John Calipari on First Take
- Thread starter WildMoon
- Start date
How long until Mike Krzyzewski copies Cal & does something similar?
Would it be something already written in place or would he have to RAT-ify already existing programs?
Yeah all us white people are just garbage. So sad, I'm ashamed of my skin color.
Last edited:
this is exactly about Coach K. He really just rode the bandwagon.
**** head doesn't think, and because BLM is the bandwagon, he quickly rode that horse.
Cal, on the other hand, asked around. Listened. What is it that they really are asking for and are within his capacity to help?
This is his belief that will help. Not Copy and Paste, which BTW is dishonest.
Exactly what I was thinking. Then ESPN will promote it for weeks on end.
I get the arguments against affirmative action, but what does it have to do with white people being garbage?
It's like people forget that there were decades of racial advancement debates before the SJWs dropped in to piss in the punch bowl.
Some were modest, some were more extreme, but this idea that everything vaguely racial or vaguely lefty = XTREME SJW NONSENSE is a huge part of the problem with this country now.
Same with saying that people on the center-right are nazis.
That complete inability to differentiate will be our undoing, not some program to encourage black people into leadership roles.
Cal is a traditional Catholic moderate democrat. There's nothing crazy or out of left field with this.
Good post.
It’s the extremes killing the middle.
The normal people in the middle (about 80-90% of the population) suffer because of these extreme left or right idiots.
I agree, but I'd go even one step further and say that you can be fairly far to one side or the other without being a complete dickhead.
Normal people aren't threatened by someone having strong principles and sticking to them.
It's this "you can't possibly be a half decent person unless you 100% agree with me" part that ruins everything.
Exactly.
The small percentage on the extreme edges of both sides are the danger.
I’m a pro gun, anti-abortion, strict interpretation guy. Even though I lean right, I still feel like my values aren’t that far removed from most other Americans on most issues.
this has become worse in the past few years as social media and its usage are getting more and more exploited.
its frustrating really.
Whichever side he's coming from (angry righty or preemptive lefty shot at angry righties), it seems like drama for no reason to me.
I agree with all your thinking. But just as a historical note, Nazis were far left. That’s why they called themselves National Socialists. Fascists were also far left. Essentially the ancient concept is Plato’s idea, from The Republic, that the ideal government is an all-powerful state that provides ultimate safety and fulfillment to each of its citizens by completely subordinating every aspect of their lives and identities to itself, and thus focusing all their energies efficiently (though indirectly) on their own happiness. Hegel remarketed this idea in wording that sounded more appealing to (relatively) modern man, and spread farther because by then there was a printing press. Marx more or less took that baton from Hegel, but recast the idea as a historical struggle between people who wanted that hyper controlling/hyper efficient state, and people who didn’t want it because they wanted to grab more for themselves than it would allow them to have.
Conservatism is a negative reaction to that concept. It is the idea that government is and can be only a necessary evil, and the bigger, the more evil. It is basically the notion that the American founding fathers proved by a science experiment that small and limited government is more healthy for economy and the human soul than big government—even though the founding fathers hadn’t thought of it as a model in opposition to Plato’s Republic (in general—some of them actually did. Out founding fathers colllectively were astoundingly well read and perceptive).
So, interestingly, conservative or “right” government philosophy is the young upstart among political ideas, having started with either the founding fathers or with Lincoln, depending on how narrowly you want to define it. And the further right you go, straw men aside, the further you get away from Nazism and Fascism—two ideas tied very strongly and formally to Hegel and Marx.
Hitler and the Third Reich were not left and they weren’t socialists. Just because it’s in the name does not mean they adhered to the philosophies of that system. If that were the case, then we could make the same claim that North Korea is a democracy.
In a two party system, if you’re claiming that one side contains all the bad elements of modern history, and the other side is nothing but a virtuous force for good, that’s bad analysis and you’ve fallen for propaganda.
It’s complete and utter nonsense, but it made him feel good to say it. The thing about right wing and left wing politics is that comparing it to different eras and/or different countries can be like comparing apples to oranges. Anyone who has taken a 100 level course in the subject could tell you that. The fact is Hitler’s platform was blatantly and verifiably anti-left at the time.
Unlike BlueSince92, what I wouldn’t do is apply the politics of a foreign country nearly 100 years ago to either political wing today in America. Those of us who can even think slightly critically would all agree with that. What Blue has written is revisionist history based on nothing more than feelings.
Last edited:
Good post! Reality is pretty far the opposite of what he said.
There are some comments here that I completely disagree with and, by the way, I identify myself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I wish the Reagan republican party still existed but it doesn't. However, I do agree that social media has changed and influenced a lot of negativity and division. Events in one area far from where you live make is feel like it is your own backyard with social media.
The way I understand it, the terms “Right” and “Left” as we know them originated during the French Revolution. It is based on what side of the chamber they sat on in the Legislative Assembly.
Those on the Right were Conservatives and wanted to restore the monarchy in France. Those on the Left were Radicals who wanted to kill the king and eliminate nobility so everyone would be equal.
In most cases, a political spectrum has the left side wanting more freedom or liberty (thus the term Liberal) and the right side wanting more control or order (the way things use to be or Conservatives).
If you lean too far left and have ultimate freedom and no rules, you have anarchy.
If you lean too far right and give government total control, you have slavery.
There needs to be a balance, a little liberty and a little order.
In the United States, the spectrum should be based on the Constitution. The Left wants a loose interpretation of the Constitution and let it change with the times. The Right wants a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
So liberals tend to want a loose interpretation of the Constitution as a living flexible document that changes with the times.
Conservatives tend to want a strict interpretation of the Constitution (it means what it says and nothing else) and want to preserve the government the founding fathers set up and keep it virtually the same.
I know someone who thinks they are smarter than me will come along and correct me on all this, but that’s fine, this is just what I have learned as a history student/teacher for the better part of my 47 years. Believe what you want, this is how the history books teach it, at least the ones I have read. I am sure you can pull some article from the Internet that says the opposite or whatever. Every answer to every question seems to have three or four different answers out there, so TIFWIW.
Those on the Right were Conservatives and wanted to restore the monarchy in France. Those on the Left were Radicals who wanted to kill the king and eliminate nobility so everyone would be equal.
In most cases, a political spectrum has the left side wanting more freedom or liberty (thus the term Liberal) and the right side wanting more control or order (the way things use to be or Conservatives).
If you lean too far left and have ultimate freedom and no rules, you have anarchy.
If you lean too far right and give government total control, you have slavery.
There needs to be a balance, a little liberty and a little order.
In the United States, the spectrum should be based on the Constitution. The Left wants a loose interpretation of the Constitution and let it change with the times. The Right wants a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
So liberals tend to want a loose interpretation of the Constitution as a living flexible document that changes with the times.
Conservatives tend to want a strict interpretation of the Constitution (it means what it says and nothing else) and want to preserve the government the founding fathers set up and keep it virtually the same.
I know someone who thinks they are smarter than me will come along and correct me on all this, but that’s fine, this is just what I have learned as a history student/teacher for the better part of my 47 years. Believe what you want, this is how the history books teach it, at least the ones I have read. I am sure you can pull some article from the Internet that says the opposite or whatever. Every answer to every question seems to have three or four different answers out there, so TIFWIW.
Last edited:
Fascism (including Nazism) is usually seen as being on the “Right.”
It’s about the state controlling everything in their nation. Heavy on the Order, light on the Liberty.
I agree with you in principle on most topics to do with the conversation, but the demonization of "the fringes" and the countless hours of political propaganda created to discourage principles and values are done so in part to ignore and provide cover for the radical elements of centrist bipartisanship politics. It's this area which has been the cause of our issues in both economic ups and downs, wartime, peacetime, just about anytime.
Political brainwashing that takes place through MSM outlets concerns me more than anything personally. In this thread alone the misunderstandings of a President like Reagan, or Obama, or Trump are alarming, and it essentially means the media has failed the American people and created a giant entertainment simulation in society where the people most serious, thoughtful, and passionate about ideas are discouraged and labeled.
I think the idea that a "strict interpreter" that advocates for the middle ground on the basis of a positive outcome, while well intentioned, has conceded enough ground in 2020 that you're going to be quickly undermanned in the war of ideas plaguing the United States. You know what he said, "Give me Liberty or give me death".
I'd rather die on the hill than live off of it. I would never follow the path of John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, George Bush, or Barack Obama. The "centrist" elements of our leaders are the ugliest.
I see your point there as well. There really is no right answer.
That is why I am both fascinated and appalled by politics.
I follow one leader, and he is holy and perfect.
I believe if we all just followed his teachings, we would be better off.
But like everything else man comes into contact with, his teachings have become distorted and twisted as well.
There are liberal and conservative Christians, LOL!
I guess you walk your path and do the best you can and hope for the best.
Interesting conversation.
I don't think the political philosophy of Hitler can be understood in vague terms. It's largely relative to the time. Hitler despised capitalism and christianity, and to this regard wouldn't have appealed to the American "right", Coupled with the marxist elements it wouldn't make for a very effective "right" in our nation today.
Where this idea has really unfolded from is the modern media and academic side of the political spectrum. The branding of modern "nationalism" (even liberal nationalism or virtuous nationalism) of modern America with the Nazi Socialist Party is why I think these concepts are largely misunderstood.
The idea is that the "right' and "left" are simply relative to the time and place, so trying to categorize Hitler as right or left is just more political natured jabbing. It is my opinion that the left "behaves" in fascist fashion, which is the main concept of what should be learned from Nazi Germany. Retribution, revenge, and hating people for characteristics that are out of their control is something Hitler or Mussolini would nod in support. As is pertains to absolute power, that is most certainly a leftist side of the political coin.
Last edited:
In terms of left and right, the meanings have been confused. In the way back when I was taking poly sci, it was as follows:
On the extreme left was totalitarian regimes. This could come in the form of monarchy, dictatorship, etc. the point is that govt controlled pretty much everything.
The extreme right is anarchy. No government. No laws.
It should be obvious why neither extreme is good. But, yes, both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were extremely far left as both governments had absolute power. The Nazis may have been a tiny bit to the Soviets in that private property was allowed, but only in theory as the government had and often exercised the power to confiscate anything they wanted to, and although there were private businesses, they were under strict government control.
To the right of totalitarian regimes are socialist democracies, which can vary widely on the continuum, but are all left of center.
Moving from the left of anarchy is libertarianism. Left of that, you have Republicans, and left of that you have Democrats. All have been right of center, but both Republicans and Democrats have been shifting left. Libertarians have been inconsequential since they neither have nor seek power.
On the extreme left was totalitarian regimes. This could come in the form of monarchy, dictatorship, etc. the point is that govt controlled pretty much everything.
The extreme right is anarchy. No government. No laws.
It should be obvious why neither extreme is good. But, yes, both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were extremely far left as both governments had absolute power. The Nazis may have been a tiny bit to the Soviets in that private property was allowed, but only in theory as the government had and often exercised the power to confiscate anything they wanted to, and although there were private businesses, they were under strict government control.
To the right of totalitarian regimes are socialist democracies, which can vary widely on the continuum, but are all left of center.
Moving from the left of anarchy is libertarianism. Left of that, you have Republicans, and left of that you have Democrats. All have been right of center, but both Republicans and Democrats have been shifting left. Libertarians have been inconsequential since they neither have nor seek power.
IMHO trying to ascribe any kind of rational political thought to Hitler and the Nazis is misguided. At some point real human actions take hold and the realm of political thought is abandoned.
Hitler was a megalomaniacal, sociopathic, psychotic, sexually deviant aberration of humanity. Any political window dressing does a gross disservice to any true political ideology and the actual, factual events of history. Trying to calibrate any kind of policy in today’s world by using “what did Hitler think” as a guide post is invalid.
The Nazi’s weren’t far “left” or far “right”. They were animals who used political labels and the vulnerability of the German people after WWI to conduct the most brutal campaign against humanity the modern world has ever seen.
Many people disagree about many topics in our world today. One topic I hope any decent person, regardless of who they vote for, can agree upon is that anyone who uses Nazi symbolism, language, or who espouses any philosophy that in any way, shape or form pays homage to Hitler or the Nazi party in today’s world should be removed from society.
Hitler was a megalomaniacal, sociopathic, psychotic, sexually deviant aberration of humanity. Any political window dressing does a gross disservice to any true political ideology and the actual, factual events of history. Trying to calibrate any kind of policy in today’s world by using “what did Hitler think” as a guide post is invalid.
The Nazi’s weren’t far “left” or far “right”. They were animals who used political labels and the vulnerability of the German people after WWI to conduct the most brutal campaign against humanity the modern world has ever seen.
Many people disagree about many topics in our world today. One topic I hope any decent person, regardless of who they vote for, can agree upon is that anyone who uses Nazi symbolism, language, or who espouses any philosophy that in any way, shape or form pays homage to Hitler or the Nazi party in today’s world should be removed from society.
That is how it was taught in college over 30 years ago, and it makes perfect sense to me. If it was flipped and everyone agreed that would work too. It just doesn’t work if we all assign different meanings to terms.
When I hear people in this century discuss right and left, it seems like people refer to the right as intolerance to race, but racial attitudes are both outside and throughout the political spectrum. You can have a racists communist or a racist anarchist.
A separate point is that in theory, any system of government could work quite nicely. If we were all perfect, anarchy could work very well. If a king was wise, benevolent, and moral, and if his subjects were loyal, virtuous and industrious, that would work also.
Communism could work if there was no corruption at any level and people were willing to work harder for less reward.
Human nature being what it is, I think the system we have yields the best results. It’s not perfect, but it’s pretty good. I just fear that we are letting it slip away.
In modern America among those who haven’t studied history they are indeed often seen that way. But it’s a very grave mistake. It’s one I am aware of and was purposefully correcting. Fredmanthecatfan also did a good job of describing the reality in this thread.
The Nazis were absolutely very far left and Hitler largely modeled his tactics on those of the American Democrat Party of his day. This is exactly why they say those who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it.
Everything you have said in this thread is completely spot on. The difficulty is that left-wing propaganda claims left-wing tactics and left-wing dynasties are really characteristically right-wing. That’s very advantageous for them.
Hitler modeled his behavior on fulfilling the sick deprivations of his own rotted brain. If you’re claiming that any politician in the US Congress, the Executive, or Judicial branch of the US govt is anything akin to Hitler, then you’re the one who is forgetting history.
I am claiming what I already said quite clearly, which is very well supported by documentary history. I’m not interested in subjective debates.
I think we all agree that Hitler was terrible horrible and worse.
He kind of looks like Coach K.
He kind of looks like Coach K.
