Ten oz

A few weeks back I was at a friends house helping him install some lighting and the movie Stand By Me was playing in the background. He and I briefly discussed our favorite scenes of the movie. My friend is Indian yet likes the movie Stand By Me which is centered around a group of white children. Everyone I have every spoken about movies with likes Stand By Me regardless of their background. The movie is a classic loved by all here in the U.S.. If the Stand By Me featured a group of children which were something other than white would it still be loved by all here in the States? My guess is no. In the U.S. it seems all groups are willing to watch movies which star white leads but the opposite isn't true. White audiences in the U.S. don't seem to be willing to watch non white leads.

Where did I say you were pro removal?? By "we us" I meant end the United States. I think the context was clearly stated. It is not possible for both the Confederacy to have successfully seceded and the United States to have continued to exist. In stating that they played defense and couldn't destory the Union forces you seem to be confused about what secession is. The confederacy didn't need to storm union states anymore than the rebels needed to invade England during the revolution. They just needed to win on the land they sought to form their own nation upon: TX, LA, AR, MS, GA, FL, TN, SC, NC, and VA. As for why people joined and what happened if they lost; they did lose. You are loosely attempting to list atrocities and paint Confederates the victim as if their motives weren't a clear matter of historical record. A formal declaration for secession was written where it argued that post revolutionary war all states were sovereign self governing nations onto themselves. Amongst their list of grievances was not anything about door to door home invasions. The grievances outlined were legislative. Additionally people like Robert E Lee wrote letters and books in real time about the politics of the day, seccession, and war; the crux of the issues were state independence and constitutional limitations of legislative authority of the federal govt. Washington would have surely been executed have the revolution failed. Which monument are erected to Washington in Britain?

That is fair.

All depends on the genre. I think Norwegian films are better at mystery, Japanese but at horror, the French better at comedy, and Bollywood the best at mixing genres. It is a shame that great films like Insomnia and Girl with the Dragon tattoo got crummy remakes because U.S. audience can't be bothered with subtitles. Secret in there Eyes was a fabulous movie and got remade into something pitiful. I have not seen Get Out but from what I have read it seems very similar the movie Skeleton Key. The racial component is just flipped.

True, many European movies are remade too. It is odd though. A U.S. movie staring white stars do well in Mexico, Brazil, Japan, China, India, etc, etc all the time but the opposite is nearly never true. Audiences in the U.S. simply won't watch films which aren't about them. Do I care if a specific role in Hellboy is played by an Asian vs a white actor; nope. I won't be watching either way. That said white actors aren't hurting for work. Look this past summer. Guardians of the Galaxy, Wonder Woman, Logan, Spiderman, The Mummy, Dunkirk, Planet of the Apes, Split, and etc were all films which featured nearly all white casts. I don't know if there was a single Asian person in any of those films. So if there is a character out there which is traditionally Asian I can see why people would want it to stay that way.

Just look at all the Foriegn films that get done over with white casts. If American and British movies can sell in China and Japan as is why isn't the opposite true? The Ring, Grudge, Dark Water, The Eye, and on and on were all Asian films done over frame by frame with white actors. In many cases the original films are superior.

I don't think the race of fictional characters matter. I think arguments over what race Batman or James Bond should be are stupid. They're not real people and as such anyone should be able to play them. As for characters based on real people I think producers should be mindful of ethnicity. For many decades we have seen Latinos used to play Native Americans, Chinese used to play Japanese, Indians used for Middle Eastern, and etc. After decades of doing it wrong there is some pressure out there to get it straight and I am okay with that. As for contradictions, all this aren't equal. In totality I don't think the number of "white roles" are going to other groups as vice versa. When. Spiderman Homecoming came out this year I read articles where some were complaining about the forced inclusion of diversity in the film and found it ridiculous. The film takes place in modern day Bronx how could it not be diverse? If anything having whites in the that film was the forced part.

@ Raider5678 & Outrider, you both seem to be making this about slavery. You both seem to be implying that calls for removal of these monuments are becasue some Confederates owned slave. You're even discussing amongst yourselfs what percentage of them owned slaves. The issue is that they were traitors that fought to destory the United States of America. Had the Confederacy won the United States would not exist. The fact that in addition to killing their own countrymen many were slave onwers and bigots it just icing on the cake. The Confederacies efforts is not something that helped establish a more perfect union. They sought to end us. What percentage owned slaves and how each Confederate soldierfelt about slavery in general isn't important. Here is 2017 a lot more people talk about and support policy base on Coal mining jobs than actually work in coal mines. I doubt many of the torch carrying protesters chanting "Jews will not replace us" have had many, if any at all, interactions with Jewish communities. It is normal for concepts and ideas which aren't active in peoples daily lives to be rallying cries for movements. How many confederates owned slaves don't change the fact that they killed their own countrymen. The National Parks Service has a whole department devoted to the preservation of history. Historical buildings and lands get bulldozed all the time to make way for pipelines, new buildings, and etc. It is normal for politicians to attack The National Parks Service history preservation guidlines as too strict and bad for business. They are part of the proverbial red tape we hear so muchh about. Rather than those who love history so much hyper focusing on monuments erected decades if not a hundred years after the end of the Civil War perhaps they should champion increasing The National Parks Service's budget and strengthening their guidelines. Lots of history is lost all the time.

"Jews will not replace us" isn't the appropriate chant to protest anything. It is amazing to me that we are at a point in this country where people attempt to gloss over that simple sobering fact.

The "Can great achievements cancel out terrible crimes" question? My answer is no. Obviously there is always cost analysis to things. In some situations one might consider potential benefits to out weigh crimes. U.S. govt treated some Nazi scientist very well post WW2. Doesn't mean Nazis aren't terrible and those scientist were absolved of evil. In context to the Confederacy I am not aware of any useful achievements which benefited the Nation that could be argued to have offset their crimes against this nation.

Yes, Washington took an oath to and would have hung had his side lost and there would be no monuments to him today.

Very important distinction between actual pieces of history and those things erected to honor and celebrate.

It is interesting to me that what happened in Charlottesville wasn't described as a "Riot". Rather the term violent protest gets used. Following Dylann Roof murdering church goers in 2015 the Confederat flag was removed from the Soth Carolina capitol. Violent white nationalist and Nazi protesters showed up, 23 people were treated for injuries, and 7 people taken to the hospital yet headlines read that it was a protest that became violent. The word Riot wasn't used just as it isn't used in Charlottesville situation. Meanwhile during Occupy Wall Street I recall the word "Riot" and "Rioting" being used to describe seemingly every protest which the police broke up via force.Same goes for Ferguson and Baltimore protests led by BLM; protesters were labelled "Rioters". What is the distinction between a violent protest and a Riot? Seems to me that if it comes from the left it is a Riot and if it comes from the right it is protest that turns violent (on both sides, many sides).

I think the odds they would develop language are good enough as to make the experiment more of an exercise than anything else. The wernicke's are of the brain is responsible for language comprehension and the Broca's area is responsible for language production. Our brains are wired for language and human babies are born noisy crying, yelling, and carrying on. It it almost a sure thing that any group of humans over time would convert their cries, grunts, yells, and etc into language. All the babies I have ever been around Imitate the noises around them constantly (dog barking, door bell, car engine, etc) which is part of the natural neurological process building up the activating the parts of the brain that manage language. More over the world is full of terrible parents yet even the worst amongst them still manage to teach their children to do basic things like walk and speak which implies those things are intrinsic. Especially when you consider that all babies hit their various milestones inside of perdictable windows of time and failing to do so, irregardless of parenting quality, is a sign that a baby is potentially disable or has some sort of disorder. ***In referencing bad parents I mean whithin humane standards. Parents who abuse their childred can create a variety of psychological issues.

Something which occured to me during the childish tit for tat between Kim and Trump is that Kim is the one with all the experience. North Korea and U.S. relations have been bad since the end of the Korean War. Kim was raised at his fathers side while North Korea had stand off after stand off with the U.S.. Kim is seasoned and very experience in these tense exchanges. Trump is not. For Trump there is a steep learning curve happening at the moment. We can laugh at Kim's hair cut and point out how terribly he treats his people but at the end of the day he has for more experience than does Trump at North Korean/U.S. relations. Kim is also for more experienced in relations with China, Japan, and South Korea.

First let me start by thanking you for a carefully though out post. I know this thread is already long and a lot of ideas have already been explored. I agree that in order to been self aware there must be a self and some ability to know thyself and senses provide that knowledge to a large degree. Only bit I disagree with is "this rational aspect of mind is linear" because what's rational is totally relative. Matters relating to coordination and motory skills have a lot to do with the pathways you mentioned. Neurological the mind must develop the ability to do certian things. Developing an ability is not the same things accumulating knowledge or being self aware of something. If I do pushups everyday my ability to do push ups will increase but my knowledge and awareness of push upsand why doing them increases ability won't change. To change my conscious understanding about those things I would need to read a sports science book or something. Simply increasing my ability will not consciously expand my awareness. This is the crux of the matter; what does ones unconscious mind do? I don't think memories are stored there. It doesn't have its own separate storage on areas of the brain it controls. Memories are stored and depending on what the memory is with respects to which parts of the brain that memory triggers and which hormones those triggers producedthose memories can influence us consciously or unconsciously.Additionally memories are not real, accurate recordings. We remeber things based on what we interpolate and not based on what is happening. As a result memories can betray us and be burdensome things. I do not think the unconscious thinks in pictures, symbols, etc. The more I think about it the more I suspect it is probably different for everyone. That is one of the reason people are so different despite all humans having the same basic genes and senses to experience the world everyones has different passions. Intrinsically everyones needs are basically identical yet everyones pursuits are wildly different. Of course the health of ones brain matters greatly too. As we are learning more about the impact of concussions, drug use, and etc we are learning that is can change who a person is. Ultimately I still think consciousness, our hyper sense of moment by moment awareness, is a reproductive trait more so than an intellectual one. While our intelligence has been critical to our evolution genration to generation we don't seem to select for it less something catastrophic happens. Rather we select for personality. A good sense of humor goes further towards finding a mate than does an acute understanding of physics. Only a minimum standard of knowledge and intelligence seems to be needed to successfully reproduce and having larger amounts provides no additional advantage. Meanwhile intangables like humor can multiply ones ability to reproduce greatly. As a result we are selecting for personality more so than intelligence and I think personality is purely manifestated by of ones conscious. Intelligences and problem solves requires a combination of unconsciousness, memories, built up abilities, and etc. The result is that we have evolved to be hyper consciously aware and view our conscious minds are the center of being because being more centered in our consciousness allows for more personality. This is most expressed in young adults. The self centered hyper focus on what is cool, in style, hip, and etc is never more powerful than when one enters their reproductive window. I would be able to speak 10 languages right now if I could have consciously invested even 5% of the energy into it I invested in my image and how it impacted the way the opposite sex viewed me when I was 16yrs old. My biology didn't drive me to obtain knowledge and greatly levels of intellect as a means to improve my reproductive chances but rather it drove me be trendy, narcissistic, and hyper focused on being cool. Ironically being cool often involves a dismissive view towards education, organization, and structure. It is also one of the things which most separates of from other animals. While other animals show signs of self awareness and the ability to problem solve none exhibit vanity and narcissism. Some animals appear to exhibit pride and ego and both seem to be useful for reproduction.

Turning out new supporters is the key in my opinion. Republican support has been flat for that last 12yrs. Even the collaspe and terrible approval ratings of Bush didn't shrink the base much as McCain only did marginally worse. 2 million seems like a lot but it represents 1 and a half percent of all voters that year. The bigger impact was in turning more people out. Of course Republicans are well aware that the more voters there are the harder it is to win. That is why they pursue voter fraud and work to restrict voting days and hours. The difference between 1-2% of the overall vote can comedown to logistical issues on the ground or even the weather. But I digress; I don't believe any meaningful number of voters every actually flip. Perhaps some stay home but I don't think, regardless of what many people I have spoken to claim, voters actually go back and forth election to election based on the candidate. The consitence in pattern tis too tight. Take Wisconsin for example. People often discuss the way Trump was able to flip Wisconsin by reaching out to rural workers yet he did a hair worse than Romeny in Wisconsin, Trump got 1,405,284 individual votes and Romney got 1,407,966 . Breathtakingly close result. McCain is 08' wasn't far behind at 1,262,393 . It is pretty crazy!!! At least half the people I know claim they vote person not party and flip election to election but clearly there is no way any meaningful percentage of voters actually flip. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Wisconsin,_2008

No I am not offended and no nerve has been struck. I mentioned our (USA) past to highlight discussing upward mobility generally is rife with caveats and asterisks. In China Women do not have the same upward mobility as men. They have child labor issues and sweat shops. The average person in China simply doesn't have great upward mobility opportunity. Certainly not enough to compare it was that in the U.S.. Not if the average person includes everyone; which it must. If you were stating that the American Dream was a prominent feature of a special subgroup within China that would be different and I might agree. I think Area54 is conflating the year after year growth rate of GDP with upward mobility to a point. China's economy is growing and many people are getting rich but they still have a relatively oppressive govt and multi tiered class system which doesn't allow for equal opportunities for all.

"Is now" as compared to when. In years past the U.S. was seriously compromised as well for reasons already stated. The definition for what makes someone middle class exists on a sliding scale scale. A middle class person in San Francisco is wealthy by Boise Idaho standards. It isn't enough to just say the U.S. is compromised by comparison because statistically China is bring X amount of abject poverty per year. In the U.S. abject poverty doesn't even exist so you aren't comparing apples to apples. Additionally all groups do not equally have access to the mobility you reference in China. Women as still second class citizens in many ways. When upward mobility doesn't apply to half the population that isn't good. Upward mobility is defined as having the ability to move from lower to higher levels of social status. Not everyone can do that in China. Nearly everyone can do that in the U.S..

Segregation was overt racial discrimination and it just ended about 50yrs ago. I am sure many would argue laws prohibiting same sex couples from marrying and laws prohibiting members LGBT community from service in the military were overtly discriminatory as well. Do I agree China has more upward mobility currently than the U.S.; no I don't. For starters China has a big problem with a variety of labor abuses. Everything from child labor to hazardous conditions. While it is true the standard of living is increasing in China it is also true that all are not enjoying the success of that with the same level of equality we do here in the U.S.. The average person born and raised in the U.S. still has a superior chance to excel than does the average person born in China. Which is no insult to China. They have come a long way.

Upward mobility is seriously compromised in the U.S.as compared to which other period in the U.S.? Just 60yrs ago in the U.S. upward mobility virtually didn't exist for many different groups of people. Being openly LGBT, a single female parent, athiest, or etc relegated one to 2nd class status. Of course there was also legal overt racial discrimination too. Today I work with single mothers, openly gay men, African Americans, and a long list of people with diverse backgrounds and beliefs. Such simply wasn't the case in the past. No way now how. So when you or other imply a diminishment in opportunity and mobility for people in the U.S. what is the real context? Education obtainment is at all time highs, home ownership rates at all time highs, income parity amongst all groups while not fully equal its the closet it has ever been, and etc.

Oddly this isn't the case with me. I don't know if it is because I work via computer so much or what but I have a difficult time thinking or processing information while physically writing anything. It's so bad that I will often type out words and or phrases prior to writing them down because the act of typing allows me to think my fluidly while writing itself often causes me to lose my train of thought. Words I struggle to spell on paper are effortlessly typed and things I type are much easier to recall than those I write down. For me typing something out via a word doc or email, even just once, is far more effective than creating hand written flashcards. When I really want to remember something I write myself an email about it. I don't merely forwards links or copy and paste text but actually type out a short summary. Even if I never read the email, I typically don't, the summary is remember.

Not zero. Zero would be impossible to calculate as some who voted for him in 2016 will be dead by 2020, others in prison, others may not vote for some other reason and etc. There will also be first time voters who neither voted for or against him in 2016. That said I'm 2012 Obama got 65.9 million votes to Romney's 60.9 million. In 2016 Clinton got 65.8 million to Trump's 62.8. Meanwhile everyone agrees Clinton and Obama as candidates are wildly different and Romney and Trump were wildly different. The result was breathtakingly similar. In 08' McCain got 60 million and in 04' Bush got 62 million. The window is very tight. Bush's term ended in total ruin and still not much of a percentage turned on the Party. People overwhelming vote the party line and it takes earth changing events to shift even a couple percent of voters. So I feel it is safe to assume Trump gets his 62-63 million votes again. The key to beating him isn't in flipping any of his supporters but rather is in turning out new supporters, people who don't always vote and first time voters.

There were a number of people disillusioned with him during the Primary and then voted for him anyway.

He doesn't even need to come through on a few things. He got 63 million (62.8) votes and will get that again. I think it is a total farce the way people pretend actual policy issues drive the way people vote. I don't even know Republicans who can list any useful policy achievements by Republicans in the last 20-30yrs years.