Comments by "KesArt" (@kesart8378) on "The Ring of Fire" channel.

  1. 74
  2. 30
  3. 15
  4. 12
  5. 9
  6. 9
  7. 7
  8. 6
  9. 6
  10. 5
  11. 5
  12. 5
  13. 5
  14. 4
  15. 4
  16. 4
  17. 4
  18. 4
  19. 4
  20. 4
  21. 4
  22. 4
  23. 4
  24. 3
  25. 3
  26. 3
  27. 3
  28. 3
  29. 3
  30. 3
  31. 3
  32. Depression, by itself, is not synonymous with a failure of one's critical faculties. Many adults who do suffer from depression still manage to maintain their dignity, maturity and their ability to accept disappointment and frustration without flying into a rage at every additional perceived slight, or imagined wrong. Unfortunately, people who place their faith in fables and insupportable narratives will suffer grave disappointment when said myths and fictive narratives crumble. In an epoch in which change occurs at a rate far more rapid than of previous ages, people can experience a not unreasonable sense of insecurity. And an age of anxiety provides fertile ground for a demagogue. Trump, and his minions, recognized the vast reservoir of flammable white male grievance and sense of victimhood--and its concomitant anxiety over the predicted coming diminution of White Christian male hegemony--out in America and they gleefully tossed a match upon it. Trump did not create "the rage on the right"--which January sixth showed the entire world was not a pathology solely the province of rural, undereducated Whites--but he supercharged it. But before Trump's normalizing of incivility and aggressivity towards one's opponents came his attack upon facts, upon essential American institutions, such as the free press, the intelligence services, and the "liberal judiciary," as well as uponTruth itself. And once you can convince your disciples that all their worries and disappointments spring not--even part--from themselves, but from a network of formerly trusted Judases now revealed to have been the source of their woes all along...that can prove quite frightening and depressing...unless you provide a saviour, a bringer of the REAL TRUTH, someone who will convince the fretful, fearful masses not to place their faith in their own deceiving eyes and ears, but in him. Again, this willingness of those on the American right to embrace an autocrat evolved over time; it did not start with Trump. And the erosion of the American educational system, the rise of the Internet, the decline of traditional, formerly trusted sources of information, the slide into a post-textual/post-literate age did not happen overnight. But Republicans found in Donald Trump the perfect avatar with which to capitalize upon the racism, xenophobia, "replacement theory" fears, misogyny, and degraded powers of discernment that led to an inability to recognize the real sources of America's problems, and a pronounced exuberance in welcoming the "Chosen One" with his crusade intent on overturning comity, traditions, decorousness, even established laws and time-honoured policies all to dismantle American institutions--indeed, democracy, itself--in order to keep real the fantasy of returning to that Great America, Again, that whitewashed, heavily edited, ahistorical version still alive in the minds of true believers. Yes, so when your "Chosen One" falls from power, through treachery (read: "rigged elections"), just as he had predicted--"One of you will betray me...the one who dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me."--do you not--as a faithful disciple--have the right to grieve/be depressed, and, post-bereavement period, seek vengeance. " You have to fight like hell or you won't have a country anymore " And when one legal attempt to overturn the election after another fails, and your legal crusaders-Lin Wood, Rudy Giuliani, Sydney Powell- labour under ridicule, sanctions and lawsuits, and the holy audit of Maricopa County has yet to yield the desired results after all this time, , and even the "patriotic" attack upon the Capitol failed to achieve its intended ends, anger grows and depression deepens, depression and anger deepened by the radical-liberal-socialist cabal trying to usurp your "rights" as a parent with mask mandates, and vaccination requirements. And you'll be damned if you will let THEM make you feel powerless. (And damn this pandemic that don't want to call it quits--though I'm sure not getting any DNA altering vaccine, I just want to return to life as it was pre-COVID.) So I'm going to plant my flag at the school board meeting so those fascist board members--and anyone who sees the resulting video, will know just how angry and tired (read: depressed) I truly am.
    3
  33. 3
  34. 3
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2
  51. 2
  52. 2
  53. 2
  54. 2
  55. 2
  56. 2
  57. 2
  58. 2
  59. 2
  60. 1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. 1
  76. 1
  77. 1
  78. 1
  79. 1
  80. 1
  81. 1
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. 1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. The Florida legislature, with the blessing of Governor DeSantis, enacted legislation that allows citizens to use their motor vehicles to mow down protesters if they feel threatened by said protesters. Now given that this new law intends to address the traffic-jamming racial justice protests that occurred in some American cities during the summer of 2020, I assume that DeSantis and his Republican colleagues would be nonplussed were citizens to exercise their newly granted rights to commit vehicular assault against the "trucker freedom convoy"...unless a convoy solely compromising drivers of colour were to appear. Naturally, Florida cannot claim sole ownership of this endorsement of right wing terrorism: Several other Republican-dominated legislatures-- such as those in the states of Iowa and Oklahoma--have enacted similar laws, laws that, essentially criminalize protest and absolve those who engage in "crowd control" with their vehicles. Estimates place the number of vehicular assaults/rammings, during the post George Floyd murder protests, at greater than one hundred and possibly as high as one hundred and forty. And while a small percentage of such assaults were committed by police officers, the prosecutorial arm of American law enforcement has shown no great interest in pursuing those who committed such attacks, with just less than forty percent of such crimes resulting in prosecution. The "arc of the moral universe" is indeed long, but such pro-terrorism legislation makes one wonder if said arc does always "bend toward justice." https://www.vice.com/en/article/88n95a/florida-anti-rioting-law-will-make-it-much-easier-to-run-over-protesters-with-cars https://www.businessinsider.in/policy/news/a-boston-globe-investigation-found-cars-have-rammed-into-protests-at-least-139-times-since-george-floyds-death/articleshow/87447427.cms
    1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. @Bill Beaton Please accept my apologies for the tardiness of my reply. Family responsibilities must, of a necessity, take priority...But I do feel compelled to answer your comment out of respect for your interest (as evidenced by the fact that you took time to reply). But to do so I must copy and past your previous statement in order to discuss it. an action I hope you will not find objectionable. Your opening remark, "As a well-educated and adequately intelligence gifted person, it’s amazing..." sets things off on a difficult path: Clearly you intend to reference yourself in the clause, "As a well-educated and adequately intelligence gifted person..." yet you follow that clause with the word, "it's." Given that the subject of said clause is you, the pronoun "I" must follow the modifying clause. Thus, it should read, "As a well-educated and adequately intelligence gifted person, I find it amazing..." However, the phrase, "adequately intelligence gifted person," is fraught with problems: Everyone possesses intelligence. One might be "gifted with above average intelligence, or one might be designated as "gifted" (i.e.: of above average intelligence, or possessed of an above average I.Q.), but one may not be "intelligence gifted." Furthermore, while the term "gifted" signifies an intelligence above average the adverb, "adequately," stands in direct contrast: Adequately--meaning performing sufficient to the task, but no more--cannot reside in the same category as "gifted," a term used by educators to describe those whose I.Q. registers above 115 (as measured by such widely used testing protocols as the Stanford-Binet and/or Wechsler scales). Therefore, the phrase, "adequately intelligence gifted," presents an oxymoron and seems a bit self-condemnatory (i.e.; damning with faint praise). Thus, you might choose to write, "As a well-educated and intellectually competent person, I find it amazing..." or, "As a well-educated person possessed of an above average intellect, I find it amazing..." (The latter may seem a bit too much like "blowing one's own horn," or a bit of braggadocio, but at least it would make sense grammatically.) As for the passage, "...amazing that CINOs (Christian {should be plural, as in "Christians," since "CINOs" is plural} in Name Only) are incapable of allowing any verifiable form of truth and fact to ever pass their lips," it succeeds as gross generalization and hyperbole given that you cannot provide any verification--which both truth and fact require--to support such a sweeping claim. Besides, unless you wish to assert that "CINOs" entirely lack the capacity to distinguish between truth and fiction, which demands a psychiatrist's diagnostic ability, then you are left condemning an enormous cohort as truly mendacious, habitual liars who can distinguish truth from lies, but choose not to. And that is a bridge too far, an overstatement too grand. Additionally, the statement that, "NewsOne’s existence is defacto an extremely strong argument of either abolishing freedom of religion..." leaves me puzzled: NewsOne began, and continues, as an online news organ intended for Black Americans. Such a gaffe--misspeaking typographically--weakens your thesis considerably for it raises the question: "If you can get such an important detail wrong, what else is faulty in your presentation?" (Though the vast majority of YouTube commenters clearly lack any journalistic background, fact-checking and proofreading still matter, particularly if one hopes to convince others of one's point of view.) (Do consider reviewing the meaning of "de facto," for its use in the copied passage only diminishes your argument further given the inappropriate adjectival use of the phrase, and the muddled sentence leaves unclear whether you meant "de facto" to modify the word, "existence." or the phrase, "an extremely strong argument.." In either case, "de facto" is inappropriate.) How does the existence of what you assumedly consider a far less than truthful, secular news outlet amount to a "...strong argument of either abolishing freedom of religion..."? And how does an American come to propose the abolition of one of the core tenets of the American republic: freedom of religion--particularly on such an exceedingly slim argument? My apologies, but I'm a bit knackered, so I will have to conclude by asking if the phrase, "...otherwise standard responses to situations which should otherwise ignore any related belief systems," makes any sense when read aloud? How can one ignore "...any related belief systems," for the fact that such systems are "related" renders them worth consideration? Such wordy reasoning may seem impressive if only a cursory scan occurs. But further examination--which seems appropriate given the gravity of the situation under consideration--reveals a sentence crammed brimful with words that don't track, that leave a whole that is less than the sum of its parts. Do forgive me if the above seems overly pedantic and possibly patronizing. As a retired professor (and published author), I find it difficult not to slip into old habits: When I sense that someone sincerely wishes to make a heartfelt statement--and not indulge in throwaway snark, or trolling--but has clearly missed the mark in communicating their concepts, I feel compelled to comment. I did not mean this to evolve into a dissertation, and I most certainly did not intend to give offence. Rather, my hope is that you will read your writing aloud before posting/publishing, and that you will ask yourself, "Would this make sense to that other with whom I wish to communicate?" Cheers, mate.
    1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1