Post by Guest »

Bob Butler wrote:
Sat Jan 09, 2021 1:14 pm
Guest wrote:
Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:59 pm
There has been no legitimate means to subject the electoral fraud allegations to independent scrutiny. Time and again the courts have refused to investigate on procedural grounds - lack of locus standi, laches (i.e. delay - a doctrine that hitherto has been applied for delays of years but suddenly has applied to delays of days) - anything to avoid addressing the actual evidence.
Sure there is. If there were any real evidence, it could be shown on Fox News or similar sites. If the evidence were real, it could be presented to a judge without risk of being disbarred. Instead, claims are made that the evidence exists, and no evidence. I can only conclude that the evidence doesn't exist. This could easily be disproved by someone, anyone, showing real evidence.
You keep saying there is no evidence of alleged electoral fraud. This is not true. The courts have rejected the lawsuits on standing or procedural grounds, and the merits of the lawsuits have not been looked at. There are sworn affidavits and documentary evidence totalling thousands and thousands of pages.

Have you actually looked at any of the evidence? There is plenty to see. For example, this is a stream from Georgia's Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, and is worth a watch: https://livestream.com/accounts/2602152 ... /214364915

If this evidence can be disproved so easily, why has it not been subjected to independent scrutiny? Surely, by doing this, it would solve the problem that currently circa 74 million people do not trust the outcome of the election.

John
Posts: 9936
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Strauss-Howe Fourth Turning discussions

Post by John »

** 09-Jan-2021 World View: Answering insults
John wrote:
Sat Jan 09, 2021 1:50 pm
> You can also still post in other threads, provided that you do so
> respectfully.

> So, nope. There's no censorship or propaganda site here.
Bob Butler wrote:
Sat Jan 09, 2021 3:17 pm
> My problem at the moment is with other posters posting insults,
> flame or other junk addressed to me. I try to respond to issues
> and with ideas respectfully, but my posts are moved anyway. A lot
> of it I can understand. I wouldn't want the flame and insult
> posts either. I still feel inclined to respond respectfully
> anyway. I get the impression of a double standard, that you will
> tolerate reddish propaganda but censor anything blue. You may
> watch your decisions if you want to live up to the policies you
> declare.

> Also the S&H thread is flooded with junk. I have provided other
> places where you can put it, but even this post and this
> discussion has nothing to do with Strauss and Howe. You seem
> determined to throttle it. If you avoided a conflict with Eric,
> you could show a similar respect for Strauss and Howe.
I don't know if you're asking me for advice, but I get insulted all
the time. You need to have a philosophy and systematic way of dealing
with insults. I can tell you what I do, if that helps.

I really hate getting into flame wars, so I do everything possible to
de-escalate.

If someone corrects an error, even accompanying the correction with an
insult, then I just thank him for the correction. Thanking a person
for a correction usually disarms him, and he stops insulting.

When someone insults me for the first time, I usually just respond
factually without responding to the insult. Usually that ends it.

When someone insults me again, you can't ignore the insult because
they'll just use worse and worse insults. You can't appease a bully.

When I return an insult, I try as best as possible to follow a
principle of equivalence. If someone calls me an idiot, I'll call him
a jackass. It's better to under-insult than to over-insult, since
bullies will often back down after any insult at all.

Remember: The objective is to avoid escalating and to do the opposite
-- de-escalate and return to a factual discussion. You have to
consciously want to de-escalate, because it's very very easy to
escalate.

And, quite honestly, I always have the feeling that you want to
escalate, rather than de-escalate. You have to want to de-escalate.

You always seem to do the opposite. I remember when I made that silly
mistake about South Pacific, and you didn't just correct the error.
You posted multiple times with long rants insulting me. The correct
way to respond to that situation was to correct the error, and then
present some nostalgiac information about the play. At any rate, a
brief correction was all that was necessary.

Another thing to keep in mind is that when you make what you claim to
be a factual statement, and it's controversial or it contradicts the
person you're writing to, then you have to back it up with sources.
If you don't do that, then people will assume that you're making
things up. For me personally, when you talk about agricultural ages I
don't have the vaguest clue what you're talking about, so I assume
that you're making it up, and I ignore it. This might be a good way
for you to use this S&H thread -- use it to write several posts with
an explanation, with sources, of this subject.

And that's the answer to your wishes to "respect Strauss and Howe."
If you don't want junk in this thread, then just don't post junk in
this thread or any thread. Use this thread in a constructive manner,
and all the old posts will soon be long forgotten.

John
Posts: 9936
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Strauss-Howe Fourth Turning discussions

Post by John »

** 09-Jan-2021 World View: Evidence of electoral fraud
Guest wrote:
Sat Jan 09, 2021 5:25 pm
> You keep saying there is no evidence of alleged electoral
> fraud. This is not true. The courts have rejected the lawsuits on
> standing or procedural grounds, and the merits of the lawsuits
> have not been looked at. There are sworn affidavits and
> documentary evidence totalling thousands and thousands of pages.

> Have you actually looked at any of the evidence? There is plenty
> to see. For example, this is a stream from Georgia's Senate
> Judiciary Subcommittee, and is worth a watch:
> https://livestream.com/accounts/2602152 ... /214364915

> If this evidence can be disproved so easily, why has it not been
> subjected to independent scrutiny? Surely, by doing this, it would
> solve the problem that currently circa 74 million people do not
> trust the outcome of the election.
That video is 7 hours long. No way I'm going to look at it. Can you
point to a time within the video where your point is being made? Or
can you provide some other video that's a lot shorter, say, 5 minutes?

Guest

Re: Strauss-Howe Fourth Turning discussions

Post by Guest »

John wrote:
Sat Jan 09, 2021 5:41 pm
** 09-Jan-2021 World View: Evidence of electoral fraud
Guest wrote:
Sat Jan 09, 2021 5:25 pm
> You keep saying there is no evidence of alleged electoral
> fraud. This is not true. The courts have rejected the lawsuits on
> standing or procedural grounds, and the merits of the lawsuits
> have not been looked at. There are sworn affidavits and
> documentary evidence totalling thousands and thousands of pages.

> Have you actually looked at any of the evidence? There is plenty
> to see. For example, this is a stream from Georgia's Senate
> Judiciary Subcommittee, and is worth a watch:
> https://livestream.com/accounts/2602152 ... /214364915

> If this evidence can be disproved so easily, why has it not been
> subjected to independent scrutiny? Surely, by doing this, it would
> solve the problem that currently circa 74 million people do not
> trust the outcome of the election.
That video is 7 hours long. No way I'm going to look at it. Can you
point to a time within the video where your point is being made? Or
can you provide some other video that's a lot shorter, say, 5 minutes?
My point is that there is substantial evidence of alleged fraud, which has yet to be disproven by independent scrutiny. A five minute video or high level overview does not do this justice in my opinion. When somebody says there is no evidence, I know they have not watched the hours of footage in various subcommittee settings, or the documentation compiled with this information which is available publicly. I know that going into this level of detail is not for everyone but, considering what is at stake here, I believe more people should look at the source material.

In the interests of brevity, here is a 15 page summary of the video link I provided:

https://got-freedom.org/wp-content/uplo ... -on-GA.pdf

This link provides far more evidence:

https://got-freedom.org/evidence/

If you look at the material listed under number three (the super appendix), there is 1,400 pages of evidence. The table of contents lists what is covered.

There are still five outstanding lawsuits: three in the Supreme Court; one in Georgia; and one in Wisconsin. There are also still attempted state hearings in Georgia, Pennsylvania and Arizona. It remains to be seen whether the evidence of the alleged fraud will be given due scrutiny in court or at a state hearing. Perhaps this is unlikely considering what has happened so far.

So to anybody that says there is no evidence, there is actually a lot of evidence.

There is a constitutional crisis. It seems like this constitutional crisis will only get worse. The current situation is that circa 74 million people do not have trust in the outcome of the election and the actions being taken by social media companies will only entrench this viewpoint. The remedy to this problem would have been to have full independent scrutiny in court or in the state legislatures. But this did not happen and, if it does take place now, it could make things worse if there are "unpalatable" findings, i.e. there has been fraud.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests