Differentiation in a context of replication. If we are so native to that replication that we cannot anticipate any differentiation in it, and yet differentiation does indeed occur, we may recognize that differentiation as the final term of that replication, and so, if only intuitively, grasp it as the genesis even of the language of that replication. The world only changes in this way. That is why we usually see this as nostalgia for a lost time. But only natives to that ethos, current or lost in time, can recognize that genesis, because only natives are sufficiently party to it to know the differentiation as the final term of the rigor of replication. That is why the stranger is not capable of being part of our knowing who we are. But this exoterica can either be an opportunity for inclusion or a means of exclusion by which we are prevented from recognizing our own part in the differentiation and therefore in the genesis of the terms of replication. This is why racism is so potently conservative, it seals us from knowing who we are in any active sense, and only as the replication of preexisting forms. This is how some gain power over others. And this is why I keep saying that the role of government is, first and foremost, to assure social forms do not become the means of this enthrenchment of power of some over others, and that ethos must be only inclusive. And, the more I think this through the more convincing it becomes as the founding principle, not only of all social forms, but of matter and temporality itself. A little study of the behavior of photons supports this. And the principle of rigorous difference also explains why the all too human is just a truncated form of the most virtuous mode of humanness. And it also argues for a more serious review of that more virtuous form of humanity as strongly informative evidence of the nature of time and matter, and of logical form and semantic content.
With all the frenzy of the past weeks, perhaps the Republicans will let down their guard a bit and reveal themselves as the racists they have been becoming ever since Nixon. The Democrats, on the other hand, are so ensnared in the fabric of the ethos of exclusion that they can only be counteractive and so can seem even more reactionary, only reactive, than those who set the weave.

身份政治。这似乎是另一种说法:我需要一个团体，我可以舒适而自信地属于它，它支持和鼓励像我这样的人的兴趣。因为如果一个人感到孤独和被主流疏远，他就必须在主流之外寻求肯定。本我政治是另一种认识群体之间文化顽固性的方式，无论这是因为种族刻板印象/偏见;社会经济不平等;宗教仇恨或任何其他因素的组合可能会导致人们之间的分裂，如果他们能够克服自己的恐惧，他们可能会相处得很好。本我政治，伴随着它所有的善意和固有的弱点，只会造成分裂。当我们把努力和理解的领域缩小到美国vs他们时，我们就默认了恐惧已经赢得了胜利。可悲的是，我们当中有些人不会有其他的方式。我注意到，恐惧是这个等式中的一个公分母。 But there are so many other drivers, that to say fear is the prime motivation is an over simplification of a much bigger problem. You knew that.
Neuman

The only thing we have to fear is..., conventional wisdom?
历史上任何政体所犯的最大错误就是支持一个候选人，而认为他说的不是他的本意。在《星际迷航》电影《回家的旅程》中，有这样一个场景:斯波克和柯克乘坐公共汽车穿越20世纪70年代的旧金山。在他们对面的公交车上，一个“光头党”在大声播放“录音机”，以至于他们无法进行讨论。“我恨你，我斥责你，我也恨你!”当要求“光头党”(实际上，他戴着一个莫霍克发型)把声音调大时，斯波克伸出手来，用瓦肯神经捏了一下。一阵沉默，其他骑手鼓掌。但我更认为，特朗普现象把美国人分成了两派，一派是支持那个混蛋，另一派则是支持他的其他支持者。我们将在11月看到。
事实上，少数民族之间相处得很好，除非在某些方面相互对立。但在社会的各个层面都是如此。最荒谬的形式是自由意志主义者。这个群体拒绝看到，事实上是武断地否认，每一个个人行动都创造了一个政体。如果这种政体建立了相互对立的社会分裂，那么再多的身份政治，无论是对不可剥夺的个人权利的主张，还是对“传统价值”的主张，都无法通过排斥来解决社会定义的逻辑不一致性。要知道，是南方联盟坚持要捍卫自己的“生活方式”。我们确实忘记了，这种“生活方式”包含了一种要求，即使是自由州也会推行奴隶制。《逃奴法案》甚至要求北方废奴主义者应征入伍，以寻找“逃奴”。正是这种要求，而不是奴隶制本身，使国家陷入内战。当“身份政治”跨越种族和社会分歧，要求一个群体服从另一个群体，声称一个群体的自由和权利意味着另一个群体的服从时，那么是时候降低音量了。

I understand the meaning of identity politics, within the context of the present blog posting. However, with the current current of things in this 2016 presidential season, one might ask whether the disarray over Mr. Trump is another facet of ID politics altogether. Mainstream Republicans are clearly befuddled by his resilience. Democrats, likewise. It seems as though the only people who are gleefully supportive of the Trump phenomenon are those who were "as mad as hell and not going to take it anymore"...everyone else is looking for some way to de-rail the train, even if that means a Republicans for Clinton movement (which appears to be gaining traction). Everyone is saying he is unfit to be president. And, Clinton has been called more qualified than Obama, or Bill, or anyone else (BHO said so himself). If it weren't so important, it would be funny. As it is, it is mostly ironic. I do not know if this can get any uglier. Friends in Canada, Latin America and Europe are laughing. A lot.
One of the last things the venerable Ted Cruz said was: vote your conscience. We might now ask him: well, Ted, just how do we do that? How, indeed.
Neuman

Whose world is this? The world changes, but if our part in this change is to recognize it we suspect we are not part of it and if our part in it is to bring it about we suspect those who recognize it. It is a classic antinomy. Trump just uses this. It's Bleeding Kansas all over again. Some Americans appreciate other Americans being offended. Some Americans suppose that when other Americans demand the same promise of rights they are really demanding "special treatment". When change in the world occurs there is always a suspicion that some do and some only suffer it. As I said, a classic antinomy.

Most government agencies are more efficient than their private sector versions. Government is mired in politics, not bureaucracy. There's more paperwork in buying a car or home than in doing taxes, just as an example. It's a bit impertinent to foreclose the subject of capitalism. Capitalism is the whole point. It is simply feudalism by another name, on the basis of capital 'title' instead of land 'title'. But there certainly is no good reason to take charity on face value. People who "do good" generally get a pass. But if you remember that, even where a tax deduction is not parlayed into a sneaky profit source, much of the "donation" comes from the public, and the public should therefore have a right to revue and regulate how and on what that "charity" is spent. It is all too easy to forget the fundamental question, whose money is it, really? Just because the law turns a blind eye on how obscene profits are generated doesn't mean they are well earned. Very useful post and i really like your work! thanks a lot or sharing! Android APK Download apkdom Love fun advises ideas lovematchfun join now. Pokemon Go Gym Battle Simulator, Evolution Calculator, IV calculator CP, Pokemon Go Map Locations pokevolver The Best Prank Apps, jokes and shocking Games for Android. prankyapps electric screen. Free Android APK download softlot. Top Best advices, howto, movies, games, top10, reviews topbestis. Gift Ideas and advices giftspilot gifts for her and kids. Cheers! Android app games APK downloader Download Fake GPS Pro Apk. best safe APK downloader free download server Get Pokemon GO APK apk file. ;

The identity thing is sliding into The Twilight Zone, or maybe just another kind of black hole. Let me illustrate:

Virginia's governor is up to his eyeballs in hot water and shoe polish. He did a bad, bad thing in 1984. Seems he was photographed, in blackface, and the photo was published in his med school yearbook or some such official tome. Legislators, of all stripes and colorations are demanding he resign. But, wait a minute here. Something doesn't quite add up. If the photo was so offensive, why was it allowed in the school's book? In 1984? Surely, at that place in time, such an offensive photo would have been rejected? A friend of mine was in a minstrel show, in or about 1960. He sang one song. In blackface. No white circles. There was never an uproar about that. So, let's look at the whole picture and cut the knee-jerk moralizing. The governor of Virginia says he will not resign. If I were in his shoes, I would not either.