I have quietly blocked some distant relations (and I'm pretty sure I've been quietly blocked by some liberal friends). Sometimes it's for inanities I don't want cropping up on my wall (like obsessions over TV shows), but more often it's political.

I don't mind disagreement. I just find most liberals incapable of debate without ascribing malicious motives or becoming personally offended, which is always a sign they're losing. Facebook =/= Ricochet. Or is it, Ricochet > Facebook?

Only a couple times have I been openly, theatrically unfriended.

I love the "I don't like to talk politics" conceit periodically interspersed among all the political posts. Cracks me up.

I've backed waaaaaay off of Facebook since the election. I admit_to using it as a tool to try to persuade by posting the most elegant and/or humorous arguments I could find (VDH, Mark Steyn, some Ricochet contributions), so I understand if people felt it was_all too much.

It's too much for me now that it's over and the community organizer won... again. The only reason I still have a Facebook account is I'm too lazy to figure out how to get_rid_of_it.

This is my experience with a relation who unfriended me after I made a comment about the evils of abortion and attempts to destroy the family.

If I had said it's evil to put kittens in a bag and drown them in a river, or to pen calves in Rubbermaid kennels to fatten them up for veal, that would have been an acceptable use of the word "evil" I'm guessing. That I applied it to positions he holds was an attack on him personally. End of "friendship."

I regret that, but I won't apologize for speaking the truth just to salve his bruised ego. Ever.

No, really. That's not a choice. I'll vote third party if the GOP nominates Jeb Bush, for example, but I won't stay home. The Left must be opposed, even if it's just a gesture.

I was attempting to answer Cato Rand's puzzlement about my prediction for the next monastic age.

My brother works with and for the Amish 10 or 12 hours a day. He knows them very well and is very good friends with them.

Like any group, there's a lot of variability, but the "mainstream" Amish are successful by every measure. I think their influence helps to hold the barbarism at bay to some extent in some small towns in Ohio, and only for so long. But their own communities retain their integrity because they know what they_believe. 

Just a right-sider here, but I changed my mind about pot legalization, in part, because of Majestyk's post on the subject. My decision was settled by a talking it over with a long-time SoCon friend supporting the Colorado initiative. I only found out later how many other SoCons voted for it.

Ricochet occupies an outsized portion of my intellectual life. But, it has also led to some wonderful friendships and sense of community. It's crack for right wingers. I'm still trying to come up with a term to describe the compulsion to enter into every experience in life looking for a way to get a post out of it. From the mundane:

"I bought some fresh beets at the grocery today determined to make my grandma's pickled beet recipe. That got me thinking about her being a divorcee in the Depression era... and she played piano for the silent movies... there's got to be some political/cultural connection I can make there... "

to the profound:

"That battlefield tour of Gettysburg was incredible and surely has a lesson for us in the battle against the Left."

Oh, wait. I did write that one. ;-)

CR, What do you know about the Amish? Do you know how successful they are commercially? Do you know there are many who are millionaires? Do you think their influence might be felt by nearby non-Amish (English) communities? At least through competition with them, if nothing else?

My hypothesis is that communities (tribes, if you prefer) with a fairly homogeneous set of transcendent principles and ethics by which they live will preserve (although not necessarily spread) the behaviors leading to cultural and individual success: dignified work, industriousness, honesty, rule of law, lasting monogamous marriage in which to rear children, etc. 

I know of some tight-knit Catholic communities which are not quite as off-grid as the Amish, but will also provide outposts of civility (honesty, industriousness, and learning) when all else falls into disarray. 

I don't see small towns thriving without this "monastic" sense about them. Large towns and cities (in Ohio at least) are already toying with social chaos. The barbarians aren't at the gates there. Barbarians R Us. 

I have some experience of this in my own family, unfortunately. They're people who reject the "old" ways.

Video titled, "Dancing with the Tsars." You gotta love that.

Looks like old Steven's reflexes have slowed over the years.  His motor function too.

I'm going to amend my thoughts a little. The very small town I had in mind when I wrote this is in proximity to Amish Country. My sister, Trink, said perhaps the strong agricultural setting has something to do with its advantage. 

Here's my response:

Yes, the agricultural setting, but perhaps even more the Amish influence. And by that I mean commercial success coupled with wholesome living with which the English must in some sense compete.Still, in all though, the lack of anonymity in very small towns and the retention of shame must play a crucial role. It's not just your family you don't want to be ashamed of you, it's your teacher, your pastor, your neighbor -- the whole community. It's tribal in some sense.And from what I've witnessed in X, Y, and the airports these past weeks, I think only the tribe will be able to retain its integrity over the long haul.

We're headed into monastic times -- outposts of civilization -- where ethical monotheism prevails, and all else is savagery. That's_my_prediction.

I've just gotta ask. Are you totally fine with the SCOTUS decision, UF? No concerns on the trajectory here? No writing on the wall to see?

I'm prepared to have it explained to me why my concerns are unfounded. In fact, it might even make my day. But, apparently, I'm not alone in suspecting "the end is near." You'll have to make a pretty strong case to convince me that we're still living under the rule of law rather than the rule of man. 

I'm in agreement with Prager. Sometimes the specialists are too focused on their area of expertise to see the big picture. I think that might be what happened with Roberts_and_Scalia.

Aw, sheesh, if Rubio ended up the GOP candidate, I'd vote for him. What choice do we have?

I just don't think he should be the candidate because he's naive enough to believe a compromise with Chuck Schumer will end favorably to the reasonable desire for immigration to be safe, legal, and rare(ly tolerated when done illegally). Is that okay to say, or does it make me a nativist?

And btw, they're fine with that. Ends justify the means. And besides, only idiots and knuckle-draggers believe in God. They don't think he's an idiot, and they wouldn't have voted for him if they believed he was.

Because he led the opposition to the equivalent of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act while in the Illinois legislature and was one of only fourteen Democrats to vote against BAIPA in the whole of Congress. Even NARAL supported BAIPA, if I recall correctly.

This isn't some easily rationalized position in favor of Orwellian named "reproductive rights." It isn't some tidy abstraction about when life begins or human rights accrue. He advocates killing born babies because their mother's intended to abort them. He advocates it in the cause of preserving abortion rights, no matter how developed and viable the baby. At some point, it requires taking a scissors to the spine of a human being.

No one who believes he will stand before the Ultimate Judge some day can reasonably hold that position. He's either an atheist, or a deeply irrational man. The left-wing atheist Obama supporters I know agree with me and admit his "Christianity" was a feint he used to get elected.

President Obama on Charlie Rose:

"What I can say unequivocally is, if you are a US person, the NSA cannot listen to your phone calls..."

Heh. How smoothly and easily citizenship becomes obscured. Harrumph, "if you are a US citizen..." --> "if you are a US person..." --> "if you are a person in the US..."

Edit: I really should read more Ricochet. H/T to Misthiocracy for beating me to the punch.

And is rapidly being reduced to only that privilege.

Yes, it's a pretty thin thread on which to hang one's hopes. This is what I meant by the SCOTUS playing for the home team. The home team is Leviathan federal government. We, the people, are the disadvantaged visitors in this contest it seems.

Right. I skipped a couple steps of reasoning. 

The Arizona law required proof of citizenship before registering to vote. The Constitution leaves it to the states to determine voter qualifications, although the feds have other authority in the manner of voting. The Supreme Court overturned Arizona's law based on Motor Voter. Therefore, the Supreme Court denied Arizona's criterion for proof of citizenship before voting.

I'm neither a lawyer nor a Constitutional expert. I'm sure there are nuances and details I'm missing. I just think the practical effect of the SCOTUS decision is to concentrate power at the federal level, to deny the state's authority in matters pertaining to voter qualification, and ultimately, serves the interests of Leviathan government by encouraging non-citizens to participate in the political process for the largess while having no stake in the_long_term_interests_of_the_country.