goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: mortons toe on August 26, 2010, 11:21:54 AM
-
or is it a human problem (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100826/D9HR48P80.html)? I thought libs were all for "human rights"??? Pretty much *crickets* on the subject of human trafficking, but they pull out the mega-phones to cry RACISM!!!
-
WTF are you talking about?
-
The one thing that separates this board from the phog.net Politics Board is that Saul isn't making socks to try and blast conservative propaganda everywhere, or banning liberals. Pretty much the only thing though.
-
or is it a human problem (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100826/D9HR48P80.html)? I thought libs were all for "human rights"??? Pretty much *crickets* on the subject of human trafficking, but they pull out the mega-phones to cry RACISM!!!
Interesting that this story received no attention from the MSM, but the story about some nut asking a cab driver if he was a Muslim made the lead story on every news show this morning. I am sure they are scouring the guy's facebook to see if he ever said the words tea and party in the same sentence.
-
WTF are you talking about?
irony
-
or is it a human problem (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100826/D9HR48P80.html)? I thought libs were all for "human rights"??? Pretty much *crickets* on the subject of human trafficking, but they pull out the mega-phones to cry RACISM!!!
Interesting that this story received no attention from the MSM, but the story about some nut asking a cab driver if he was a Muslim made the lead story on every news show this morning. I am sure they are scouring the guy's facebook to see if he ever said the words tea and party in the same sentence.
WTF are you talking about?
-
or is it a human problem (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100826/D9HR48P80.html)? I thought libs were all for "human rights"??? Pretty much *crickets* on the subject of human trafficking, but they pull out the mega-phones to cry RACISM!!!
Interesting that this story received no attention from the MSM, but the story about some nut asking a cab driver if he was a Muslim made the lead story on every news show this morning. I am sure they are scouring the guy's facebook to see if he ever said the words tea and party in the same sentence.
WTF are you talking about?
:flush:
-
agree on the wtf are you talking about. see no connection between the linked story and either racism or human rights/problems. the only connection to human trafficking is tangential.
-
or is it a human problem (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100826/D9HR48P80.html)? I thought libs were all for "human rights"??? Pretty much *crickets* on the subject of human trafficking, but they pull out the mega-phones to cry RACISM!!!
Interesting that this story received no attention from the MSM, but the story about some nut asking a cab driver if he was a Muslim made the lead story on every news show this morning. I am sure they are scouring the guy's facebook to see if he ever said the words tea and party in the same sentence.
WTF are you talking about?
:flush:
It's the number one story on google news and is on the front page of msnbc and cnn. So, WTF are you talking about?
-
or is it a human problem (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100826/D9HR48P80.html)? I thought libs were all for "human rights"??? Pretty much *crickets* on the subject of human trafficking, but they pull out the mega-phones to cry RACISM!!!
Interesting that this story received no attention from the MSM, but the story about some nut asking a cab driver if he was a Muslim made the lead story on every news show this morning. I am sure they are scouring the guy's facebook to see if he ever said the words tea and party in the same sentence.
WTF are you talking about?
:flush:
It's the number one story on google news and is on the front page of msnbc and cnn. So, WTF are you talking about?
Google news is just an aggregate of popular news searches. People are looking for info on this story. It is not on MSNBC.com (2 stories about the cabbie)
CNN has a small heading under latest news, right above shocking cabbie story, but has Glenn Beck pictured as a don't miss story about rewriting history.
-
Mods? While AZCat Shrugged is pretty hilarious, can we rename, "Swear to God, they're all out to get me!"
Don't really care who takes on the "they" and "me" roles...
-
or is it a human problem (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100826/D9HR48P80.html)? I thought libs were all for "human rights"??? Pretty much *crickets* on the subject of human trafficking, but they pull out the mega-phones to cry RACISM!!!
Interesting that this story received no attention from the MSM, but the story about some nut asking a cab driver if he was a Muslim made the lead story on every news show this morning. I am sure they are scouring the guy's facebook to see if he ever said the words tea and party in the same sentence.
WTF are you talking about?
:flush:
It's the number one story on google news and is on the front page of msnbc and cnn. So, WTF are you talking about?
Google news is just an aggregate of popular news searches. People are looking for info on this story. It is not on MSNBC.com (2 stories about the cabbie)
CNN has a small heading under latest news, right above shocking cabbie story, but has Glenn Beck pictured as a don't miss story about rewriting history.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
Top right story in giant letters:
"Survivor: Migrants killed for refusing to be drug assassins "
dumbass.
-
agree on the wtf are you talking about. see no connection between the linked story and either racism or human rights/problems. the only connection to human trafficking is tangential.
ohhh, i dont know... maybe it is the fact that the bloodiest war on the planet is taking at the border of Mexico and the US, and ashholes like your ilk yell racism when some feel that increased border security is needed??? You do realize that these migrants were on their way to the US, right? Maybe if it wasn't so damn easy to get into this country illegally, the central Americans wouldn't be getting massacred in their attempt to enter this country!?! But hey, logic hasn't been a part of you guys' repertoire, sooo...
-
Maybe if it wasn't so damn easy to get into this country illegally, the central Americans wouldn't be getting massacred in their attempt to enter this country!?!
I seems like 72 people getting massacred while trying to get into the country illegally is evidence that it isn't very easy to get into the country illegally. :dunno:
-
Maybe if it wasn't so damn easy to get into this country illegally, the central Americans wouldn't be getting massacred in their attempt to enter this country!?!
I seems like 72 people getting massacred while trying to get into the country illegally is evidence that it isn't very easy to get into the country illegally. :dunno:
Just shows the strong character of the ones that make it here.
-
Maybe if it wasn't so damn easy to get into this country illegally, the central Americans wouldn't be getting massacred in their attempt to enter this country!?!
I seems like 72 people getting massacred while trying to get into the country illegally is evidence that it isn't very easy to get into the country illegally. :dunno:
while you're laughing at that group, you can laugh at the other groups being discovered in mass graves.
-
agree on the wtf are you talking about. see no connection between the linked story and either racism or human rights/problems. the only connection to human trafficking is tangential.
ohhh, i dont know... maybe it is the fact that the bloodiest war on the planet is taking at the border of Mexico and the US, and ashholes like your ilk yell racism when some feel that increased border security is needed??? You do realize that these migrants were on their way to the US, right? Maybe if it wasn't so damn easy to get into this country illegally, the central Americans wouldn't be getting massacred in their attempt to enter this country!?! But hey, logic hasn't been a part of you guys' repertoire, sooo...
Serious logic fail. Followed up by serious irony fail.
I care deeply about these people, but the solution has nothing to do with building some super awesome, impenetrable wall (see: Gaza). The solution has to do with greater numbers of legal immigrants through a streamlined process, the removal of any red tape for any immigrant who graduates from an undergraduate from staying here and actively providing incentives for those who complete a graduate program here. We need more immigration, not less and we need more transparency and clear, hassle-free guidelines. This is a free-market conservative solution and the demagoguery on both sides is sad.
The sad truth is we are unable to solve Mexico's problems and, in fact, we thoughtlessly confound them through our immigration and drug policies.
-
agree on the wtf are you talking about. see no connection between the linked story and either racism or human rights/problems. the only connection to human trafficking is tangential.
ohhh, i dont know... maybe it is the fact that the bloodiest war on the planet is taking at the border of Mexico and the US, and ashholes like your ilk yell racism when some feel that increased border security is needed??? You do realize that these migrants were on their way to the US, right? Maybe if it wasn't so damn easy to get into this country illegally, the central Americans wouldn't be getting massacred in their attempt to enter this country!?! But hey, logic hasn't been a part of you guys' repertoire, sooo...
Serious logic fail. Followed up by serious irony fail.
I care deeply about these people, but the solution has nothing to do with building some super awesome, impenetrable wall (see: Gaza). The solution has to do with greater numbers of legal immigrants through a streamlined process, the removal of any red tape for any immigrant who graduates from an undergraduate from staying here and actively providing incentives for those who complete a graduate program here. We need more immigration, not less and we need more transparency and clear, hassle-free guidelines. This is a free-market conservative solution and the demagoguery on both sides is sad.
The sad truth is we are unable to solve Mexico's problems and, in fact, we thoughtlessly confound them through our immigration and drug policies.
kat kid, you try alot... and I do commend you for it! But your logic is the one that is severely flawed... you are the "bleeding heart" (see "I care deeply for these people) that just doesn't see reality. Notice, I didnt say "a super awesome wall"... personally, I think a wall is a bad idea. Greater numbers of immigrants??? Do you have any idea how backed up our immigration services already are??? Once again, no since of reality, just non-researched babble. The red tape for "foreign" graduates is not that bad... trust me dude, I know wayyyy more "foreign" students than you... I know who are, and we do have a lot of mutual friends.
Question: why do we need more immigration? Not trying to set you up, just want to hear your point.
You provided NOTHING in your post... just a comment about a wall and that we need more legal immigration... once again, NOTHING. There are people being slaughtered in their attempt to make it in to THIS country illegally... where is the UN??? Where are all of the activist that shout about genocide in Africa??? Come on, you "care" about these people, where is your voice??? This is literally hours from YOU (everybody on this board)! Some 23,000 have been murdered in the last four years, and it is taking place at our border. Phoenix is number one or two in the world in kidnapping cases and it is directly related to what is going on at our border.
I rarely bet, but I'd be willing to wager a pretty good sum that potential migrants would think twice about attempting to come here illegally if the border was shut down by our military.
-
agree on the wtf are you talking about. see no connection between the linked story and either racism or human rights/problems. the only connection to human trafficking is tangential.
ohhh, i dont know... maybe it is the fact that the bloodiest war on the planet is taking at the border of Mexico and the US, and ashholes like your ilk yell racism when some feel that increased border security is needed??? You do realize that these migrants were on their way to the US, right? Maybe if it wasn't so damn easy to get into this country illegally, the central Americans wouldn't be getting massacred in their attempt to enter this country!?! But hey, logic hasn't been a part of you guys' repertoire, sooo...
a) i've never yelled racism about illegal immigration, b) these people weren't killed because of their race, nor in relation to any human rights policy. the only relation their death may have had to human trafficking was that due to their illegal status in mexico they may have been targeted as less likely to report any kidnapping/extortion crime (as well as less to be investigated, if/when any such crime came to light. another words, a tangential connection.
hence, the wtf?
it is no longer particularly easy to get into the us, btw. in the time i've been in mexico (about 8 years), the price coyotes charge has more than tripled. and almost no one tries to cross alone these days, whereas it used to be very common. the us has done a great job of making entry into the country a lucrative enterprise dominated by career criminals. there are still some smalltimeish, independent coyotes, but you have to wonder how long they'll last.
the backdoor through canada got closed too. if spain wasn't so hard hit by the recession right now, there might have been some success in rerouting some spanish-speaking immigrants to europe. poor timing/luck.
-
agree on the wtf are you talking about. see no connection between the linked story and either racism or human rights/problems. the only connection to human trafficking is tangential.
ohhh, i dont know... maybe it is the fact that the bloodiest war on the planet is taking at the border of Mexico and the US, and ashholes like your ilk yell racism when some feel that increased border security is needed??? You do realize that these migrants were on their way to the US, right? Maybe if it wasn't so damn easy to get into this country illegally, the central Americans wouldn't be getting massacred in their attempt to enter this country!?! But hey, logic hasn't been a part of you guys' repertoire, sooo...
Serious logic fail. Followed up by serious irony fail.
I care deeply about these people, but the solution has nothing to do with building some super awesome, impenetrable wall (see: Gaza). The solution has to do with greater numbers of legal immigrants through a streamlined process, the removal of any red tape for any immigrant who graduates from an undergraduate from staying here and actively providing incentives for those who complete a graduate program here. We need more immigration, not less and we need more transparency and clear, hassle-free guidelines. This is a free-market conservative solution and the demagoguery on both sides is sad.
The sad truth is we are unable to solve Mexico's problems and, in fact, we thoughtlessly confound them through our immigration and drug policies.
kat kid, you try alot... and I do commend you for it! But your logic is the one that is severely flawed... you are the "bleeding heart" (see "I care deeply for these people) that just doesn't see reality. Notice, I didnt say "a super awesome wall"... personally, I think a wall is a bad idea. Greater numbers of immigrants??? Do you have any idea how backed up our immigration services already are??? Once again, no since of reality, just non-researched babble. The red tape for "foreign" graduates is not that bad... trust me dude, I know wayyyy more "foreign" students than you... I know who are, and we do have a lot of mutual friends.
Question: why do we need more immigration? Not trying to set you up, just want to hear your point.
You provided NOTHING in your post... just a comment about a wall and that we need more legal immigration... once again, NOTHING. There are people being slaughtered in their attempt to make it in to THIS country illegally... where is the UN??? Where are all of the activist that shout about genocide in Africa??? Come on, you "care" about these people, where is your voice??? This is literally hours from YOU (everybody on this board)! Some 23,000 have been murdered in the last four years, and it is taking place at our border. Phoenix is number one or two in the world in kidnapping cases and it is directly related to what is going on at our border.
I rarely bet, but I'd be willing to wager a pretty good sum that potential migrants would think twice about attempting to come here illegally if the border was shut down by our military.
If KK really cared about 'these people' he wouldn't poach their best and brightest and leave the millions of others to fend for themselves in a country thats hopes of development are perpetually squashed by KK's brain drain scheme
-
agree on the wtf are you talking about. see no connection between the linked story and either racism or human rights/problems. the only connection to human trafficking is tangential.
ohhh, i dont know... maybe it is the fact that the bloodiest war on the planet is taking at the border of Mexico and the US, and ashholes like your ilk yell racism when some feel that increased border security is needed??? You do realize that these migrants were on their way to the US, right? Maybe if it wasn't so damn easy to get into this country illegally, the central Americans wouldn't be getting massacred in their attempt to enter this country!?! But hey, logic hasn't been a part of you guys' repertoire, sooo...
Serious logic fail. Followed up by serious irony fail.
I care deeply about these people, but the solution has nothing to do with building some super awesome, impenetrable wall (see: Gaza). The solution has to do with greater numbers of legal immigrants through a streamlined process, the removal of any red tape for any immigrant who graduates from an undergraduate from staying here and actively providing incentives for those who complete a graduate program here. We need more immigration, not less and we need more transparency and clear, hassle-free guidelines. This is a free-market conservative solution and the demagoguery on both sides is sad.
The sad truth is we are unable to solve Mexico's problems and, in fact, we thoughtlessly confound them through our immigration and drug policies.
kat kid, you try alot... and I do commend you for it! But your logic is the one that is severely flawed... you are the "bleeding heart" (see "I care deeply for these people) that just doesn't see reality. Notice, I didnt say "a super awesome wall"... personally, I think a wall is a bad idea. Greater numbers of immigrants??? Do you have any idea how backed up our immigration services already are??? Once again, no since of reality, just non-researched babble. The red tape for "foreign" graduates is not that bad... trust me dude, I know wayyyy more "foreign" students than you... I know who are, and we do have a lot of mutual friends.
Question: why do we need more immigration? Not trying to set you up, just want to hear your point.
You provided NOTHING in your post... just a comment about a wall and that we need more legal immigration... once again, NOTHING. There are people being slaughtered in their attempt to make it in to THIS country illegally... where is the UN??? Where are all of the activist that shout about genocide in Africa??? Come on, you "care" about these people, where is your voice??? This is literally hours from YOU (everybody on this board)! Some 23,000 have been murdered in the last four years, and it is taking place at our border. Phoenix is number one or two in the world in kidnapping cases and it is directly related to what is going on at our border.
I rarely bet, but I'd be willing to wager a pretty good sum that potential migrants would think twice about attempting to come here illegally if the border was shut down by our military.
If KK really cared about 'these people' he wouldn't poach their best and brightest and leave the millions of others to fend for themselves in a country thats hopes of development are perpetually squashed by KK's brain drain scheme
:lol: what?
-
agree on the wtf are you talking about. see no connection between the linked story and either racism or human rights/problems. the only connection to human trafficking is tangential.
ohhh, i dont know... maybe it is the fact that the bloodiest war on the planet is taking at the border of Mexico and the US, and ashholes like your ilk yell racism when some feel that increased border security is needed??? You do realize that these migrants were on their way to the US, right? Maybe if it wasn't so damn easy to get into this country illegally, the central Americans wouldn't be getting massacred in their attempt to enter this country!?! But hey, logic hasn't been a part of you guys' repertoire, sooo...
a) i've never yelled racism about illegal immigration, b) these people weren't killed because of their race, nor in relation to any human rights policy. the only relation their death may have had to human trafficking was that due to their illegal status in mexico they may have been targeted as less likely to report any kidnapping/extortion crime (as well as less to be investigated, if/when any such crime came to light. another words, a tangential connection.
hence, the wtf?
it is no longer particularly easy to get into the us, btw. in the time i've been in mexico (about 8 years), the price coyotes charge has more than tripled. and almost no one tries to cross alone these days, whereas it used to be very common. the us has done a great job of making entry into the country a lucrative enterprise dominated by career criminals. there are still some smalltimeish, independent coyotes, but you have to wonder how long they'll last.
the backdoor through canada got closed too. if spain wasn't so hard hit by the recession right now, there might have been some success in rerouting some spanish-speaking immigrants to europe. poor timing/luck.
I didnt say you did, but you tend to agree on many issues with the ones that do.
close to 10,000 migrants cross the border every day... illegally. Rationalize it however you may...
-
I didnt say you did, but you tend to agree on many issues with the ones that do.
actually, i don't particularly. at least not with very many who post regularly on this subboard. i do tend to lol @ many of the same people, but only because those people are dumbfucks.
close to 10,000 migrants cross the border every day... illegally. Rationalize it however you may...
i didn't rationalize anything. i joined michigancat in wtfing the extremely tenuous connection between the incident you linked and the (mildly incoherent) opinion you obviously were dying to express.
-
ok
-
https://deadspin.com/cavs-open-investigation-after-fan-pesters-patty-mills-w-1823332163
-
Weird bump
-
Seems like morton's toe is the original Pit'r to get outraged over a lack of outrage.
-
I'm saying no it's not racism :Wha: I took it as the fan thinks the buy looks like Doug -E- fresh referencing the movie cool runnings. I could be wrong but if that is the case then I don't see the comment as racist.
-
just a tip but "is it really racism?" probably isn't a question you ever want to ask
-
I think you're ok as long as you accentuate the really properly and you're talking to someone who knows what you're getting at
-
https://www.buzzfeed.com/remysmidt/trust-candidate-white-person-marriage-vickers-cunningham?utm_term=.guodYxyAN#.exJKwbpY4
The GOP is just openly racist now in a way that they never have been before during my lifetime.
-
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/2951905
-
The comments:sdeek:
-
We could learn a lot from them.
I also used to be engaged to an Asian chick (half). I understand the attraction given the horrible neurotic white women produced by western feminism. Glad that marriage never went through. Nothing like a feminine Southern white woman who's proud of who she is. Just have to look in the right place - church.
:horrorsurprise:
-
Those are real people lol
-
It's really no wonder that nazi guy keeps showing up on their campus to speak.
-
Wanting a child to not marry someone from another race is not racist.
:sdeek:
-
I want my grandchildren to look like me!
-
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/2951905
holy crap. plus his rationale for the clause is amazing
A PERSONAL NOTE FROM
VIC CUNNINGHAM
As you can imagine, the recent DMN article has caused much pain for my family and me. I have spent a lifetime in service to my community and church, building a reputation of integrity, and these events truly hurt my heart. I take full responsibility for the terms of the trust my children would have to meet upon marriage to receive an advance from their trust. This trust was set-up during a time of concerned feelings about my brother Bill’s gay lifestyle. My views on interracial marriage have evolved since I set-up the irrevocable trust in 2010, and today I would absolutely remove those conditions if I legally could.
My brother Bill has become very estranged from the rest of the family but not because he is gay, rather because he took extreme advantage of our elderly parents and convinced them to lend him over $500,000 with no intention or ability to repay. He went back repeatedly to our mother until she had given him her last dollar, and even then he maxed out her credit card without her knowledge. His total disrespect of my parents caused them to write him out of their will. It was not until after our Dad died that we found out the magnitude of deceit. It was during this time that Bill asked me for a $250,000 loan. Apparently, I was not a racist then, but am now?
Just a few months ago, he tried to get $45,000 more from Mom, pleading if she didn’t give him money he would lose his house. She refused, as did I as her trustee. After he found out that our mother had written him out of her will, he became even more hateful toward her and our family. My brother is a master manipulator bent on destroying my entire family, as he said he would. Both my other brothers have also cut off all contact with Bill. He has ripped our family apart.
Also brought out in the article was that I freely used the ‘N-word”. The Dallas Morning News chose to attribute these allegations to one person, a good friend of my brother I hardly knew, and last saw in 2006. Her statement is without collaboration. I categorically deny using the “N-word”. I have never, and will never discriminate against anyone based upon race, religion, color, creed, or sexual orientation.
My campaign was told by J.J. Koch that he had this information months ago, presumably from Bill, and was going to use it in the campaign, which he has done at the most politically opportune time for him. J.J. even chased my daughter out of a forum she was leaving just last week, and got in her face and bragged this was coming. This should smack to everyone as political opportunism of the worst kind. All Republicans should question the timing of this exposé. Win at all costs, destroy everyone in your path just to win, is how J.J. Koch and his consultant Matt Langston have run their campaign.
I hope you will stand with me in this election. I am far from perfect, I ask that you forgive my faults, see the good, and fight back against the politics of personal destruction by my opponent.
-
Also the guy's response of "well my gay brother married a black guy and it scared me, my views have changed since then"
-
I'm sure this guy was completely impartial back when he was a judge.
-
:sdeek:
-
I want my grandchildren to look like me!
This is definitely a legit reason for being able to control who your kids have sex with.
-
I want my grandchildren to look like me!
This is definitely a legit reason for being able to control who your kids have sex with.
Now, now. He's only really trying to control who they marry.
-
Now now now, they're just telling the deep Truth. You don't see lobsters marrying crawdads do you?
-
i'd like to see some polling on this issue. i've seen it for how open people are to marrying people of a different race, but i can't recall ever seeing polls on offspring pairings, which isn't quite the same.
-
i'd like to see some polling on this issue. i've seen it for how open people are to marrying people of a different race, but i can't recall ever seeing polls on offspring pairings, which isn't quite the same.
i'd like to see some polling on this issue. i've seen it for how open people are to marrying people of a different race, but i can't recall ever seeing polls on offspring pairings, which isn't quite the same.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.gallup.com%2FGPTB%2FreligValue%2F20040601_2.gif&hash=3786aa3d401e4ddb713779242da8008b6e67e189)
http://news.gallup.com/poll/11836/acceptance-interracial-marriage-record-high.aspx
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.pewresearch.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F3%2F2017%2F05%2F15153148%2FPST_2017.05.15.intermarriage-02-00.png&hash=a9d32fb6016c59cb79de498bf63c7c45fa4e0bd9)
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/05/18/2-public-views-on-intermarriage/pst_2017-05-15-intermarriage-02-00/
The first link is about 14 years old. The second link is from last year.
-
thank you!
pretty big diffs btwn 2003 and current, at least among whites and hispanics. i wonder how much of that is change and how much is question wording.
-
I didn’t hold up my end of the bargain, but I am pro intermarriage. I also think holding ethnic/religious minorities to the same standards as majority is disingenuous, but I do get uncomfortable when my aunt drones on about trying to find a “good Jewish boy” for my cousin. This is especially ironic considering she converted.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I do get uncomfortable when my aunt drones on about trying to find a “good Jewish boy” for my cousin. This is especially ironic considering she converted.
that wouldn't make me uncomfortable at all, but would make me lol as eff.
-
I also think holding ethnic/religious minorities to the same standards as majority is disingenuous
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
why
-
i should let kk respond first, but i'm going to jump his response to assert that a reasonable reading of trumpism (cause or result, doesn't matter) is white americans deciding that they should act as a minority group rather than a majority group.
-
Marrying someone of the same religion makes more sense than race. Because if you have the same religion, it's more likely you have the same beliefs in how you live your life and church-going schedule.
-
And where you're going to hang out after you die.
-
And where you're going to hang out after you die.
iirc, religions (just mainstream christians?, i know mormons, at least, disagree) believe death does them part married couples.
-
And where you're going to hang out after you die.
iirc, religions (just mainstream christians?, i know mormons, at least, disagree) believe death does them part married couples.
Only until they're both dead, right?
-
Only until they're both dead, right?
i don't know. i thought the sacrament was severed upon death, but i don't actually know that.
-
it might be blasphemy to say the sacrament is severed. i should amend that to say the covenant is severed.
-
lutherans believe death does them part. and they're like the nu-catholics so that probably also goes for catholics. unless it was one of the 95 things martin put their asses on blast for.
-
Wanting a child to not marry someone from another race is not racist.
:sdeek:
I'm pretty fascinated how people would rather say stuff like this instead of "there is nothing wrong with being racist." Like, if you're going to go that far why are you afraid of the term racist?
-
lutherans believe death does them part. and they're like the nu-catholics so that probably also goes for catholics. unless it was one of the 95 things martin put their asses on blast for.
Pretty sure this is the case for most Christian denominations. Still, I think most people believe/act as though they will be with their spouse in heaven, regardless of what their doctrine says.
-
Wanting a child to not marry someone from another race is not racist.
:sdeek:
I'm pretty fascinated how people would rather say stuff like this instead of "there is nothing wrong with being racist." Like, if you're going to go that far why are you afraid of the term racist?
These people are just unbelievably stupid. It’s a waste of time to try to rationalize what they say.
-
I love that now that everything has finally progressed, people on this board act like they didn't have grandparents like this.
-
Are you saying you feel compelled to defend the racist things your grandparents say?
-
No, dumbass. You're really trying to bait today. Go back in the libs are going crazy thread and try to continue to defend that dumb b.
-
I love that now that everything has finally progressed, people on this board act like they didn't have grandparents like this.
my grandpa wasn't running for political officei should let kk respond first, but i'm going to jump his response to assert that a reasonable reading of trumpism (cause or result, doesn't matter) is white americans deciding that they should act as a minority group rather than a majority group.
i don't know what you mean. i read KK's comment to say that it's (at least) not as wrong for minority groups to want their children to marry within the race. i don't understand how that's defensible. i could have misunderstood him.
-
I also think holding ethnic/religious minorities to the same standards as majority is disingenuous
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
why
Because the cultural expectations for an Amish person or a Coptic Christian living in Egypt or a Somali immigrant living in western Kansas are going to be drastically different than some suburban Catholic that ends up marrying a mainline Protestant. There are a million reasons why they are different. There are lots of small ethnic/cultural minorities who have a language/ethnic identity/religion at risk of being lost and/or are currently threatened with extinction by force and I would give them quite a bit more latitude than I would a white ID guy from Ohio.
-
There are also lots of marriage expectations that families heap on kids that are not explicitly racist like this guy that started this topic but are obviously sectarian/classist/racist/et al. in practice that our culture looks past all the time so I don't know why someone would claim to be shocked that Lebanese parents mostly don't hope that their sons/daughters marry Felix Rex, but also are sometimes pleasantly surprised when they do!
My grandparents in-law threatened not to come to my wedding because it wasn't Catholic. It all worked out.
-
I also think holding ethnic/religious minorities to the same standards as majority is disingenuous
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
why
Because the cultural expectations for an Amish person or a Coptic Christian living in Egypt or a Somali immigrant living in western Kansas are going to be drastically different than some suburban Catholic that ends up marrying a mainline Protestant. There are a million reasons why they are different. There are lots of small ethnic/cultural minorities who have a language/ethnic identity/religion at risk of being lost and/or are currently threatened with extinction by force and I would give them quite a bit more latitude than I would a white ID guy from Ohio.
It seems to me that going to great lengths to marry within a minority culture or religion might be the best way to ensure its extinction.
-
Mrs Wacky's grandparents were pissed I wasn't Catholic and that we did a destination wedding. When we had the reception back home, we got blessed in the Catholic church to make them feel better about it. I then showed them my devil horns afterwards.
-
I also think holding ethnic/religious minorities to the same standards as majority is disingenuous
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
why
Because the cultural expectations for an Amish person or a Coptic Christian living in Egypt or a Somali immigrant living in western Kansas are going to be drastically different than some suburban Catholic that ends up marrying a mainline Protestant. There are a million reasons why they are different. There are lots of small ethnic/cultural minorities who have a language/ethnic identity/religion at risk of being lost and/or are currently threatened with extinction by force and I would give them quite a bit more latitude than I would a white ID guy from Ohio.
There are also lots of marriage expectations that families heap on kids that are not explicitly racist like this guy that started this topic but are obviously sectarian/classist/racist/et al. in practice that our culture looks past all the time so I don't know why someone would claim to be shocked that Lebanese parents mostly don't hope that their sons/daughters marry Felix Rex, but also are sometimes pleasantly surprised when they do!
My grandparents in-law threatened not to come to my wedding because it wasn't Catholic. It all worked out.
I'm still not sure what you mean.
What makes it okay for a somali immigrant to strongly encourage (demand?) that their children marry within their own culture (in the name of preservation), but it's not okay for the guy who started this? Are you just assigning weight to the perceived underlying motivation ("concern for losing the culture" vs. "racism")?
Maybe because Amish people are more closely tied to their culture (than say a suburban Catholic), so you're willing to excuse actions we'd otherwise condemn?
-
I haven't thought too deeply on the issue but it just feels worse for a white person in the US to make this demand than an ethnic minority due to the history of white people oppressing others and it feels like a play at controlling that power. In a vacuum, yeah, it's just as bad for a black insist their children marry within the race, but that vacuum doesn't exist.
Sys's point on whites feeling and starting to behave as minorities kind of makes sense, but that's not quite what's happening with the white southern judge. Or is it???
-
I think a minority stipulating that his children have to marry another person of the same race to receive any inheritance is just as racist and wrong as a white guy doing it. Is it really that hard to just let people live their lives?
-
I don't like categorical imperatives, but if I had to design one I would basically say any adult should be able to freely marry any other adult. That said, I think nearly everyone experiences some expectations from their relatives about who they marry and they are
"obviously sectarian/classist/racist/et al. in practice that our culture looks past all the time so I don't know why someone would claim to be shocked "
That said, there are obvious differences is again in degree and context. The judge was particularly ham fisted in his bigotry (which is especially galling considering his role as an impartial justice). It is worse to disown your child than to refuse to attend or financially punish them than to simply encourage. The underlying reasons also matter, invoking the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, or Amish ideas about living apart plays better than standard white supremacy.
I don't feel the need to condemn everyone on this, but do you think it is a fair comparison between an Indian family refusing to pay for a wedding with a match chosen by their son and this guy? An Amish disowning their son that leaves the community vs. a white evangelical family disowning their gay son?
I think context matters a lot even for stuff I would condemn for within my own family or social group.
-
To be clear I don't think it is "right" for a Somali family to cut off their son financially in an "apples to apples" comparison to the Texas guy, but I also don't think it is equivalent.
-
I don't like categorical imperatives, but if I had to design one I would basically say any adult should be able to freely marry any other adult. That said, I think nearly everyone experiences some expectations from their relatives about who they marry and they are
"obviously sectarian/classist/racist/et al. in practice that our culture looks past all the time so I don't know why someone would claim to be shocked "
That said, there are obvious differences is again in degree and context. The judge was particularly ham fisted in his bigotry (which is especially galling considering his role as an impartial justice). It is worse to disown your child than to refuse to attend or financially punish them than to simply encourage. The underlying reasons also matter, invoking the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, or Amish ideas about living apart plays better than standard white supremacy.
I don't feel the need to condemn everyone on this, but do you think it is a fair comparison between an Indian family refusing to pay for a wedding with a match chosen by their son and this guy? An Amish disowning their son that leaves the community vs. a white evangelical family disowning their gay son?
I think context matters a lot even for stuff I would condemn for within my own family or social group.
I agree that there are different degrees to which parents influence their kids re. marriage and that some motivations seem more arbitrary than others ("I don't want a black son-in-law" vs. "I want my grandkids to be raised in the jewish faith"). But controlling for the varying motivations (i.e. religious/"cultural"/race) and degrees of influence (i.e. disowning/not attending wedding) I think it carries the same moral weight across religions, cultures and races.
For example, I don't see any compelling difference between (1) a black parent telling their daughter they wouldn't attend her wedding if she married a white person and (2) a white person telling their daughter the wouldn't attend her wedding if she married a black person. Nor do I see a compelling difference between (a) a baptist family telling their son they would disown him if he married a non-baptist and (b) a muslim family telling their son they would disown him if he married a non-baptist.
-
For example, I don't see any compelling difference between (1) a black parent telling their daughter they wouldn't attend her wedding if she married a white person and (2) a white person telling their daughter the wouldn't attend her wedding if she married a black person. Nor do I see a compelling difference between (a) a baptist family telling their son they would disown him if he married a non-baptist and (b) a muslim family telling their son they would disown him if he married a non-baptist.
The context and history matter. What if the black parent had a child shot and killed by a white police officer? What if she grew up in a dangerous housing situation because of racist white landlords? What if a relative was falsely convicted of a crime by an all-white jury? There's plenty of reasons for blacks to distrust whites that aren't necessarily reciprocal because of the history (and presence) of American racism.
And I'd give the muslim family a full pass for disowning a child for marrying a non-baptist. They're just oddly focused.
-
For example, I don't see any compelling difference between (1) a black parent telling their daughter they wouldn't attend her wedding if she married a white person and (2) a white person telling their daughter the wouldn't attend her wedding if she married a black person. Nor do I see a compelling difference between (a) a baptist family telling their son they would disown him if he married a non-baptist and (b) a muslim family telling their son they would disown him if he married a non-baptist.
The context and history matter. What if the black parent had a child shot and killed by a white police officer? What if she grew up in a dangerous housing situation because of racist white landlords? What if a relative was falsely convicted of a crime by an all-white jury? There's plenty of reasons for blacks to distrust whites that aren't necessarily reciprocal because of the history (and presence) of American racism.
And I'd give the muslim family a full pass for disowning a child for marrying a non-baptist. They're just oddly focused.
I think that people regardless of race can always find reasons to distrust groups of other people. Would you feel differently about the judge's trust condition if you learned that his cousin got mugged by a black person when he was young?
In other words, I understand that there are explanations for black people to distrust white people in general, but I don't think black people are justified in distrusting white people in general. I think the reciprocal is also true. I don't think it's justifiable to distrust someone based on their race.
-
I don't like categorical imperatives, but if I had to design one I would basically say any adult should be able to freely marry any other adult. That said, I think nearly everyone experiences some expectations from their relatives about who they marry and they are
"obviously sectarian/classist/racist/et al. in practice that our culture looks past all the time so I don't know why someone would claim to be shocked "
That said, there are obvious differences is again in degree and context. The judge was particularly ham fisted in his bigotry (which is especially galling considering his role as an impartial justice). It is worse to disown your child than to refuse to attend or financially punish them than to simply encourage. The underlying reasons also matter, invoking the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, or Amish ideas about living apart plays better than standard white supremacy.
I don't feel the need to condemn everyone on this, but do you think it is a fair comparison between an Indian family refusing to pay for a wedding with a match chosen by their son and this guy? An Amish disowning their son that leaves the community vs. a white evangelical family disowning their gay son?
I think context matters a lot even for stuff I would condemn for within my own family or social group.
I agree that there are different degrees to which parents influence their kids re. marriage and that some motivations seem more arbitrary than others ("I don't want a black son-in-law" vs. "I want my grandkids to be raised in the jewish faith"). But controlling for the varying motivations (i.e. religious/"cultural"/race) and degrees of influence (i.e. disowning/not attending wedding) I think it carries the same moral weight across religions, cultures and races.
For example, I don't see any compelling difference between (1) a black parent telling their daughter they wouldn't attend her wedding if she married a white person and (2) a white person telling their daughter the wouldn't attend her wedding if she married a black person. Nor do I see a compelling difference between (a) a baptist family telling their son they would disown him if he married a non-baptist and (b) a muslim family telling their son they would disown him if he married a non-baptist.
Again your search for a categorical imperative is what is causing you to reach these conclusions. There are all sorts of very common and understandable variables that complicate this that you want to wish away. Again, I think if you were to design a categorical imperative I don’t think any of us would disagree in theory, but in practice, we are influenced by our history and culture and religion and our relative standing in a larger culture given our own identities and family ties and recognizing that when hiding others seems prudent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
For example, I don't see any compelling difference between (1) a black parent telling their daughter they wouldn't attend her wedding if she married a white person and (2) a white person telling their daughter the wouldn't attend her wedding if she married a black person. Nor do I see a compelling difference between (a) a baptist family telling their son they would disown him if he married a non-baptist and (b) a muslim family telling their son they would disown him if he married a non-baptist.
The context and history matter. What if the black parent had a child shot and killed by a white police officer? What if she grew up in a dangerous housing situation because of racist white landlords? What if a relative was falsely convicted of a crime by an all-white jury? There's plenty of reasons for blacks to distrust whites that aren't necessarily reciprocal because of the history (and presence) of American racism.
And I'd give the muslim family a full pass for disowning a child for marrying a non-baptist. They're just oddly focused.
I think that people regardless of race can always find reasons to distrust groups of other people. Would you feel differently about the judge's trust condition if you learned that his cousin got mugged by a black person when he was young?
In other words, I understand that there are explanations for black people to distrust white people in general, but I don't think black people are justified in distrusting white people in general. I think the reciprocal is also true. I don't think it's justifiable to distrust someone based on their race.
I think the entire weight of our nation’s systemic white American racism against blacks should play more of a role in providing context to black distrust of whites in individuals than white people’s long history of racial discrimination and prejudice against blacks should be excused just because we want some sort of equivalence for everything. If you acknowledge the history, why do you think blacks need to get over it and be held to the same standard as whites who never faced that systemic discrimination and have always had a much higher social standing in our society?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Again your search for a categorical imperative is what is causing you to reach these conclusions. There are all sorts of very common and understandable variables that complicate this that you want to wish away. Again, I think if you were to design a categorical imperative I don’t think any of us would disagree in theory, but in practice, we are influenced by our history and culture and religion and our relative standing in a larger culture given our own identities and family ties and recognizing that when hiding others seems prudent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well wait. You were the one who first started painting in broad brushes when you generally excused the same action depending on one's minority/majority status. Maybe I misunderstood you, but that's how I perceived your original statement.
I of course recognize there are variables and different situations at the individual level. But I don't think it's fair to generally excuse one culture's (regardless of strict minority/majority status) influence over their kids' choice in partners and demonize another's if their actions and underlying motivations are essentially the same.
-
I think discriminating based upon religion is better than discriminating based upon race, but both are pretty appalling. There is no good justification for it, regardless of whether or not the person discriminating is white.
-
For example, I don't see any compelling difference between (1) a black parent telling their daughter they wouldn't attend her wedding if she married a white person and (2) a white person telling their daughter the wouldn't attend her wedding if she married a black person. Nor do I see a compelling difference between (a) a baptist family telling their son they would disown him if he married a non-baptist and (b) a muslim family telling their son they would disown him if he married a non-baptist.
The context and history matter. What if the black parent had a child shot and killed by a white police officer? What if she grew up in a dangerous housing situation because of racist white landlords? What if a relative was falsely convicted of a crime by an all-white jury? There's plenty of reasons for blacks to distrust whites that aren't necessarily reciprocal because of the history (and presence) of American racism.
And I'd give the muslim family a full pass for disowning a child for marrying a non-baptist. They're just oddly focused.
I think that people regardless of race can always find reasons to distrust groups of other people. Would you feel differently about the judge's trust condition if you learned that his cousin got mugged by a black person when he was young?
In other words, I understand that there are explanations for black people to distrust white people in general, but I don't think black people are justified in distrusting white people in general. I think the reciprocal is also true. I don't think it's justifiable to distrust someone based on their race.
Absolutely it is different because US society has accepted things like white slumlords and housing discrimination and cops killing blacks but would never accept blacks mugging people.
Actions of oppression by society vs. an individual crime. Different.
-
Again your search for a categorical imperative is what is causing you to reach these conclusions. There are all sorts of very common and understandable variables that complicate this that you want to wish away. Again, I think if you were to design a categorical imperative I don’t think any of us would disagree in theory, but in practice, we are influenced by our history and culture and religion and our relative standing in a larger culture given our own identities and family ties and recognizing that when hiding others seems prudent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well wait. You were the one who first started painting in broad brushes when you generally excused the same action depending on one's minority/majority status. Maybe I misunderstood you, but that's how I perceived your original statement.
I of course recognize there are variables and different situations at the individual level. But I don't think it's fair to generally excuse one culture's (regardless of strict minority/majority status) influence over their kids' choice in partners and demonize another's if their actions and underlying motivations are essentially the same.
So a white parent has the same latitude in your mind to ask for white grandchildren as an Amish does to have Amish? This is your position?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Again your search for a categorical imperative is what is causing you to reach these conclusions. There are all sorts of very common and understandable variables that complicate this that you want to wish away. Again, I think if you were to design a categorical imperative I don’t think any of us would disagree in theory, but in practice, we are influenced by our history and culture and religion and our relative standing in a larger culture given our own identities and family ties and recognizing that when hiding others seems prudent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well wait. You were the one who first started painting in broad brushes when you generally excused the same action depending on one's minority/majority status. Maybe I misunderstood you, but that's how I perceived your original statement.
I of course recognize there are variables and different situations at the individual level. But I don't think it's fair to generally excuse one culture's (regardless of strict minority/majority status) influence over their kids' choice in partners and demonize another's if their actions and underlying motivations are essentially the same.
I don’t know how many ways I have to say the same thing, what are you confused about?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Again your search for a categorical imperative is what is causing you to reach these conclusions. There are all sorts of very common and understandable variables that complicate this that you want to wish away. Again, I think if you were to design a categorical imperative I don’t think any of us would disagree in theory, but in practice, we are influenced by our history and culture and religion and our relative standing in a larger culture given our own identities and family ties and recognizing that when hiding others seems prudent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well wait. You were the one who first started painting in broad brushes when you generally excused the same action depending on one's minority/majority status. Maybe I misunderstood you, but that's how I perceived your original statement.
I of course recognize there are variables and different situations at the individual level. But I don't think it's fair to generally excuse one culture's (regardless of strict minority/majority status) influence over their kids' choice in partners and demonize another's if their actions and underlying motivations are essentially the same.
So a white parent has the same latitude in your mind to ask for white grandchildren as an Amish does to have Amish? This is your position?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If the white parent and the Amish parent are both good, decent people, then both have no latitude.
-
Again your search for a categorical imperative is what is causing you to reach these conclusions. There are all sorts of very common and understandable variables that complicate this that you want to wish away. Again, I think if you were to design a categorical imperative I don’t think any of us would disagree in theory, but in practice, we are influenced by our history and culture and religion and our relative standing in a larger culture given our own identities and family ties and recognizing that when hiding others seems prudent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well wait. You were the one who first started painting in broad brushes when you generally excused the same action depending on one's minority/majority status. Maybe I misunderstood you, but that's how I perceived your original statement.
I of course recognize there are variables and different situations at the individual level. But I don't think it's fair to generally excuse one culture's (regardless of strict minority/majority status) influence over their kids' choice in partners and demonize another's if their actions and underlying motivations are essentially the same.
So a white parent has the same latitude in your mind to ask for white grandchildren as an Amish does to have Amish? This is your position?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If the white parent and the Amish parent are both good, decent people, then both have no latitude.
who is defining "good" and "decent"? what you find good and decent might not be good and decent to the Amish.
-
Again your search for a categorical imperative is what is causing you to reach these conclusions. There are all sorts of very common and understandable variables that complicate this that you want to wish away. Again, I think if you were to design a categorical imperative I don’t think any of us would disagree in theory, but in practice, we are influenced by our history and culture and religion and our relative standing in a larger culture given our own identities and family ties and recognizing that when hiding others seems prudent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well wait. You were the one who first started painting in broad brushes when you generally excused the same action depending on one's minority/majority status. Maybe I misunderstood you, but that's how I perceived your original statement.
I of course recognize there are variables and different situations at the individual level. But I don't think it's fair to generally excuse one culture's (regardless of strict minority/majority status) influence over their kids' choice in partners and demonize another's if their actions and underlying motivations are essentially the same.
So a white parent has the same latitude in your mind to ask for white grandchildren as an Amish does to have Amish? This is your position?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If the white parent and the Amish parent are both good, decent people, then both have no latitude.
who is defining "good" and "decent"? what you find good and decent might not be good and decent to the Amish.
Yeah, racist pricks certainly define those words differently than I do.
-
I know a lady of Filipino descent (her parents are immigrants) who married a man with Korean parents. The Filipino parents were very much against it because Filipinos don't like Koreans due to their treatment during WWII Japanese occupation when the Koreans were enforcers for Japan. They think of Koreans as brutal, so they were concerned for their daughter.
-
Treating white or Korean people poorly because you have a preconceived notion of them based on the behavior of different white/Korean people is basically the definition of racism.
Although I completely understand KK's point. Whether we realize it or not I think we all feel like racism from whites (especially white men) in America is worse than just about any other form simply because those in power are overwhelmingly white. If we lived in a country where any other race made up 80% of congress, 99.9% of past presidents, and the vast majority of Fortune 500 CEOs, we would (and should) be much more vigilant of their particular brand of racism.
-
Sys's point on whites feeling and starting to behave as minorities kind of makes sense, but that's not quite what's happening with the white southern judge. Or is it???
i don't think so and the data from rage's polls indicate that whites are probably somewhat to hugely more open to have family members marry outside their race now than previously.
i was just taking the opportunity to make a somewhat related observation about voting instead of rough ridin'.
-
btw, i think you guys are barking up the wrong tree with the how poorly a group of people were treated justification for opposition to having family (we should probably just say offspring, no one gives a crap what their aunts or grandfathers are doing) marry outside their group.
i think it's much more about how strongly held a given group identity is, and how divergent that group identity is from the mainstream societal identity. like i wouldn't judge an amish american negatively at all for strongly desiring that their offspring marry another amish american, whereas i would view negatively a black american who only wanted their offspring to marry another black american. but, obviously, that isn't because i think the amish have been treated more harshly in america than black americans.
-
That goes to Mrs. Gooch's point. There are very pragmatic reasons for wanting your kids to marry someone with similar culture / values / religion. Amish obviously falls in that category. Similar with Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim parents IMO. If the parent is concerned about their child's eternal damnation if they fall away from their faith, I think it is much more understandable than a parent who wants to preserve "white values" or whatever else you wanna call it.
-
btw, i think you guys are barking up the wrong tree with the how poorly a group of people were treated justification for opposition to having family (we should probably just say offspring, no one gives a crap what their aunts or grandfathers are doing) marry outside their group.
i think it's much more about how strongly held a given group identity is, and how divergent that group identity is from the mainstream societal identity. like i wouldn't judge an amish american negatively at all for strongly desiring that their offspring marry another amish american, whereas i would view negatively a black american who only wanted their offspring to marry another black american. but, obviously, that isn't because i think the amish have been treated more harshly in america than black americans.
You bring up a great point, it is certainly one factor. But again, if I was living in Garden City in a Somali community I would probably be more strongly ID'ing with my in group and being more suspicious of white people after 3 had plotted a mass murder against my community. Amish have a strong, divergent group ID that is almost inherent. Many times this divergence is fostered on to communities by the majority through coercion and force, this obviously leads to suspicion or outright rejection of the majority in many cases by the minority group.
-
You bring up a great point, it is certainly one factor. But again, if I was living in Garden City in a Somali community I would probably be more strongly ID'ing with my in group and being more suspicious of white people after 3 had plotted a mass murder against my community. Amish have a strong, divergent group ID that is almost inherent. Many times this divergence is fostered on to communities by the majority through coercion and force, this obviously leads to suspicion or outright rejection of the majority in many cases by the minority group.
how persecuted a group is does correlate with how strong their group identity is, somewhat perversely.
-
You bring up a great point, it is certainly one factor. But again, if I was living in Garden City in a Somali community I would probably be more strongly ID'ing with my in group and being more suspicious of white people after 3 had plotted a mass murder against my community. Amish have a strong, divergent group ID that is almost inherent. Many times this divergence is fostered on to communities by the majority through coercion and force, this obviously leads to suspicion or outright rejection of the majority in many cases by the minority group.
how persecuted a group is does correlate with how strong their group identity is, somewhat perversely.
Good points
-
Again your search for a categorical imperative is what is causing you to reach these conclusions. There are all sorts of very common and understandable variables that complicate this that you want to wish away. Again, I think if you were to design a categorical imperative I don’t think any of us would disagree in theory, but in practice, we are influenced by our history and culture and religion and our relative standing in a larger culture given our own identities and family ties and recognizing that when hiding others seems prudent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well wait. You were the one who first started painting in broad brushes when you generally excused the same action depending on one's minority/majority status. Maybe I misunderstood you, but that's how I perceived your original statement.
I of course recognize there are variables and different situations at the individual level. But I don't think it's fair to generally excuse one culture's (regardless of strict minority/majority status) influence over their kids' choice in partners and demonize another's if their actions and underlying motivations are essentially the same.
So a white parent has the same latitude in your mind to ask for white grandchildren as an Amish does to have Amish? This is your position?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not necessarily. I think the motivations underlying religion and race are different. Race seems completely arbitrary to me, whereas the state of a grandchild's soul means something different -- at least it's not arbitrary in my eyes. So I think the amish have the same latitude as a muslim (or Catholic/Jew/Mennonite/Hindu, etc.) in your example.
I think a white parent has the same latitude to ask for white grandchildren as a mexican/middle eastern/black person has to ask for a mexican/middle eastern/black grandchildren. Which is to say, I think requesting that your grandchildren be a certain race is an arbitrary (and mean) thing to ask, regardless of the race.
I think it's bad for society if individuals distrust others based on their race.
-
Again your search for a categorical imperative is what is causing you to reach these conclusions. There are all sorts of very common and understandable variables that complicate this that you want to wish away. Again, I think if you were to design a categorical imperative I don’t think any of us would disagree in theory, but in practice, we are influenced by our history and culture and religion and our relative standing in a larger culture given our own identities and family ties and recognizing that when hiding others seems prudent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well wait. You were the one who first started painting in broad brushes when you generally excused the same action depending on one's minority/majority status. Maybe I misunderstood you, but that's how I perceived your original statement.
I of course recognize there are variables and different situations at the individual level. But I don't think it's fair to generally excuse one culture's (regardless of strict minority/majority status) influence over their kids' choice in partners and demonize another's if their actions and underlying motivations are essentially the same.
So a white parent has the same latitude in your mind to ask for white grandchildren as an Amish does to have Amish? This is your position?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not necessarily. I think the motivations underlying religion and race are different. Race seems completely arbitrary to me, whereas the state of a grandchild's soul means something different -- at least it's not arbitrary in my eyes. So I think the amish have the same latitude as a muslim (or Catholic/Jew/Mennonite/Hindu, etc.) in your example.
I think a white parent has the same latitude to ask for white grandchildren as a mexican/middle eastern/black person has to ask for a mexican/middle eastern/black grandchildren. Which is to say, I think requesting that your grandchildren be a certain race is an arbitrary (and mean) thing to ask, regardless of the race.
I think it's bad for society if individuals distrust others based on their race.
Are you saying "souls" are better excuses to have a preference in marriage than decades of oppression?
-
Not necessarily. I think the motivations underlying religion and race are different. Race seems completely arbitrary to me, whereas the state of a grandchild's soul means something different -- at least it's not arbitrary in my eyes. So I think the amish have the same latitude as a muslim (or Catholic/Jew/Mennonite/Hindu, etc.) in your example.
I think a white parent has the same latitude to ask for white grandchildren as a mexican/middle eastern/black person has to ask for a mexican/middle eastern/black grandchildren. Which is to say, I think requesting that your grandchildren be a certain race is an arbitrary (and mean) thing to ask, regardless of the race.
I think it's bad for society if individuals distrust others based on their race.
Are you saying "souls" are better excuses to have a preference in marriage than decades of oppression?
I think it's more rationale and far less arbitrary to have a preference based on religious beliefs rather than race. Especially with regard to marriage and potential children. I don't think that's contentious. If this judge conditioned the trust based on his kids marrying a methodist (rather than a white person), this isn't a story.
None of this is to say I endorse steering offspring to marry or refrain from marrying a certain religion. I just think the underlying motivations for doing so seem more rational than they do for race.
-
Cool
-
Not necessarily. I think the motivations underlying religion and race are different. Race seems completely arbitrary to me, whereas the state of a grandchild's soul means something different -- at least it's not arbitrary in my eyes. So I think the amish have the same latitude as a muslim (or Catholic/Jew/Mennonite/Hindu, etc.) in your example.
I think a white parent has the same latitude to ask for white grandchildren as a mexican/middle eastern/black person has to ask for a mexican/middle eastern/black grandchildren. Which is to say, I think requesting that your grandchildren be a certain race is an arbitrary (and mean) thing to ask, regardless of the race.
I think it's bad for society if individuals distrust others based on their race.
Are you saying "souls" are better excuses to have a preference in marriage than decades of oppression?
I think it's more rationale and far less arbitrary to have a preference based on religious beliefs rather than race. Especially with regard to marriage and potential children. I don't think that's contentious. If this judge conditioned the trust based on his kids marrying a methodist (rather than a white person), this isn't a story.
None of this is to say I endorse steering offspring to marry or refrain from marrying a certain religion. I just think the underlying motivations for doing so seem more rational than they do for race.
My take is that souls are definitely made up and oppression based on race is definitely real so yeah I have a different opinion over which influence is more rational.
-
Fair enough. If you think religious belief holds no more profound value than "culture," then I think they're basically equatable and are probably as arbitrary as race but i haven't given much thought to the culture issue (as distinct from race/religion).
My take is that it's wrong to base your opinion of somebody on their race. We shouldn't hold people personally responsible for the actions of other people just because they look the same. That's wrong. It may happen, and we may understand why it happens, but it's bad for society that it happens, and perpetuating it or excusing it is bad - regardless of who does it. The ideas that "black people are right to distrust/fear white people" and "white people are right to distrust/fear black people" are both awful.
-
My take is that it's wrong to base your opinion of somebody on their race. We shouldn't hold people personally responsible for the actions of other people just because they look the same. That's wrong. It may happen, and we may understand why it happens, but it's bad for society that it happens, and perpetuating it or excusing it is bad - regardless of who does it. The ideas that "black people are right to distrust/fear white people" and "white people are right to distrust/fear black people" are both awful.
I'm not saying any form of racial or religious preference is "right", I'm just saying it's worse/different when white Americans are demanding their offspring marry white Americans than any other group in the country.
-
I’ll end it like this.
Do you think that the white kid that was raised in a religion from suburban KC just naturally arrived at the most rational viewpoint without your own perspective being influenced by the things we are talking about?
I don’t mean to be reductive, but people are influenced by lots of stuff, culture is powerful. You can simultaneously believe that race is a social construct and that it still has profound effects on people’s lives.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
So we’re taking the results of what is nothing more than a glorified opinion poll and some anecdotes and applying them as straight out and absolute “demands” that certain races make of their offspring and/or other people of their ilk relative to marriage.
Fascinating.
This thread has delivered and outed more than I thought. Some of you are straight out whackadoo who live at the cutting edge of first world “problems”.
-
So we’re taking the results of what is nothing more than a glorified opinion poll and some anecdotes and applying them as straight out and absolute “demands” that certain races make of their offspring and/or other people of their ilk relative to marriage.
Fascinating.
This thread has delivered and outed more than I thought. Some of you are straight out whackadoo who live at the cutting edge of first world “problems”.
No, the debate is about a judge in Texas who is running for public office and put it into his trust that his children only get money if they marry a Caucasian Christian, and whether or not that would be ok if somebody from a different race made the same demand.
-
I’ll end it like this.
Do you think that the white kid that was raised in a religion from suburban KC just naturally arrived at the most rational viewpoint without your own perspective being influenced by the things we are talking about?
I don’t mean to be reductive, but people are influenced by lots of stuff, culture is powerful. You can simultaneously believe that race is a social construct and that it still has profound effects on people’s lives.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I just don't see the motive as all that relevant. You can't be a decent person to people of other races or religions if you feel they are not good enough to marry your offspring, and that creates problems, regardless of your reason for hating them.
-
So we’re taking the results of what is nothing more than a glorified opinion poll and some anecdotes and applying them as straight out and absolute “demands” that certain races make of their offspring and/or other people of their ilk relative to marriage.
Fascinating.
This thread has delivered and outed more than I thought. Some of you are straight out whackadoo who live at the cutting edge of first world “problems”.
No, the debate is about a judge in Texas who is running for public office and put it into his trust that his children only get money if they marry a Caucasian Christian, and whether or not that would be ok if somebody from a different race made the same demand.
Then you need to reread the thread a lot closer.
-
I just don't see the motive as all that relevant. You can't be a decent person to people of other races or religions if you feel they are not good enough to marry your offspring, and that creates problems, regardless of your reason for hating them.
I don’t think that’s right at all. I can be friends with a drug addict and really care about them while at the same time doing everything to convince my kid not to marry them.
You don’t have to support every choice someone makes to treat them well, but you can be legitimately concerned that those choices would negatively affect your child if they lived under the same roof with that person.
-
I’ll end it like this.
Do you think that the white kid that was raised in a religion from suburban KC just naturally arrived at the most rational viewpoint without your own perspective being influenced by the things we are talking about?
I don’t mean to be reductive, but people are influenced by lots of stuff, culture is powerful. You can simultaneously believe that race is a social construct and that it still has profound effects on people’s lives.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Of course my own perspective is influenced by all sorts of different things. Everyone's is -- including a black person who has personally experienced some form of oppression. That said, I don't think my race or religion or culture should discount my viewpoint of what's most rational though - at least not more than anyone else's. It goes without saying I can't speak about this from anyone's perspective other than my own.
And I agree that culture is powerful and on an individual level, cultures foster individual viewpoints. But if we're trying to get at what's right or wrong (or at least what's more right or more wrong) and why, and if we agree that classism/sectarianism/racism is wrong then I see i no reason we should call classism/sectarianism/racism wrong regardless of race or culture. Applying different moral rules and weights to different races seems sectarian in and of itself. If white culture causes white people to oppress or distrust black people, then I think that's a horrible problem with white culture. I think the same would be true as applied to black culture.
My take is that it's wrong to base your opinion of somebody on their race. We shouldn't hold people personally responsible for the actions of other people just because they look the same. That's wrong. It may happen, and we may understand why it happens, but it's bad for society that it happens, and perpetuating it or excusing it is bad - regardless of who does it. The ideas that "black people are right to distrust/fear white people" and "white people are right to distrust/fear black people" are both awful.
I'm not saying any form of racial or religious preference is "right", I'm just saying it's worse/different when white Americans are demanding their offspring marry white Americans than any other group in the country.
I'd agree that it's different given the different underlying motivations, but I don't agree that it's worse if white people do it. It's clear we're not going to come to an agreement here because I'm more absolutist (in general) on this than you and tortuga are, but it's been a fun discussion nonetheless.
-
I'd agree that it's different given the different underlying motivations, but I don't agree that it's worse if white people do it. It's clear we're not going to come to an agreement here because I'm more absolutist (in general) on this than you and tortuga are, but it's been a fun discussion nonetheless.
I guess I'd ask why are you such an absolutist on this issue? Do you take similar absolutist stances on matters of the law? Are there any matters of the law where you wouldn't take a similar absolutist stance?
-
I'd agree that it's different given the different underlying motivations, but I don't agree that it's worse if white people do it. It's clear we're not going to come to an agreement here because I'm more absolutist (in general) on this than you and tortuga are, but it's been a fun discussion nonetheless.
I guess I'd ask why are you such an absolutist on this issue? Do you take similar absolutist stances on matters of the law? Are there any matters of the law where you wouldn't take a similar absolutist stance?
Because I think if we're speaking about moral rules they should apply broadly to all people, regardless of race. I don't know any compelling reason they shouldn't.
Do I take similar absolutist stances on matters of the law? My impulse says that I would of course apply laws absolutely across all races. Can you provide a hypothetical of what you mean for me?
-
I'd agree that it's different given the different underlying motivations, but I don't agree that it's worse if white people do it. It's clear we're not going to come to an agreement here because I'm more absolutist (in general) on this than you and tortuga are, but it's been a fun discussion nonetheless.
I guess I'd ask why are you such an absolutist on this issue? Do you take similar absolutist stances on matters of the law? Are there any matters of the law where you wouldn't take a similar absolutist stance?
Because I think if we're speaking about moral rules they should apply broadly to all people, regardless of race. I don't know any compelling reason they shouldn't.
Do I take similar absolutist stances on matters of the law? My impulse says that I would of course apply laws absolutely across all races. Can you provide a hypothetical of what you mean for me?
yeah I worded that poorly - I'm wondering if you're as absolutist on matters that remove race from the equation.
One possible example...We can all agree that punching someone is wrong. But does who is giving and receiving the punch relevant? Is an adult male punching a child as hard as they can just as bad as an adult male punching an adult male as hard as they can? Is an elderly woman punching an adult male as hard as she can just as bad as the reverse?
I'm also thinking of sentencing based on circumstances of the crime, and hate crime laws (which I would assume you're opposed to). Do you think all violations of the same law receive the exact same sentencing, regardless of circumstances?
-
I'd agree that it's different given the different underlying motivations, but I don't agree that it's worse if white people do it. It's clear we're not going to come to an agreement here because I'm more absolutist (in general) on this than you and tortuga are, but it's been a fun discussion nonetheless.
I guess I'd ask why are you such an absolutist on this issue? Do you take similar absolutist stances on matters of the law? Are there any matters of the law where you wouldn't take a similar absolutist stance?
Because I think if we're speaking about moral rules they should apply broadly to all people, regardless of race. I don't know any compelling reason they shouldn't.
Do I take similar absolutist stances on matters of the law? My impulse says that I would of course apply laws absolutely across all races. Can you provide a hypothetical of what you mean for me?
yeah I worded that poorly - I'm wondering if you're as absolutist on matters that remove race from the equation.
One possible example...We can all agree that punching someone is wrong. But does who is giving and receiving the punch relevant? Is an adult male punching a child as hard as they can just as bad as an adult male punching an adult male as hard as they can? Is an elderly woman punching an adult male as hard as she can just as bad as the reverse?
I'm also thinking of sentencing based on circumstances of the crime, and hate crime laws (which I would assume you're opposed to). Do you think all violations of the same law receive the exact same sentencing, regardless of circumstances?
So from a legal perspective, should we hold an elderly woman who hits a man to the same degree of culpability as a man who hits an elderly woman? Well assuming the circumstances of both are equal, yes, I think the law should hold both accountable equally. Now I understand that's not really how it works, practically, but ideally, yes. Old women shouldn't be free to go around battering people just because they're old women.
And I'm not opposed to hate crime laws. I would just apply them equally (i.e. I think a minority should be held equally accountable under the laws if the minority commits a racially motivated crimes). I'm fairly certain that's how it must work already, though I don't know too much about those laws.
-
You can simultaneously believe that race is a social construct and that it still has profound effects on people’s lives.
people really get stupid with the "race is a social construct stuff". most of them fairly obviously have no idea what they are saying biologically, and i don't think they have a very good understanding of it sociologically either.
-
No, the debate is about a judge in Texas who is running for public office and put it into his trust that his children only get money if they marry a Caucasian Christian, and whether or not that would be ok if somebody from a different race made the same demand.
rage, you may be expressing the hardest line on this subject of any poster. does the strength of the expression of the sentiment matter to you, or is it entirely the existence of the sentiment itself?
for example if the judge only expressed a preference that his children marry same-race partners would you judge that identically to him legally disinheriting them if they don't do so?
-
btw, the judge (is he now an ex-judge?) said something about regretting the trust now, but not being able to revoke or amend it. is that actually true (that one can set up a trust that can't be altered by the trust's creator)?
-
So from a legal perspective, should we hold an elderly woman who hits a man to the same degree of culpability as a man who hits an elderly woman? Well assuming the circumstances of both are equal, yes, I think the law should hold both accountable equally. Now I understand that's not really how it works, practically, but ideally, yes.
What are circumstances that might make the situations "unequal" if we agree "punching is wrong"?
-
So from a legal perspective, should we hold an elderly woman who hits a man to the same degree of culpability as a man who hits an elderly woman? Well assuming the circumstances of both are equal, yes, I think the law should hold both accountable equally. Now I understand that's not really how it works, practically, but ideally, yes.
What are circumstances that might make the situations "unequal" if we agree "punching is wrong"?
self defense or some other provocation
-
So from a legal perspective, should we hold an elderly woman who hits a man to the same degree of culpability as a man who hits an elderly woman? Well assuming the circumstances of both are equal, yes, I think the law should hold both accountable equally. Now I understand that's not really how it works, practically, but ideally, yes.
What are circumstances that might make the situations "unequal" if we agree "punching is wrong"?
self defense or some other provocation
are you saying you believe all unprovoked instances of one individual inflicting physical harm on another are equal?
-
btw, the judge (is he now an ex-judge?) said something about regretting the trust now, but not being able to revoke or amend it. is that actually true (that one can set up a trust that can't be altered by the trust's creator)?
It is possible, although I struggle to remember the specifics of it. All I remember is that this is a pretty cool trick that allows you to make yourself judgment proof. If you create a trust that you technically do not control then you can fund it with money earmarked for you even though the money isn't yours legally speaking. So you could go bankrupt and still get that income stream. At least that is my memory of how it could work.
-
So from a legal perspective, should we hold an elderly woman who hits a man to the same degree of culpability as a man who hits an elderly woman? Well assuming the circumstances of both are equal, yes, I think the law should hold both accountable equally. Now I understand that's not really how it works, practically, but ideally, yes.
What are circumstances that might make the situations "unequal" if we agree "punching is wrong"?
self defense or some other provocation
are you saying you believe all unprovoked instances of one individual inflicting physical harm on another are equal?
Errr...Not quite.
I'm saying that all instances where one adult punches another adult without provocation should be treated equally by the law. I think a "battery" is a "battery" regardless of who commits it.
Now depending on the severity of the harm (some statutes define "aggravated battery" as a battery that results in disfigurement or something) it can change. Which is fine by me because that's still blind as to the status of the bad actor.
-
Now depending on the severity of the harm (some statutes define "aggravated battery" as a battery that results in disfigurement or something) it can change. Which is fine by me because that's still blind as to the status of the bad actor.
except it isn't, as two bad actors could both punch as hard as possible and inflict different damage to the same victim. they are committing the same crime with different results for the victim. The more powerful bad actor is more likely to be disfigured and the weaker victims are more likely to be disfigured.
Similarly, discrimination against different groups affects each group differently, as does the group doing the discriminating. The more powerful group discriminating does more damage to the weaker group than vice versa.
-
Now depending on the severity of the harm (some statutes define "aggravated battery" as a battery that results in disfigurement or something) it can change. Which is fine by me because that's still blind as to the status of the bad actor.
except it isn't, as two bad actors could both punch as hard as possible and inflict different damage to the same victim. they are committing the same crime with different results for the victim. The more powerful bad actor is more likely to be disfigured and the weaker victims are more likely to be disfigured.
Similarly, discrimination against different groups affects each group differently, as does the group doing the discriminating. The more powerful group discriminating does more damage to the weaker group than vice versa.
Ok, I think I'm with you: you're saying that we should consider the effect of a bad act (along with actor's intent, i assume) on the victims when assigning moral blame to the actor. That's a reasonable viewpoint and one I think I agree with.
So applying that reasoning to the original situation, we have "white people demanding their kids marry white people inflicts greater damage to minorities than the damage done to white people (and other minorities) when a minority demands their kids marry a member of their race." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's your point.
But I'm still not convinced that there's any meaningful difference between the relative damage done. Why does it cause more harm when a white person demands his daughter marry a white person than when a black person demands his daughter marry a black person?
-
So if an old lady punches a guy but she is weak and causes no damage, then that's ok?
-
Ok, I think I'm with you: you're saying that we should consider the effect of a bad act (along with actor's intent, i assume) on the victims when assigning moral blame to the actor. That's a reasonable viewpoint and one I think I agree with.
So applying that reasoning to the original situation, we have "white people demanding their kids marry white people inflicts greater damage to minorities than the damage done to white people (and other minorities) when a minority demands their kids marry a member of their race." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's your point.
that's pretty much accurate
But I'm still not convinced that there's any meaningful difference between the relative damage done. Why does it cause more harm when a white person demands his daughter marry a white person than when a black person demands his daughter marry a black person?
I could better answer this if you would define what meaningful damage you see being done in the first place.
but I'll still take a stab at it:
I think the biggest reason is difference in power/status. In theory, a healthy adult male could kill an elderly woman with a punch. An elderly woman could not kill a healthy adult male with a punch. (in theory.) The white person is trying to exclude blacks from the privileged status whites enjoy in society - the black person cannot exclude the white person from the same elevated status. Same "crimes", different damages.
-
So if an old lady punches a guy but she is weak and causes no damage, then that's ok?
not OK, but not as bad as an adult male punching a woman and causing severe damage.
-
I'll still take a stab at it:
I think the biggest reason is difference in power/status. In theory, a healthy adult male could kill an elderly woman with a punch. An elderly woman could not kill a healthy adult male with a punch. (in theory.) The white person is trying to exclude blacks from the privileged status whites enjoy in society - the black person cannot exclude the white person from the same elevated status. Same "crimes", different damages.
is the bolded passage supposed to be the goal of a white person who doesn't want their offspring to marry a non-white person? because i don't think that is accurate.
on the punching thing, you seem to be talking past each other. drew1 brought up several posts back that an assault that caused physical damage could be charged as a different crime than an assault that did not and that he thought that was appropriate. there's no need to consider the identity of the assailant or victim when the actual result of the action is available to be used to classify the crime.
-
Ok, I think I'm with you: you're saying that we should consider the effect of a bad act (along with actor's intent, i assume) on the victims when assigning moral blame to the actor. That's a reasonable viewpoint and one I think I agree with.
So applying that reasoning to the original situation, we have "white people demanding their kids marry white people inflicts greater damage to minorities than the damage done to white people (and other minorities) when a minority demands their kids marry a member of their race." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's your point.
that's pretty much accurate
But I'm still not convinced that there's any meaningful difference between the relative damage done. Why does it cause more harm when a white person demands his daughter marry a white person than when a black person demands his daughter marry a black person?
I could better answer this if you would define what meaningful damage you see being done in the first place.
but I'll still take a stab at it:
I think the biggest reason is difference in power/status. In theory, a healthy adult male could kill an elderly woman with a punch. An elderly woman could not kill a healthy adult male with a punch. (in theory.) The white person is trying to exclude blacks from the privileged status whites enjoy in society - the black person cannot exclude the white person from the same elevated status. Same "crimes", different damages.
Well, okay i don't think the white person is trying to exclude blacks from privilege. I think the judge guy is probably uncomfortable around black people and wants grandchildren who look like the rest of his family. Regardless, if this is an outcome oriented analysis that we're engaged in, then we should keep it that way and ignore (at least for the moment) the intentions of the bad actor.
I think the meaningful harm being done by influencing your son or daughter to marry within their race is that it: (1) it's a horrible ultimatum to put on your son/daughter and (2) it promotes the arbitrary division and animosity among races which can manifest in all sorts of bad outcomes (differences in status, violence, etc.). That being the case, I bet we agree that division among races disproportionately affects minorities (as compared with whites), as you implied with your explanation re. status.
However, regarding your status explanation, I think the effects of the two situations are the same. If a black parent prohibits his child from marrying a white person, that effectively prevents the black child from enjoying whatever benefits that may exist from marrying a white person. Which is to say it has the same effect as a white parent who prohibits his child from marrying a black person. The action seems to result in the same bad outcome.
-
So if an old lady punches a guy but she is weak and causes no damage, then that's ok?
not OK, but not as bad as an adult male punching a woman and causing severe damage.
It's ok with me. :dunno:
Well, at least on the spectrum of battery. Could still be harassing depending on the context.
-
drew1 brought up...
dlew12. how embarrassing for me.
-
i assumed you were referring to someone else.
-
I think the meaningful harm being done by influencing your son or daughter to marry within their race is that it: (1) it's a horrible ultimatum to put on your son/daughter and (2) it promotes the arbitrary division and animosity among races which can manifest in all sorts of bad outcomes (differences in status, violence, etc.). That being the case, I bet we agree that division among races disproportionately affects minorities (as compared with whites), as you implied with your explanation re. status.
so, if either 1) your child has no desire to marry a person of a different race, or 2) the parent only expresses a preference but makes clear that the child is free to do as they wish, no harm is caused?
i would actually would argue that it (a person against offspring marrying a person of a different race) usually had no ill effects on either the offspring or society as a whole, but may express, or make concrete, thoughts or opinions that are deleterious to society in some meta sense (even if they do not inflict damage on an individual level).
in fact i think one could generalize what i was arguing yesterday about group identity impacting how objectionable the attitude is into something like: it is less objectionable for someone to oppose marriage heterogeneity due to a desire to perpetuate in their own lineage a shared group identity than it is for someone to oppose marriage heterogeneity due to a belief that members of some other group are substandard partners.
that would hold true for members of a dominant or majority group as well as for members of small, persecuted or highly divergent minority groups, but i suspect, and it would be reasonable to assume, that the former motive is far more prevalent among minority with strong group identities.
-
i assumed you were referring to someone else.
you and michigan are the only two posters talking about this right now. how could i mean someone else?
-
I think the meaningful harm being done by influencing your son or daughter to marry within their race is that it: (1) it's a horrible ultimatum to put on your son/daughter and (2) it promotes the arbitrary division and animosity among races which can manifest in all sorts of bad outcomes (differences in status, violence, etc.). That being the case, I bet we agree that division among races disproportionately affects minorities (as compared with whites), as you implied with your explanation re. status.
so, if either 1) your child has no desire to marry a person of a different race, or 2) the parent only expresses a preference but makes clear that the child is free to do as they wish, no harm is caused?
i would actually would argue that it (a person against offspring marrying a person of a different race) usually had no ill effects on either the offspring or society as a whole, but may express, or make concrete, thoughts or opinions that are deleterious to society in some meta sense (even if they do not inflict damage on an individual level).
I agree with all of this.
in fact i think one could generalize what i was arguing yesterday about group identity impacting how objectionable the attitude is into something like: it is less objectionable for someone to oppose marriage heterogeneity due to a desire to perpetuate in their own lineage a shared group identity than it is for someone to oppose marriage heterogeneity due to a belief that members of some other group are substandard partners.
that would hold true for members of a dominant or majority group as well as for members of small, persecuted or highly divergent minority groups, but i suspect, and it would be reasonable to assume, that the former motive is far more prevalent among minority with strong group identities.
Well, that may be, but you're speaking about intentions and rusty wanted to talk about effects today.
i assumed you were referring to someone else.
you and michigan are the only two posters talking about this right now. how could i mean someone else?
i don't know! you said "drew1"! wrong name AND number smdh
-
No, the debate is about a judge in Texas who is running for public office and put it into his trust that his children only get money if they marry a Caucasian Christian, and whether or not that would be ok if somebody from a different race made the same demand.
rage, you may be expressing the hardest line on this subject of any poster. does the strength of the expression of the sentiment matter to you, or is it entirely the existence of the sentiment itself?
for example if the judge only expressed a preference that his children marry same-race partners would you judge that identically to him legally disinheriting them if they don't do so?
It would be impossible for me to vote for anyone who says anything along the lines of having a preference for the race of whoever their child marries. I can understand having a preference in religion, as long as there isn’t some sort of punishment put in place for going against those wishes, but really it would bother me to know about that, too. For example, if Donald Trump would say he wishes Ivanka wouldn’t have married a Jew, that would be pretty awful, and it’s a double standard to think it wouldn’t still be awful if Donald Trump were Muslim. I do think it demonstrates a greater amount of hate to actually tie an inheritance or disown a child who dares go against those wishes, though.
-
You can’t hold inheritances over millennials heads, they don’t care about money.
-
I agree with the attorneys posting ITT. Most everyone else has undisciplined thought patterns that frustrate me.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
*Dunno if sys is an attorney, but I feel comfy generally agreeing with him too. Smart guy, that sys.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
For example, I don't see any compelling difference between (1) a black parent telling their daughter they wouldn't attend her wedding if she married a white person and (2) a white person telling their daughter the wouldn't attend her wedding if she married a black person. Nor do I see a compelling difference between (a) a baptist family telling their son they would disown him if he married a non-baptist and (b) a muslim family telling their son they would disown him if he married a non-baptist.
The context and history matter. What if the black parent had a child shot and killed by a white police officer? What if she grew up in a dangerous housing situation because of racist white landlords? What if a relative was falsely convicted of a crime by an all-white jury? There's plenty of reasons for blacks to distrust whites that aren't necessarily reciprocal because of the history (and presence) of American racism.
And I'd give the muslim family a full pass for disowning a child for marrying a non-baptist. They're just oddly focused.
I think that people regardless of race can always find reasons to distrust groups of other people. Would you feel differently about the judge's trust condition if you learned that his cousin got mugged by a black person when he was young?
In other words, I understand that there are explanations for black people to distrust white people in general, but I don't think black people are justified in distrusting white people in general. I think the reciprocal is also true. I don't think it's justifiable to distrust someone based on their race.
I think the entire weight of our nation’s systemic white American racism against blacks should play more of a role in providing context to black distrust of whites in individuals than white people’s long history of racial discrimination and prejudice against blacks should be excused just because we want some sort of equivalence for everything. If you acknowledge the history, why do you think blacks need to get over it and be held to the same standard as whites who never faced that systemic discrimination and have always had a much higher social standing in our society?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Many (Black) intellectuals find this offensive, fwiw. The idea that thoughts emanating from the minds of Black people should be debated with less rigor is itself a form of white supremacy. The idea that we should treat people differently based upon their race is inherently suspect. The idea that people should be judged based on the historical actions of people who have a similar skin color is a fallacy of division and also inherently suspect. The fact that this even needs to be pointed out is inherently sad. Race as a proxy for ability is arbitrary and should never justify any official policy. Let's just all agree to be vigilant and to never let it happen again, yeah?
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
Good smart guy gE’ing going on recently itt. Nice work buds.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I agree with the attorneys posting ITT. Most everyone else has undisciplined thought patterns that frustrate me.
Translation: I agree more with those who've shed fewer of their hick Kansas rooted tendencies regarding race.
-
I agree with the attorneys posting ITT. Most everyone else has undisciplined thought patterns that frustrate me.
Translation: I agree more with those who've shed fewer of their hick Kansas rooted tendencies regarding race.
hey fyi i have black friends, dude
-
For example, I don't see any compelling difference between (1) a black parent telling their daughter they wouldn't attend her wedding if she married a white person and (2) a white person telling their daughter the wouldn't attend her wedding if she married a black person. Nor do I see a compelling difference between (a) a baptist family telling their son they would disown him if he married a non-baptist and (b) a muslim family telling their son they would disown him if he married a non-baptist.
The context and history matter. What if the black parent had a child shot and killed by a white police officer? What if she grew up in a dangerous housing situation because of racist white landlords? What if a relative was falsely convicted of a crime by an all-white jury? There's plenty of reasons for blacks to distrust whites that aren't necessarily reciprocal because of the history (and presence) of American racism.
And I'd give the muslim family a full pass for disowning a child for marrying a non-baptist. They're just oddly focused.
I think that people regardless of race can always find reasons to distrust groups of other people. Would you feel differently about the judge's trust condition if you learned that his cousin got mugged by a black person when he was young?
In other words, I understand that there are explanations for black people to distrust white people in general, but I don't think black people are justified in distrusting white people in general. I think the reciprocal is also true. I don't think it's justifiable to distrust someone based on their race.
I think the entire weight of our nation’s systemic white American racism against blacks should play more of a role in providing context to black distrust of whites in individuals than white people’s long history of racial discrimination and prejudice against blacks should be excused just because we want some sort of equivalence for everything. If you acknowledge the history, why do you think blacks need to get over it and be held to the same standard as whites who never faced that systemic discrimination and have always had a much higher social standing in our society?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Many (Black) intellectuals find this offensive, fwiw. The idea that thoughts emanating from the minds of Black people should be debated with less rigor is itself a form of white supremacy. The idea that we should treat people differently based upon their race is inherently suspect. The idea that people should be judged based on the historical actions of people who have a similar skin color is a fallacy of division and also inherently suspect. The fact that this even needs to be pointed out is inherently sad. Race as a proxy for ability is arbitrary and should never justify any official policy. Let's just all agree to be vigilant and to never let it happen again, yeah?
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
I wasn't referring to "standard" as some sort of "achievement." I am saying that a people that have historically subjugated another declaring "all subjugation is over, everyone should not hold any prejudice starting now" then in practice having all sorts of prejudice and then saying it is equally bad for the victims and perpetrators of this systemic discrimination to perpetuate it beyond this point is not "treating people equally."
This has nothing to do with "rigor." It has to do with power.
-
For example, I don't see any compelling difference between (1) a black parent telling their daughter they wouldn't attend her wedding if she married a white person and (2) a white person telling their daughter the wouldn't attend her wedding if she married a black person. Nor do I see a compelling difference between (a) a baptist family telling their son they would disown him if he married a non-baptist and (b) a muslim family telling their son they would disown him if he married a non-baptist.
The context and history matter. What if the black parent had a child shot and killed by a white police officer? What if she grew up in a dangerous housing situation because of racist white landlords? What if a relative was falsely convicted of a crime by an all-white jury? There's plenty of reasons for blacks to distrust whites that aren't necessarily reciprocal because of the history (and presence) of American racism.
And I'd give the muslim family a full pass for disowning a child for marrying a non-baptist. They're just oddly focused.
I think that people regardless of race can always find reasons to distrust groups of other people. Would you feel differently about the judge's trust condition if you learned that his cousin got mugged by a black person when he was young?
In other words, I understand that there are explanations for black people to distrust white people in general, but I don't think black people are justified in distrusting white people in general. I think the reciprocal is also true. I don't think it's justifiable to distrust someone based on their race.
I think the entire weight of our nation’s systemic white American racism against blacks should play more of a role in providing context to black distrust of whites in individuals than white people’s long history of racial discrimination and prejudice against blacks should be excused just because we want some sort of equivalence for everything. If you acknowledge the history, why do you think blacks need to get over it and be held to the same standard as whites who never faced that systemic discrimination and have always had a much higher social standing in our society?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Many (Black) intellectuals find this offensive, fwiw. The idea that thoughts emanating from the minds of Black people should be debated with less rigor is itself a form of white supremacy. The idea that we should treat people differently based upon their race is inherently suspect. The idea that people should be judged based on the historical actions of people who have a similar skin color is a fallacy of division and also inherently suspect. The fact that this even needs to be pointed out is inherently sad. Race as a proxy for ability is arbitrary and should never justify any official policy. Let's just all agree to be vigilant and to never let it happen again, yeah?
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
I wasn't referring to "standard" as some sort of "achievement." I am saying that a people that have historically subjugated another declaring "all subjugation is over, everyone should not hold any prejudice starting now" then in practice having all sorts of prejudice and then saying it is equally bad for the victims and perpetrators of this systemic discrimination to perpetuate it beyond this point is not "treating people equally."
This has nothing to do with "rigor." It has to do with power.
Nobody here is a "people that have historically subjugated another." I don't think anyone is claiming to speak on behalf of whites in general. We're individuals, most of whom have never subjugated anyone. I do not consider myself a perpetrator of systemic discrimination. Do you?
-
For example, I don't see any compelling difference between (1) a black parent telling their daughter they wouldn't attend her wedding if she married a white person and (2) a white person telling their daughter the wouldn't attend her wedding if she married a black person. Nor do I see a compelling difference between (a) a baptist family telling their son they would disown him if he married a non-baptist and (b) a muslim family telling their son they would disown him if he married a non-baptist.
The context and history matter. What if the black parent had a child shot and killed by a white police officer? What if she grew up in a dangerous housing situation because of racist white landlords? What if a relative was falsely convicted of a crime by an all-white jury? There's plenty of reasons for blacks to distrust whites that aren't necessarily reciprocal because of the history (and presence) of American racism.
And I'd give the muslim family a full pass for disowning a child for marrying a non-baptist. They're just oddly focused.
I think that people regardless of race can always find reasons to distrust groups of other people. Would you feel differently about the judge's trust condition if you learned that his cousin got mugged by a black person when he was young?
In other words, I understand that there are explanations for black people to distrust white people in general, but I don't think black people are justified in distrusting white people in general. I think the reciprocal is also true. I don't think it's justifiable to distrust someone based on their race.
I think the entire weight of our nation’s systemic white American racism against blacks should play more of a role in providing context to black distrust of whites in individuals than white people’s long history of racial discrimination and prejudice against blacks should be excused just because we want some sort of equivalence for everything. If you acknowledge the history, why do you think blacks need to get over it and be held to the same standard as whites who never faced that systemic discrimination and have always had a much higher social standing in our society?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Many (Black) intellectuals find this offensive, fwiw. The idea that thoughts emanating from the minds of Black people should be debated with less rigor is itself a form of white supremacy. The idea that we should treat people differently based upon their race is inherently suspect. The idea that people should be judged based on the historical actions of people who have a similar skin color is a fallacy of division and also inherently suspect. The fact that this even needs to be pointed out is inherently sad. Race as a proxy for ability is arbitrary and should never justify any official policy. Let's just all agree to be vigilant and to never let it happen again, yeah?
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
I wasn't referring to "standard" as some sort of "achievement." I am saying that a people that have historically subjugated another declaring "all subjugation is over, everyone should not hold any prejudice starting now" then in practice having all sorts of prejudice and then saying it is equally bad for the victims and perpetrators of this systemic discrimination to perpetuate it beyond this point is not "treating people equally."
This has nothing to do with "rigor." It has to do with power.
Nobody here is a "people that have historically subjugated another." I don't think anyone is claiming to speak on behalf of whites in general. We're individuals, most of whom have never subjugated anyone. I do not consider myself a perpetrator of systemic discrimination. Do you?
I'm pretty exhausted by this so I don't know how much more I'm going to participate. We've both benefited from the systemic discrimination. I don't think we're culpable for everything or that we are even capable of changing it as an individual, but I think acknowledging it has a place in this discussion which I have tried to say. I just don't think that your categorical imperative is very helpful in the context of our society as it actually is.
-
Even if a categorical imperative is an absolute, it can be phrased in a way that allows context. I think it is perfectly reasonable to assign differing levels of blame for the same behavior if it predictably results in different levels of harm. A professional boxer knows he can cause a lot of harm with a punch while an 80 year old grandma knows she cannot. A person in a position of power should have the same awareness when it comes to discrimination.
Maybe we shouldn't act like backwoodsy Joe Blow should be held to a higher standard because he is white, but we can definitely feel that way about a judge.
-
I wasn't referring to "standard" as some sort of "achievement." I am saying that a people that have historically subjugated another declaring "all subjugation is over, everyone should not hold any prejudice starting now" then in practice having all sorts of prejudice and then saying it is equally bad for the victims and perpetrators of this systemic discrimination to perpetuate it beyond this point is not "treating people equally."
This has nothing to do with "rigor." It has to do with power.
Nobody here is a "people that have historically subjugated another." I don't think anyone is claiming to speak on behalf of whites in general. We're individuals, most of whom have never subjugated anyone. I do not consider myself a perpetrator of systemic discrimination. Do you?
I'm pretty exhausted by this so I don't know how much more I'm going to participate. We've both benefited from the systemic discrimination. I don't think we're culpable for everything or that we are even capable of changing it as an individual, but I think acknowledging it has a place in this discussion which I have tried to say. I just don't think that your categorical imperative is very helpful in the context of our society as it actually is.
Yes this conversation has run its course.
I agree that I have benefited to some degree from historical systemic discrimination against black people. I do not agree that those benefits (for which I never asked) put a higher moral burden on me than they do a black person.
I'm comfortable with the imperative.
-
I agree that I have benefited to some degree from historical systemic discrimination against black people. I do not agree that those benefits (for which I never asked) put a higher moral burden on me than they do a black person.
Maybe a more accurate way to say it is it puts a different moral burden on you. A good example is the white girl using the n-word on stage at the Kendrick show. I mean, I hope we can all agree the girl using it was wrong, but was Kendrick equally wrong for using the word in the song? Is she held to a higher moral standard, or a different one?
-
It's really difficult to communicate to some people that they should care about other people.
-
I agree that I have benefited to some degree from historical systemic discrimination against black people. I do not agree that those benefits (for which I never asked) put a higher moral burden on me than they do a black person.
Maybe a more accurate way to say it is it puts a different moral burden on you. A good example is the white girl using the n-word on stage at the Kendrick show. I mean, I hope we can all agree the girl using it was wrong, but was Kendrick equally wrong for using the word in the song? Is she held to a higher moral standard, or a different one?
Kendrick was wrong for inviting the white girl onto the stage to rap the n-word.
-
I agree that I have benefited to some degree from historical systemic discrimination against black people. I do not agree that those benefits (for which I never asked) put a higher moral burden on me than they do a black person.
Maybe a more accurate way to say it is it puts a different moral burden on you. A good example is the white girl using the n-word on stage at the Kendrick show. I mean, I hope we can all agree the girl using it was wrong, but was Kendrick equally wrong for using the word in the song? Is she held to a higher moral standard, or a different one?
I'm not sure I agree that using the n word in the context she used it was wrong. Nor Kendrick's, really.
i don't think either's use of the n word was wrong because they don't appeared to have intended any harm and I doubt either's use actually caused anyone any harm.
-
I agree that I have benefited to some degree from historical systemic discrimination against black people. I do not agree that those benefits (for which I never asked) put a higher moral burden on me than they do a black person.
Maybe a more accurate way to say it is it puts a different moral burden on you. A good example is the white girl using the n-word on stage at the Kendrick show. I mean, I hope we can all agree the girl using it was wrong, but was Kendrick equally wrong for using the word in the song? Is she held to a higher moral standard, or a different one?
I'm not sure I agree that using the n word in the context she used it was wrong. Nor Kendrick's, really.
i don't think either's use of the n word was wrong because they don't appeared to have intended any harm and I doubt either's use actually caused anyone any harm.
Sheesh you're obtuse with this.
Is it ok for a black person to say the n-word to refer to a black person in a song?
Is it equally ok for a white person to use the n-word to refer to a black person in a song?
-
Are you talking socially ok or morally ok? Cause they’re really not the same thing.
-
Are you talking socially ok or morally ok? Cause they’re really not the same thing.
For the sake of discussion, let's say both.
-
Is it ok for a black person to say the n-word to refer to a black person in a song?
Is it equally ok for a white person to use the n-word to refer to a black person in a song?
yes, both were ok.
-
Colloquial "a" or hard "er"?
-
Are you talking socially ok or morally ok? Cause they’re really not the same thing.
For the sake of discussion, let's say both.
I think they definitely diverge in a case like this.
Morally, I generally don't think it is wrong to use any word unless you realize it could be harmful or threatening to someone you are using it around. When you are repeating the lyrics to a song you were invited on stage to sing, I don't see any issues there.
Socially, I feel like there is a definite red line for white people using the n-word. I would never do it, even if it was purely to make a point about free speech. But that's not necessarily because I am concerned about others feeling threatened, it is because I am concerned about my own livelihood and career.
-
Are you talking socially ok or morally ok? Cause they’re really not the same thing.
For the sake of discussion, let's say both.
I think they definitely diverge in a case like this.
Morally, I generally don't think it is wrong to use any word unless you realize it could be harmful or threatening to someone you are using it around. When you are repeating the lyrics to a song you were invited on stage to sing, I don't see any issues there.
Socially, I feel like there is a definite red line for white people using the n-word. I would never do it, even if it was purely to make a point about free speech. But that's not necessarily because I am concerned about others feeling threatened, it is because I am concerned about my own livelihood and career.
Why do you think use of the word is so socially unacceptable for white people?
-
Do you think it's acceptable for a white person to read Huck Finn?
-
societies have lots of rules that don't make any sense, michigancat.
-
It’s a bright line that helps people feel superior to other people
-
Do you think it's acceptable for a white person to read Huck Finn?
I'm guessing you mean read it out loud to a group? I'd say it depends on the context - who is the audience, what is the setting, how is it read, etc. Sometimes it would be OK and sometimes it probably wouldn't. Like, reading it to a child without any additional context? That would probably be wrong. Is the white reader going heavy on an old-timey cartoonish blackface accent)? Probably wrong (although it admittedly might be difficult given how it's written). Reading it in a history or literature class with a disclaimer about the language? OK.
And of course it's OK to just read it to one's self.
-
Are you talking socially ok or morally ok? Cause they’re really not the same thing.
For the sake of discussion, let's say both.
I think they definitely diverge in a case like this.
Morally, I generally don't think it is wrong to use any word unless you realize it could be harmful or threatening to someone you are using it around. When you are repeating the lyrics to a song you were invited on stage to sing, I don't see any issues there.
Socially, I feel like there is a definite red line for white people using the n-word. I would never do it, even if it was purely to make a point about free speech. But that's not necessarily because I am concerned about others feeling threatened, it is because I am concerned about my own livelihood and career.
Why do you think use of the word is so socially unacceptable for white people?
I think the idea is that because white people generally used that word with hatred for generations, it's easy for listeners to mistakenly assume that every time a white person uses it they say it with some level of hatred. many times those assumptions are correct, other times they're not.
Rather than clarify your intentions via a conversation as complicated as the one we're having now, i think we've collectively decided that it's socially better to self-censor.
-
Are you talking socially ok or morally ok? Cause they’re really not the same thing.
For the sake of discussion, let's say both.
I think they definitely diverge in a case like this.
Morally, I generally don't think it is wrong to use any word unless you realize it could be harmful or threatening to someone you are using it around. When you are repeating the lyrics to a song you were invited on stage to sing, I don't see any issues there.
Socially, I feel like there is a definite red line for white people using the n-word. I would never do it, even if it was purely to make a point about free speech. But that's not necessarily because I am concerned about others feeling threatened, it is because I am concerned about my own livelihood and career.
Why do you think use of the word is so socially unacceptable for white people?
I think the idea is that because white people generally used that word with hatred for generations, it's easy for listeners to mistakenly assume that every time a white person uses it they say it with some level of hatred. many times those assumptions are correct, other times they're not.
Rather than clarify your intentions via a conversation as complicated as the one we're having now, i think we've collectively decided that it's socially better to self-censor.
so you allow yourself to carry a different moral burden than minorities in this respect
-
Why do you think use of the word is so socially unacceptable for white people?
I think the idea is that because white people generally used that word with hatred for generations, it's easy for listeners to mistakenly assume that every time a white person uses it they say it with some level of hatred. many times those assumptions are correct, other times they're not.
Rather than clarify your intentions via a conversation as complicated as the one we're having now, i think we've collectively decided that it's socially better to self-censor.
so you allow yourself to carry a different moral burden than minorities in this respect
how did you get to that conclusion? we were speaking about social norms.
-
Why do you think use of the word is so socially unacceptable for white people?
I think the idea is that because white people generally used that word with hatred for generations, it's easy for listeners to mistakenly assume that every time a white person uses it they say it with some level of hatred. many times those assumptions are correct, other times they're not.
Rather than clarify your intentions via a conversation as complicated as the one we're having now, i think we've collectively decided that it's socially better to self-censor.
so you allow yourself to carry a different moral burden than minorities in this respect
how did you get to that conclusion? we were speaking about social norms.
Yeah, after a second read I realized you don't really care if/how/why a minority might find it immoral or offensive to hear a white person use that word, you just don't want to have a conversation to explain to minorities why they shouldn't be offended when you say it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're just saying you're comfortable following a different social order/norm than minorities and you consider that to be completely separate from having a different moral burden? (Perhaps you aren't comfortable with this social agreement, again correct me if I'm wrong)
FWIW, I think this particular "social norm" (whites using the n-word in public) and "morals" are completely interconnected. You wouldn't have this "social norm" if society hadn't agreed that the word was (and still is) used as a tool for hate and that using tools for hate is immoral.
-
FWIW, I think this particular "social norm" (whites using the n-word in public) and "morals" are completely interconnected. You wouldn't have this "social norm" if society hadn't agreed that the word was (and still is) used as a tool for hate and that using tools for hate is immoral.
that's ridiculous. societies have reams of words they consider inappropriate or appropriate depending on context, and morality or ethics is almost never even a part of the equation. you're thinking of decorum.
-
mostly unrelated anecdote that i want to tell anyway:
scene: me, in mexico, being introduced to a friend of a friend of a friend.
friend - this is whatever he name was.
him - hello, everyone calls me "el negro".
me - hello, i'm sys.
him, proud of his knowledge of colloquial american english - you would call me "the n-word".
me, internally - uh, no. no i would not.
me, externally - mejor hablamos en espanol.
-
FWIW, I think this particular "social norm" (whites using the n-word in public) and "morals" are completely interconnected. You wouldn't have this "social norm" if society hadn't agreed that the word was (and still is) used as a tool for hate and that using tools for hate is immoral.
that's ridiculous. societies have reams of words they consider inappropriate or appropriate depending on context, and morality or ethics is almost never even a part of the equation. you're thinking of decorum.
For sure that's why I said "this particular social norm"
-
Why do you think use of the word is so socially unacceptable for white people?
I think the idea is that because white people generally used that word with hatred for generations, it's easy for listeners to mistakenly assume that every time a white person uses it they say it with some level of hatred. many times those assumptions are correct, other times they're not.
Rather than clarify your intentions via a conversation as complicated as the one we're having now, i think we've collectively decided that it's socially better to self-censor.
so you allow yourself to carry a different moral burden than minorities in this respect
how did you get to that conclusion? we were speaking about social norms.
Yeah, after a second read I realized you don't really care if/how/why a minority might find it immoral or offensive to hear a white person use that word, you just don't want to have a conversation to explain to minorities why they shouldn't be offended when you say it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're just saying you're comfortable following a different social order/norm than minorities and you consider that to be completely separate from having a different moral burden? (Perhaps you aren't comfortable with this social agreement, again correct me if I'm wrong)
Basically, yes.
But I'd be interested in hearing why black people don't like hearing white people say the word. I already gave my assumption of the reason (i.e. thinking that its use denotes some level of negative attitude toward black people on the part of the speaker). I'm willing to accept that there could be some other reason for a black person to dislike when a white person says it but not mind when a black person says it. I just don't know what it is.
Again, I'm drawing a distinction between using the word with an intention to degrade the listener or black people in general (morally wrong) and using the word with no odious intention (morally neutral). But I think virtually every use of the word by a white person breaks social norms or decorum, as sys put it.
-
mostly unrelated anecdote that i want to tell anyway:
scene: me, in mexico, being introduced to a friend of a friend of a friend.
friend - this is whatever he name was.
him - hello, everyone calls me "el negro".
me - hello, i'm sys.
him, proud of his knowledge of colloquial american english - you would call me "the n-word".
me, internally - uh, no. no i would not.
me, externally - mejor hablamos en espanol.
lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Well I'd be interested in hearing why black people don't like hearing white people say the word. I already gave my assumption of the reason (i.e. thinking that its use denotes some level of negative attitude toward black people on the part of the speaker). I'm willing to accept that there could be some other reason for a black person to dislike when a white person says it but not mind when a black person says it. I just don't know what it is.
Again, I'm drawing a distinction between using the word with an intention to degrade the listener or black people in general (morally wrong) and using the word with no odious intention (morally neutral). But I think virtually every use of the word by a white person breaks social norms or decorum, as sys put it.
not sure if you really don't understand why blacks don't like hearing the word, but here's a good video to watch:
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/11/9/16627900/ta-nehisi-coates-n-word (doesn't get too much into why it's offensive when whites use it, mostly focuses on the social decorum aspect, still worth watching)
and a great (long) twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/Luckwman/status/862280151358418944
Basically the argument is a mixture of social decorum as well as the morally repugnant origins of the word and why the intention doesn't matter.
-
For sure that's why I said "this particular social norm"
this particular social norm is just like all the other social norms.
-
For sure that's why I said "this particular social norm"
this particular social norm is just like all the other social norms.
no it ain't
-
no one thought that concert chick was motivated by, or promulgating, hatred, michigancat.
-
mostly unrelated anecdote that i want to tell anyway:
scene: me, in mexico, being introduced to a friend of a friend of a friend.
friend - this is whatever he name was.
him - hello, everyone calls me "el negro".
me - hello, i'm sys.
him, proud of his knowledge of colloquial american english - you would call me "the n-word".
me, internally - uh, no. no i would not.
me, externally - mejor hablamos en espanol.
:lol:
-
https://twitter.com/Luckwman/status/862280151358418944
Basically the argument is a mixture of social decorum as well as the morally repugnant origins of the word and why the intention doesn't matter.
her entire thread was about describing and placing in context the social norms around the uses of the words n-word/nigga. at no point did she provide an ethical or moral argument regarding usage.
-
no one thought that concert chick was motivated by, or promulgating, hatred, michigancat.
well, I'm sure someone did. But regardless, if she wasn't necessarily motivated by hate, she was definitely dismissive or flippant about how her words might affect a minority group. Her lack of concern for how it might be perceived makes it mildly racist IMO.
-
https://twitter.com/Luckwman/status/862280151358418944
Basically the argument is a mixture of social decorum as well as the morally repugnant origins of the word and why the intention doesn't matter.
her entire thread was about describing and placing in context the social norms around the uses of the words n-word/nigga. at no point did she provide an ethical or moral argument regarding usage.
I think the fact that it evolved to direct hate and disgust toward black people is a moral argument against its use. If you disagree, you're just picking nits.
https://twitter.com/Luckwman/status/862299193293103104
https://twitter.com/Luckwman/status/862301496452550656
-
i thought she behaved inappropriately. it definitely helped me categorize her social status, educational background and desirability as an acquaintance.
-
etymology is not a moral argument.
-
no one thought that concert chick was motivated by, or promulgating, hatred, michigancat.
well, I'm sure someone did. But regardless, if she wasn't necessarily motivated by hate, she was definitely dismissive or flippant about how her words might affect a minority group. Her lack of concern for how it might be perceived makes it mildly racist IMO.
I don't believe that singing along with the lyrics in any song constitutes an endorsement of those lyrics. The girl probably should have turned down the offer to come up on stage, because being up there put her in a situation where she had to make the decision to either censor the original author of the lyrics during his live performance, or sing the lyrics and piss off a bunch of people. I mostly just feel sorry for her.
-
etymology is not a moral argument.
It's relevant if the moral question is "does the use of a word negatively impact the feelings of others"?
-
no one thought that concert chick was motivated by, or promulgating, hatred, michigancat.
well, I'm sure someone did. But regardless, if she wasn't necessarily motivated by hate, she was definitely dismissive or flippant about how her words might affect a minority group. Her lack of concern for how it might be perceived makes it mildly racist IMO.
I don't believe that singing along with the lyrics in any song constitutes an endorsement of those lyrics. The girl probably should have turned down the offer to come up on stage, because being up there put her in a situation where she had to make the decision to either censor the original author of the lyrics during his live performance, or sing the lyrics and piss off a bunch of people. I mostly just feel sorry for her.
I didn't say she was endorsing the lyrics. But censoring herself seems like a pretty easy decision. :dunno:
-
no one thought that concert chick was motivated by, or promulgating, hatred, michigancat.
well, I'm sure someone did. But regardless, if she wasn't necessarily motivated by hate, she was definitely dismissive or flippant about how her words might affect a minority group. Her lack of concern for how it might be perceived makes it mildly racist IMO.
I don't believe that singing along with the lyrics in any song constitutes an endorsement of those lyrics. The girl probably should have turned down the offer to come up on stage, because being up there put her in a situation where she had to make the decision to either censor the original author of the lyrics during his live performance, or sing the lyrics and piss off a bunch of people. I mostly just feel sorry for her.
I didn't say she was endorsing the lyrics. But censoring herself seems like a pretty easy decision. :dunno:
She wouldn't have really been censoring herself. She would be censoring Kendrick Lamar, since the lyrics are his. I can see how that might not be an obvious decision, since she was singing with him at his show. It's not unreasonable to view an invitation to the stage as permission to sing the lyrics as written. It was pretty clearly a poor decision on her part to sing the lyrics, but I don't see it as wrong on any moral level.
-
no one thought that concert chick was motivated by, or promulgating, hatred, michigancat.
well, I'm sure someone did. But regardless, if she wasn't necessarily motivated by hate, she was definitely dismissive or flippant about how her words might affect a minority group. Her lack of concern for how it might be perceived makes it mildly racist IMO.
I don't believe that singing along with the lyrics in any song constitutes an endorsement of those lyrics. The girl probably should have turned down the offer to come up on stage, because being up there put her in a situation where she had to make the decision to either censor the original author of the lyrics during his live performance, or sing the lyrics and piss off a bunch of people. I mostly just feel sorry for her.
I didn't say she was endorsing the lyrics. But censoring herself seems like a pretty easy decision. :dunno:
She wouldn't have really been censoring herself. She would be censoring Kendrick Lamar, since the lyrics are his. I can see how that might not be an obvious decision, since she was singing with him at his show. It's not unreasonable to view an invitation to the stage as permission to sing the lyrics as written. It was pretty clearly a poor decision on her part to sing the lyrics, but I don't see it as wrong on any moral level.
Uh, anyone who knows all the words to a Kendrick Lamar song knows that word is censored for radio and on tv all the time by Kendrick himself. This isn't some rough ridin' brain buster damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario she was put in.
-
You have a source for that? It's far more likely the station censors it. (well the labels do because radio won't play it otherwise).
-
etymology is not a moral argument.
It's relevant if the moral question is "does the use of a word negatively impact the feelings of others"?
it's possible to make an ethical argument against using racial and ethnic slurs, she just didn't make one. i also didn't think it was a great thread. she contradicted herself at times and i'm fairly confident some of her etymology was inaccurate.
-
You have a source for that? It's far more likely the station censors it. (well the labels do because radio won't play it otherwise).
He definitely has censored himself on network tv appearances. Not sure if he has recorded censored versions for radio, but he has released censored versions and special radio versions commonly have unique verses. Changing "Back that Ass Up" to "Back that Thing up" immediately comes to mind.
-
etymology is not a moral argument.
It's relevant if the moral question is "does the use of a word negatively impact the feelings of others"?
it's possible to make an ethical argument against using racial and ethnic slurs, she just didn't make one. i also didn't think it was a great thread. she contradicted herself at times and i'm fairly confident some of her etymology was inaccurate.
Picking nits!
-
They are special radio versions because radio won't play the "real" song. Satellite radio definitely plays uncensored versions because they don't have the same corporate or fcc rules. (the word in question can be broadcast but the stations themselves will not do it.)
Personally I wouldn't consider that "self-censorship", but instead working around existing rules. It's clear that the "pure" form of his art has no such restrictions.
-
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/05/24/atonement-as-activism/ (https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/05/24/atonement-as-activism/)
This guy must know KK and m-cat.
-
That article makes me want to reread the whole thread
-
an interesting article. however, i reserve my right to both adore coates' writings and not ritually flagellate myself for unforgivable whiteness.
i keep meaning to read one of mcwhorter's linguistics books, but i've never gotten around to it.
-
I just wish the author of that article spent less time talking about race related issues and more time actually helping black people.
-
I just wish the author of that article spent less time talking about race related issues and more time actually helping black people.
Amen, brother
-
Mcwhorter makes a lot of good points despite having an unfortunate name. I will just say that I think the attitude propagated in our institutions of higher learning and filtered throughout society has a negative chilling effect on the discussion of important issues in this country.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
Sexism**
https://quillette.com/2018/05/24/cant-woman-like-man/ (https://quillette.com/2018/05/24/cant-woman-like-man/)
-
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/05/24/atonement-as-activism/ (https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/05/24/atonement-as-activism/)
This guy must know KK and m-cat.
He has some very good points but has an annoying writing style. Like, I agreed with this for the most part:
What gets lost is that all of this awareness was supposed to be about helping black people, especially poor ones. We are too often distracted from this by a race awareness that has come to be largely about white people seeking grace. For example, one reads often of studies showing that black boys are punished and suspended in school more often than other kids. But then one reads equally often that poverty makes boys, in particular, more likely to be aggressive and have a harder time concentrating. We are taught to assume that the punishments and suspensions are due to racism, and to somehow ignore the data showing that the conditions too many black boys grow up in unfortunately makes them indeed more likely to act up in school. Might the poverty be the key problem to address? But, try this purely logical reasoning in polite company only at the risk of being treated as a moral reprobate. Our conversation is to be solely about racism, not solutions—other than looking to a vaguely defined future time when racism somehow disappears, America having “come to terms” with it: i.e. Judgment Day. As to what exactly this coming to terms would consist of, I suppose only our Pastor of White Privilege knows.
but does he really think suggesting we address poverty puts him at risk of "being treated as a moral reprobate"? Is his question really viewed as controversial in any real circle?
He must really be jealous of Coates's popularity, too.
-
but does he really think suggesting we address poverty puts him at risk of "being treated as a moral reprobate"? Is his question really viewed as controversial in any real circle?
No:
Might the poverty be the key problem to address? But, try this purely logical reasoning in polite company only at the risk of being treated as a moral reprobate.
he thinks if he suggests that poverty -- as opposed to racism -- is the key problem that he risks being treated as moral reprobate.
-
but does he really think suggesting we address poverty puts him at risk of "being treated as a moral reprobate"? Is his question really viewed as controversial in any real circle?
No:
Might the poverty be the key problem to address? But, try this purely logical reasoning in polite company only at the risk of being treated as a moral reprobate.
he thinks if he suggests that poverty -- as opposed to racism -- is the key problem that he risks being treated as moral reprobate.
yeah I get it. But who is teaching this?
We are taught to assume that the punishments and suspensions are due to racism, and to somehow ignore the data showing that the conditions too many black boys grow up in unfortunately makes them indeed more likely to act up in school.
(I honestly don't know, I've never heard this.)
It seems pretty reasonable that harsh punishments for black boys is a combination of poverty and racist teachers and that society should make an effort to address both. Completely dismissing either factor seems pretty foolish. :dunno: It's also interesting that he infers that black poverty and racism are two completely separate problems. Like, why does he think black communities generally more poor?
And overall, I don't think he does a very good job defining a problem and how he proposes to address it. He just seems to want to make fun of certain whites in academia (who probably deserve to be ridiculed if his descriptions are accurate) and snipe at Coates.
-
I think his main point to roast self-indulgent "woke" people for their absurd displays of self-flaggelation.
-
I think his main point to roast self-indulgent "woke" people for their absurd displays of self-flaggelation.
About as helpful as applauding warmly at a lecture you chose to attend.
-
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/roseanne-canceled-at-abc-racist-tweet-1115412
-
i think it's pretty clear that what roseanne said is racist, imo.
-
i think it's pretty clear that what roseanne said is racist, imo.
Right. Does not belong in this thread.
-
I thought it was pretty clear that white girl shouldn't have used the n-word on stage in front of Kendrick :dunno:
-
i think it's pretty clear that what roseanne said is racist, imo.
Right. Does not belong in this thread.
I think millions of citizens would disagree strongly with you.
-
i think it's pretty clear that what roseanne said is racist, imo.
Right. Does not belong in this thread.
I think millions of citizens would disagree strongly with you.
I mean, if you whine enough, they will come. Fox will end up picking her up anyways. It's the #1 show in America.
Calling out racism equals whining :lol:
Legit everything is racist to libs these days. It's exhausting.
-
I thought it was pretty clear that white girl shouldn't have used the n-word on stage in front of Kendrick :dunno:
I think I agreed that she shouldn't have used it on-stage on the grounds that it's not socially acceptable. If I didn't expressly say that, then I am now. I don't think there was anything immoral about using it on stage though given she was singing along to a song. There are plenty of things that aren't socially acceptable that I would classify as morally wrong.
I think roseanne calling a black person an ape is immoral (in addition to being socially unacceptable) because I think she meant to degrade the person based on the person's race.
-
i think it's pretty clear that what roseanne said is racist, imo.
Right. Does not belong in this thread.
I think millions of citizens would disagree strongly with you.
I mean, if you whine enough, they will come. Fox will end up picking her up anyways. It's the #1 show in America.
Calling out racism equals whining :lol:
Legit everything is racist to libs these days. It's exhausting.
https://twitter.com/MlKEHEADLY/status/1001223847939661825
-
get out of here, wacky
-
get out of here, wacky
Why? His opinions are likely the most important to understand.
-
Sorry for supplying an example of what I met. Continue your group think.
-
get out of here, wacky
Why? His opinions are likely the most important to understand.
fair enough. i really enjoyed the pretty nuanced discussion we had here last week, and i didn't want the issues to be muddled.
get back in here @WackyCat08
-
get out of here, wacky
Why? His opinions are likely the most important to understand.
fair enough. i really enjoyed the pretty nuanced discussion we had here last week, and i didn't want the issues to be muddled.
get back in here @WackyCat08
I guess I didn't see the previous discussion as all that nuanced as opposed to Wacky's POV.
-
https://twitter.com/MlKEHEADLY/status/1001223847939661825
"I can't wait to call all these children racist as they grieve this tragedy"
-
I guess I didn't see the previous discussion as all that nuanced as opposed to Wacky's POV.
you're always free to participate.
-
I guess I didn't see the previous discussion as all that nuanced as opposed to Wacky's POV.
you're always free to participate.
I know :(. I wrote many a post and never submitted it.
-
That part of the thread was too wordy.
-
etymology is not a moral argument.
It's relevant if the moral question is "does the use of a word negatively impact the feelings of others"?
it's possible to make an ethical argument against using racial and ethnic slurs, she just didn't make one. i also didn't think it was a great thread. she contradicted herself at times and i'm fairly confident some of her etymology was inaccurate.
michigancat, i found out mcwhorter has a linguistics podcast and i've been listening to a few. he has one on nigga/n-word which you might be interested in. at the very least you can have some confidence in his etymology. his 'cast is delightful, btw, if you like language at all (although i did catch him in an error, but in spanish, so it probably shouldn't count against him).
http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2018/01/john_mcwhorter_on_nigger_versus_nigga.html
-
If a Mexican tells me a Mexican joke, am I allowed to laugh?
-
If it's funny
-
or if you're uncomfortable.
-
If a Mexican tells me a Mexican joke, am I allowed to laugh?
Absolutely not!
-
Well, there's only Juan way to find out...
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
You can laugh at whatever you want.
-
etymology is not a moral argument.
It's relevant if the moral question is "does the use of a word negatively impact the feelings of others"?
it's possible to make an ethical argument against using racial and ethnic slurs, she just didn't make one. i also didn't think it was a great thread. she contradicted herself at times and i'm fairly confident some of her etymology was inaccurate.
michigancat, i found out mcwhorter has a linguistics podcast and i've been listening to a few. he has one on nigga/n-word which you might be interested in. at the very least you can have some confidence in his etymology. his 'cast is delightful, btw, if you like language at all (although i did catch him in an error, but in spanish, so it probably shouldn't count against him).
http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2018/01/john_mcwhorter_on_nigger_versus_nigga.html
That was very interesting. I thought he danced around the subject of the white kids using it in kfc and wish he would have taken some sort of stance (either way) or taken a deeper dive into the social implications rather than just saying "it's delicate". But podcast is a nice format for what he's doing.
-
if you read or listen to much of his other stuff it's very apparent he has no patience for those who take a prescriptive approach to language. so it is completely in character for him to remain descriptive on this issue.
-
You can laugh at whatever you want.
But then am I a racist if I do laugh?
-
laughing doesn't change whether you're a racist or not.
-
if you read or listen to much of his other stuff it's very apparent he has no patience for those who take a prescriptive approach to language. so it is completely in character for him to remain descriptive on this issue.
well, I think a deeper dive into what made the situation "delicate" could have been really interesting without being prescriptive. Like, he had a pretty lengthy discussion on why the logic of asking "why can they use it to say 'buddy' but I can't use the slur" was flawed but didn't touch the "why can they use it to say 'buddy' but I can't use it to say 'buddy'". I get that white kids saying it was delicate but wanted to know why it was delicate to him.
-
You can laugh at whatever you want.
But then am I a racist if I do laugh?
The only thing I know is
1) a person told you a joke
2) that person has been somehow identified as Mexican
3) the content of the joke (which includes a Mexican element)
4) you found it funny enough to laugh at
If this was my only encounter with you I would personally keep that information in mind if I had to interact with you again to see if I could put it in more context. If I already knew you then I would put in that context.
-
yeah, that would have been interesting. i think he prolly steered clear because his instinct would be that they can use it to say buddy, but he didn't want to stake claim to that position. or maybe he just thought he'd done enough talking for one podcast.
-
You can laugh at whatever you want.
But then am I a racist if I do laugh?
The only thing I know is
1) a person told you a joke
2) that person has been somehow identified as Mexican
3) the content of the joke (which includes a Mexican element)
4) you found it funny enough to laugh at
If this was my only encounter with you I would personally keep that information in mind if I had to interact with you again to see if I could put it in more context. If I already knew you then I would put in that context.
Well actually what I did was sort of smile and cover my mouth like as if to say "Oh, you shouldn't say that."
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/13/pro-trump-firebrand-corey-stewart-wins-virginia-senate-primary-as-crucial-nevada-north-dakota-races-take-shape.html
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/13/pro-trump-firebrand-corey-stewart-wins-virginia-senate-primary-as-crucial-nevada-north-dakota-races-take-shape.html
"We're going to have a lot of fun between now and November, folks," Stewart told a raucous crowd at his victory party Tuesday evening, amid chants of "lock her up."
:lol:
-
DLEW-
We need a ruling!
https://www.axios.com/rafi-peretz-second-holocaust-intermarriage-jews-us-359a9bc6-ae75-46cb-8844-32da55c086d8.html (https://www.axios.com/rafi-peretz-second-holocaust-intermarriage-jews-us-359a9bc6-ae75-46cb-8844-32da55c086d8.html)
-
I realize that, politically speaking, most of you don't like Terrence Williams, however it's pretty disgusting the amount of racism that is coming from the PC-happy left...
https://twitter.com/w_terrence/status/1251215855771242501
Fuggin' disgusting.
-
Terrance Williams the WR for the Cowboys?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yeah, I've never heard of Terrence K. Williams. I'm sure it's only because his voice has been silenced, though.
-
Yeah, I've never heard of Terrence K. Williams. I'm sure it's only because his voice has been silenced, though.
Funny you mention that... I know for sure that MIR knows who he is, however you may very well have a point.
As soon as you said that, it reminded me of this:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0d/5a/c2/0d5ac24d6b5b51f6436090b4ba7631d3.jpg)
While not saying this is 100% accurate, there is always at least a bit of truth in almost all political cartoons.
-
With the amount of racism popping up on the far left, I did a bit of digging....
This seems to explain things about as good as anything. The Democratic Party has always been one of hate it seems.
https://www.prageru.com/video/the-inconvenient-truth-about-the-democratic-party/
-
Everyone, relax. Bqqkie and his crack research skills are here to get to the bottom of this "racism" business.
-
Just to make sure I keep everything straight, the Prager that website is named after was the guy who recently asked why negro is an offensive term, correct?
-
Also I've never actually looked around that site before, and it's totally lol. Look how this totally unbiased educational site for college students explains the progressive tax system
https://www.prageru.com/video/the-progressive-income-tax-a-tale-of-three-brothers/
-
Just to make sure I keep everything straight, the Prager that website is named after was the guy who recently asked why negro is an offensive term, correct?
When Did the Word Negro Become Socially Unacceptable? - October 2010 Because Renegade decided it should be...
https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/2010/october.htm
-
Omg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Just to make sure I keep everything straight, the Prager that website is named after was the guy who recently asked why negro is an offensive term, correct?
When Did the Word Negro Become Socially Unacceptable? - October 2010 Because Renegade decided it should be...
https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/2010/october.htm
That's the dumbest crap I've ever seen.
-
Just to make sure I keep everything straight, the Prager that website is named after was the guy who recently asked why negro is an offensive term, correct?
When Did the Word Negro Become Socially Unacceptable? - October 2010 Because Renegade decided it should be...
https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/2010/october.htm
That's the dumbest crap I've ever seen.
Perhaps you should go to the Jim Crow Museum on the campus of Ferris State University and let them know that.
:dunno:
-
I’m just marveling at that page. It sounds straight out of the Colbert Report.
-
I’m just marveling at that page. It sounds straight out of the Colbert Report.
I thought you were referring to the ferris state link which didn't seem to bad for me but you're probably talking about prager U.
-
Just to make sure I keep everything straight, the Prager that website is named after was the guy who recently asked why negro is an offensive term, correct?
When Did the Word Negro Become Socially Unacceptable? - October 2010 Because Renegade decided it should be...
https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/2010/october.htm
That's the dumbest crap I've ever seen.
Perhaps you should go to the Jim Crow Museum on the campus of Ferris State University and let them know that.
:dunno:
The dumb crap was your post because you clearly didn't read what you posted. You saw the headline say October 2010 and literally didn't read past that. You're a dumbfuck, brain dead, hillbilly, racist.
-
Just to make sure I keep everything straight, the Prager that website is named after was the guy who recently asked why negro is an offensive term, correct?
When Did the Word Negro Become Socially Unacceptable? - October 2010 Because Renegade decided it should be...
https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/2010/october.htm
That's the dumbest crap I've ever seen.
Perhaps you should go to the Jim Crow Museum on the campus of Ferris State University and let them know that.
:dunno:
The dumb crap was your post because you clearly didn't read what you posted. You saw the headline say October 2010 and literally didn't read past that. You're a dumbfuck, brain dead, hillbilly, racist.
MIR uses some strong words here. HOWEVER, the English language doesn’t contain the words strong enough to describe bqqkie and people like him.
-
Just to make sure I keep everything straight, the Prager that website is named after was the guy who recently asked why negro is an offensive term, correct?
When Did the Word Negro Become Socially Unacceptable? - October 2010 Because Renegade decided it should be...
https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/2010/october.htm
That's the dumbest crap I've ever seen.
Perhaps you should go to the Jim Crow Museum on the campus of Ferris State University and let them know that.
:dunno:
The dumb crap was your post because you clearly didn't read what you posted. You saw the headline say October 2010 and literally didn't read past that. You're a dumbfuck, brain dead, hillbilly, racist.
Actually, I did read the whole article and fully understand the headline and timing of the history.
Again, your issue is with the Jim Crow Museum and seemingly every other Caucasian on the face of the planet. I never really understood your overt racism 8-10 years ago, however the demise of black Jesus and the constant promotion of racism from 2008 - 2016 helps it all come into focus now.
It’s all that you and the lib bots have left really. As the truth comes out, we’ll all see where flames of racial division were stoked and it wasn’t by Trump and the MAGA crowd.
-
Just to make sure I keep everything straight, the Prager that website is named after was the guy who recently asked why negro is an offensive term, correct?
When Did the Word Negro Become Socially Unacceptable? - October 2010 Because Renegade decided it should be...
https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/2010/october.htm
That's the dumbest crap I've ever seen.
Perhaps you should go to the Jim Crow Museum on the campus of Ferris State University and let them know that.
:dunno:
The dumb crap was your post because you clearly didn't read what you posted. You saw the headline say October 2010 and literally didn't read past that. You're a dumbfuck, brain dead, hillbilly, racist.
Actually, I did read the whole article and fully understand the headline and timing of the history.
Again, your issue is with the Jim Crow Museum and seemingly every other Caucasian on the face of the planet. I never really understood your overt racism 8-10 years ago, however the demise of black Jesus and the constant promotion of racism from 2008 - 2016 helps it all come into focus now.
It’s all that you and the lib bots have left really. As the truth comes out, we’ll all see where flames of racial division were stoked and it wasn’t by Trump and the MAGA crowd.
You read the whole article but blame Obama because you and your buddies can't call black people negro? Let's add functionally illiterate to the list. You clearly saw the word Obama in there and short circuited.
Also who's black jesus? Kanye? Michael Jordan? Oprah?
-
Also who's black jesus? Kanye? Michael Jordan? Oprah?
Very end of Onyx and Biohazard’s Judgment Night video.
-
I have no desire to call anyone negro... it’s offensive.
I simply pointed out when a huge issue was made of it (and by whom) when it was actually gradually fading from sight naturally as it should.
As your (racist) far left leader wanted, it caused you and debigtrain to lose your crap, and all I did was ask “when/how” it became socially unacceptable. If you truly want racism to end, it’s important for blacks & whites to be able to have open conversations about how racial issues affect us all.
Your racism is so predictable it’s almost no fun to mock you for it any more.
-
“The REAL racists are...” is a beloved MAGA talking point.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
And Obama is the most racist person ever to live. Heck there were never race issues until Hussein became pres
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
There have always been racial issues... That's ridiculous.
The problem is, race relations were improving prior to his taking office and then backslid dramatically during his tenure. I'll see if I can find the study again that I saw.
The race baiting from the left leaning media continues to this day to keep us divided. It's not difficult to see, really.
-
I have no desire to call anyone negro... it’s offensive.
Do you realize that the offensive quotes highlighted in the post would still have been offensive if Reid used literally any other word for black people?
-
I have no desire to call anyone negro... it’s offensive.
Do you realize that the offensive quotes highlighted in the post would still have been offensive if Reid used literally any other word for black people?
Yep. I'm not defending Reid and his lack of awareness regarding political correctness.
-
Ok well that kind of undercuts the entire point of an article arguing over whether Reid deserved criticism for using the term “negro”
-
When I say that the media is the ones pushing the racism agenda, this is exactly what I'm talking about:
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/05/12/behar-trump-is-a-disgusting-racist-his-supporters-need-to-ask-themselves-if-they-are-racist-also/
While Aunt Karen is sitting at home getting programmed each morning, its this type of drivel that exists to keep us separated.
-
Joy is right
-
I have no desire to call anyone negro... it’s offensive.
I simply pointed out when a huge issue was made of it (and by whom) when it was actually gradually fading from sight naturally as it should.
As your (racist) far left leader wanted, it caused you and debigtrain to lose your crap, and all I did was ask “when/how” it became socially unacceptable. If you truly want racism to end, it’s important for blacks & whites to be able to have open conversations about how racial issues affect us all.
Your racism is so predictable it’s almost no fun to mock you for it any more.
You didn't answer my question so I'll try another. I'm assuming Obama is "black jesus," why is he my racist far left leader? Why is he more my leader than yours?
-
#notmy(ex)President
-
I have no desire to call anyone negro... it’s offensive.
I simply pointed out when a huge issue was made of it (and by whom) when it was actually gradually fading from sight naturally as it should.
As your (racist) far left leader wanted, it caused you and debigtrain to lose your crap, and all I did was ask “when/how” it became socially unacceptable. If you truly want racism to end, it’s important for blacks & whites to be able to have open conversations about how racial issues affect us all.
Your racism is so predictable it’s almost no fun to mock you for it any more.
You didn't answer my question so I'll try another. I'm assuming Obama is "black jesus," why is he my racist far left leader? Why is he more my leader than yours?
There ya go, MIR. I knew you were a highly intelligent, well educated member of society.
Although I can't tell you why you follow the racist American traitor, I can tell you why I have disavowed him.
He should've never been President of the United State of America. He is a foreign born, CIA legacy asset and was set up with a pre-fabricated family to fool us. His grooming, education, placement in the Senate and subsequent scrubbing of his entire record was bought and paid for by foreign entities.
-
First of all. :horrorsurprise:
Secondarily: Last summer I had a long and interesting conversation about the concept of "white fragility".
While I loosely understood the underpinnings of the concept it is helpful to see it in the wild.
Thanks Bqqkie!
-
I have no desire to call anyone negro... it’s offensive.
I simply pointed out when a huge issue was made of it (and by whom) when it was actually gradually fading from sight naturally as it should.
As your (racist) far left leader wanted, it caused you and debigtrain to lose your crap, and all I did was ask “when/how” it became socially unacceptable. If you truly want racism to end, it’s important for blacks & whites to be able to have open conversations about how racial issues affect us all.
Your racism is so predictable it’s almost no fun to mock you for it any more.
You didn't answer my question so I'll try another. I'm assuming Obama is "black jesus," why is he my racist far left leader? Why is he more my leader than yours?
There ya go, MIR. I knew you were a highly intelligent, well educated member of society.
Although I can't tell you why you follow the racist American traitor, I can tell you why I have disavowed him.
He should've never been President of the United State of America. He is a foreign born, CIA legacy asset and was set up with a pre-fabricated family to fool us. His grooming, education, placement in the Senate and subsequent scrubbing of his entire record was bought and paid for by foreign entities.
rough ridin' wow. This is why we'd never delete. I cannot even begin to unpack that gold plated MAGA doctrine.
Dax, come get your guy!
-
Dark to Light....
For there is nothing hidden that will not become visible, and nothing secret that will not be known and come to light.
:buh-bye:
-
Dark to Light....
For there is nothing hidden that will not become visible, and nothing secret that will not be known and come to light.
:buh-bye:
So why would a foreign power want to put in a president who by most objective accounts whipped some pretty good ass and made us look good globally? That's like the Broncos tricking the chiefs into drafting Mahomes.
-
Dark to Light....
For there is nothing hidden that will not become visible, and nothing secret that will not be known and come to light.
:buh-bye:
Like a mental illness diagnosis?
-
I have no desire to call anyone negro... it’s offensive.
I simply pointed out when a huge issue was made of it (and by whom) when it was actually gradually fading from sight naturally as it should.
As your (racist) far left leader wanted, it caused you and debigtrain to lose your crap, and all I did was ask “when/how” it became socially unacceptable. If you truly want racism to end, it’s important for blacks & whites to be able to have open conversations about how racial issues affect us all.
Your racism is so predictable it’s almost no fun to mock you for it any more.
You didn't answer my question so I'll try another. I'm assuming Obama is "black jesus," why is he my racist far left leader? Why is he more my leader than yours?
There ya go, MIR. I knew you were a highly intelligent, well educated member of society.
Although I can't tell you why you follow the racist American traitor, I can tell you why I have disavowed him.
He should've never been President of the United State of America. He is a foreign born, CIA legacy asset and was set up with a pre-fabricated family to fool us. His grooming, education, placement in the Senate and subsequent scrubbing of his entire record was bought and paid for by foreign entities.
Why are you assuming I "follow him" anymore than you do? You're doing a very poor job showing that me and Obama are the racists and you're not.
-
I have no desire to call anyone negro... it’s offensive.
I simply pointed out when a huge issue was made of it (and by whom) when it was actually gradually fading from sight naturally as it should.
As your (racist) far left leader wanted, it caused you and debigtrain to lose your crap, and all I did was ask “when/how” it became socially unacceptable. If you truly want racism to end, it’s important for blacks & whites to be able to have open conversations about how racial issues affect us all.
Your racism is so predictable it’s almost no fun to mock you for it any more.
You didn't answer my question so I'll try another. I'm assuming Obama is "black jesus," why is he my racist far left leader? Why is he more my leader than yours?
There ya go, MIR. I knew you were a highly intelligent, well educated member of society.
Although I can't tell you why you follow the racist American traitor, I can tell you why I have disavowed him.
He should've never been President of the United State of America. He is a foreign born, CIA legacy asset and was set up with a pre-fabricated family to fool us. His grooming, education, placement in the Senate and subsequent scrubbing of his entire record was bought and paid for by foreign entities.
Why are you assuming I "follow him" anymore than you do? You're doing a very poor job showing that me and Obama are the racists and you're not.
you follow eddie murphy don't you?
-
A bit new to these facts...
So, just to be clear, Obama's dad didn't make whoopee with a lady from El Dorado, Kansas who then birthed Obama? That's all made up as part of this CIA business?
-
i think that is the most fascinating part of the Obama story.
He is literally the epitome of the Republican wet dream.
Middle class kid of humble midwestern origins picking himself up by the bootstrap and maiximizing his abilities.
But because he is black it is clearly the workings of a secret multinational gloabalist cabal hell bent on something nefarious...
obvs
-
I have no desire to call anyone negro... it’s offensive.
I simply pointed out when a huge issue was made of it (and by whom) when it was actually gradually fading from sight naturally as it should.
As your (racist) far left leader wanted, it caused you and debigtrain to lose your crap, and all I did was ask “when/how” it became socially unacceptable. If you truly want racism to end, it’s important for blacks & whites to be able to have open conversations about how racial issues affect us all.
Your racism is so predictable it’s almost no fun to mock you for it any more.
You didn't answer my question so I'll try another. I'm assuming Obama is "black jesus," why is he my racist far left leader? Why is he more my leader than yours?
There ya go, MIR. I knew you were a highly intelligent, well educated member of society.
Although I can't tell you why you follow the racist American traitor, I can tell you why I have disavowed him.
He should've never been President of the United State of America. He is a foreign born, CIA legacy asset and was set up with a pre-fabricated family to fool us. His grooming, education, placement in the Senate and subsequent scrubbing of his entire record was bought and paid for by foreign entities.
When did you discover that Obama was not an American? What was the thing that convinced you?
-
I have no desire to call anyone negro... it’s offensive.
I simply pointed out when a huge issue was made of it (and by whom) when it was actually gradually fading from sight naturally as it should.
As your (racist) far left leader wanted, it caused you and debigtrain to lose your crap, and all I did was ask “when/how” it became socially unacceptable. If you truly want racism to end, it’s important for blacks & whites to be able to have open conversations about how racial issues affect us all.
Your racism is so predictable it’s almost no fun to mock you for it any more.
You didn't answer my question so I'll try another. I'm assuming Obama is "black jesus," why is he my racist far left leader? Why is he more my leader than yours?
There ya go, MIR. I knew you were a highly intelligent, well educated member of society.
Although I can't tell you why you follow the racist American traitor, I can tell you why I have disavowed him.
He should've never been President of the United State of America. He is a foreign born, CIA legacy asset and was set up with a pre-fabricated family to fool us. His grooming, education, placement in the Senate and subsequent scrubbing of his entire record was bought and paid for by foreign entities.
When did you discover that Obama was not an American? What was the thing that convinced you?
YouTube took the video down
-
It's about time the Pit got back to its roots.
-
I have no desire to call anyone negro... it’s offensive.
I simply pointed out when a huge issue was made of it (and by whom) when it was actually gradually fading from sight naturally as it should.
As your (racist) far left leader wanted, it caused you and debigtrain to lose your crap, and all I did was ask “when/how” it became socially unacceptable. If you truly want racism to end, it’s important for blacks & whites to be able to have open conversations about how racial issues affect us all.
Your racism is so predictable it’s almost no fun to mock you for it any more.
You didn't answer my question so I'll try another. I'm assuming Obama is "black jesus," why is he my racist far left leader? Why is he more my leader than yours?
There ya go, MIR. I knew you were a highly intelligent, well educated member of society.
Although I can't tell you why you follow the racist American traitor, I can tell you why I have disavowed him.
He should've never been President of the United State of America. He is a foreign born, CIA legacy asset and was set up with a pre-fabricated family to fool us. His grooming, education, placement in the Senate and subsequent scrubbing of his entire record was bought and paid for by foreign entities.
When did you discover that Obama was not an American? What was the thing that convinced you?
Discover? Tough to pin down, but there was A LOT of smoke around that several years ago and I never fully believed the faked Hawaiian birth certificate, and the mysterious death of Loretta Fuddy made it more suspicious.
What convinced me? Malik Obama
-
I have no desire to call anyone negro... it’s offensive.
I simply pointed out when a huge issue was made of it (and by whom) when it was actually gradually fading from sight naturally as it should.
As your (racist) far left leader wanted, it caused you and debigtrain to lose your crap, and all I did was ask “when/how” it became socially unacceptable. If you truly want racism to end, it’s important for blacks & whites to be able to have open conversations about how racial issues affect us all.
Your racism is so predictable it’s almost no fun to mock you for it any more.
You didn't answer my question so I'll try another. I'm assuming Obama is "black jesus," why is he my racist far left leader? Why is he more my leader than yours?
There ya go, MIR. I knew you were a highly intelligent, well educated member of society.
Although I can't tell you why you follow the racist American traitor, I can tell you why I have disavowed him.
He should've never been President of the United State of America. He is a foreign born, CIA legacy asset and was set up with a pre-fabricated family to fool us. His grooming, education, placement in the Senate and subsequent scrubbing of his entire record was bought and paid for by foreign entities.
When did you discover that Obama was not an American? What was the thing that convinced you?
Discover? Tough to pin down, but there was A LOT of smoke around that several years ago and I never fully believed the faked Hawaiian birth certificate, and the mysterious death of Loretta Fuddy made it more suspicious.
What convinced me? Malik Obama
LOL, that's the flimsiest crap ever. Have you ever even read anything about Malik and why he's "MAGA" ol boy was still gravy training his brother until around 2015 when he, by his own admission soured when his half brother "wouldn't support" him. He didn't spout any birther conspiracies when he had the chance to when your boy started that crap in 2009. Malik rightly discovered the money was in becoming a black MAGA mascot, and y'all are falling in, hook, line, and sinker.
I didn't know anything about this dude until 15 minutes ago when I was able to see all of this by reading two articles.
-
Why can't y'all just leave us the eff alone? We should have left the act of carrying freedom papers around with us with emancipation.
https://twitter.com/KOCOJason/status/1260889682130460672
-
That white dude was so rough ridin' ridiculous.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
That white dude was so rough ridin' ridiculous.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes. But, is it really racism? That is the question.
-
I don’t know. Do you think he detained them because they were in a cargo truck or because they were black?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I don’t know. Do you think he detained them because they were in a cargo truck or because they were black?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think those are the only two potential reasons. And ultimately, I don't know what his problem was. I've only seen about 30 seconds of video, and a blurry 5 seconds of the guy.
-
I don’t know. Do you think he detained them because they were in a cargo truck or because they were black?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think those are the only two potential reasons. And ultimately, I don't know what his problem was. I've only seen about 30 seconds of video, and a blurry 5 seconds of the guy.
What are you having a hard time understanding?
-
I don’t know. Do you think he detained them because they were in a cargo truck or because they were black?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think those are the only two potential reasons. And ultimately, I don't know what his problem was. I've only seen about 30 seconds of video, and a blurry 5 seconds of the guy.
What are you having a hard time understanding?
Well, I was primed for some bona fide racist content, but I need more information before I brand him a racist. He could just be an bad person, for all I know.
-
I don’t know. Do you think he detained them because they were in a cargo truck or because they were black?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think those are the only two potential reasons. And ultimately, I don't know what his problem was. I've only seen about 30 seconds of video, and a blurry 5 seconds of the guy.
What are you having a hard time understanding?
Well, I was primed for some bona fide racist content, but I need more information before I brand him a racist. He could just be an bad person, for all I know.
Do you think it is standard operating procedure for him to block in the vehicles of unknown white people he sees leaving the community? That'd be a full time job, no? I'm certain he would have long lost his job as the association's keeper of caucasity if he was doing that to white folks.
It's very amusing to me when supposedly woke people expect things like this to not be proven racism. Are we looking for homie to be wearing a klan costume while holding a rope and calling the dudes in the truck coons before the standard is met?
-
I don’t know. Do you think he detained them because they were in a cargo truck or because they were black?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think those are the only two potential reasons. And ultimately, I don't know what his problem was. I've only seen about 30 seconds of video, and a blurry 5 seconds of the guy.
What are you having a hard time understanding?
Well, I was primed for some bona fide racist content, but I need more information before I brand him a racist. He could just be an bad person, for all I know.
Do you think it is standard operating procedure for him to block in the vehicles of unknown white people he sees leaving the community? That'd be a full time job, no? I'm certain he would have long lost his job as the association's keeper of caucasity if he was doing that to white folks.
It's very amusing to me when supposedly woke people expect things like this to not be proven racism. Are we looking for homie to be wearing a klan costume while holding a rope and calling the dudes in the truck coons before the standard is met?
No, I'm not saying he's not racist. I'm just saying I'm not sure based on the brief footage I saw. Gun to my head, I would say more likely than not it was racially motivated, but I also don't support publicly shaming someone based on less-than-convincing evidence.
-
I don’t know. Do you think he detained them because they were in a cargo truck or because they were black?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think those are the only two potential reasons. And ultimately, I don't know what his problem was. I've only seen about 30 seconds of video, and a blurry 5 seconds of the guy.
What are you having a hard time understanding?
Well, I was primed for some bona fide racist content, but I need more information before I brand him a racist. He could just be an bad person, for all I know.
Do you think it is standard operating procedure for him to block in the vehicles of unknown white people he sees leaving the community? That'd be a full time job, no? I'm certain he would have long lost his job as the association's keeper of caucasity if he was doing that to white folks.
It's very amusing to me when supposedly woke people expect things like this to not be proven racism. Are we looking for homie to be wearing a klan costume while holding a rope and calling the dudes in the truck coons before the standard is met?
No, I'm not saying he's not racist. I'm just saying I'm not sure based on the brief footage I saw. Gun to my head, I would say more likely than not it was racially motivated, but I also don't support publicly shaming someone based on less-than-convincing evidence.
Why did you avoid my question to you about him literally using his vehicle to block white motorists or delivery drivers coming out of that gated community? I'll ask again.
Do you think he's ever used his car to block a white driver, for over 30 minutes, from leaving that community?
At the very least this guy is guilt of unconscious bias. That's racism, that gets people killed. Another question.
What do you think happens if those two truck drivers get out of the truck and act as aggressive as they did?
-
I don’t know. Do you think he detained them because they were in a cargo truck or because they were black?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think those are the only two potential reasons. And ultimately, I don't know what his problem was. I've only seen about 30 seconds of video, and a blurry 5 seconds of the guy.
What are you having a hard time understanding?
Well, I was primed for some bona fide racist content, but I need more information before I brand him a racist. He could just be an bad person, for all I know.
Do you think it is standard operating procedure for him to block in the vehicles of unknown white people he sees leaving the community? That'd be a full time job, no? I'm certain he would have long lost his job as the association's keeper of caucasity if he was doing that to white folks.
It's very amusing to me when supposedly woke people expect things like this to not be proven racism. Are we looking for homie to be wearing a klan costume while holding a rope and calling the dudes in the truck coons before the standard is met?
No, I'm not saying he's not racist. I'm just saying I'm not sure based on the brief footage I saw. Gun to my head, I would say more likely than not it was racially motivated, but I also don't support publicly shaming someone based on less-than-convincing evidence.
Why did you avoid my question to you about him literally using his vehicle to block white motorists or delivery drivers coming out of that gated community? I'll ask again.
Do you think he's ever used his car to block a white driver, for over 30 minutes, from leaving that community?
At the very least this guy is guilt of unconscious bias. That's racism, that gets people killed. Another question.
What do you think happens if those two truck drivers get out of the truck and act as aggressive as they did?
Look, man, I watched about 5 blurry seconds of that guy's behavior. The rest is just supposition. I don't know whether he ordinarily is a Karen or not.
-
Still didn't answer the simple question, it's okay, you pretty much did.
-
Still didn't answer the simple question, it's okay, you pretty much did.
Well it's a dumb question. I don't know the guy. What frame of reference do I have for determining whether this rando has blocked other vehicles in front of the gate? I'm just saying the guy hasn't even been charged with a crime as far as I know. I'm going to reserve judgment before dragging his name through the mud.
-
Yeah, I'm sure he makes a practice of blocking everyone he doesn't know from leaving the community for 30 minutes, probably right, nothing unusual about that at all.
I'll help you out, it's racist, very much so in fact. Your soft pedaling of this incident is also racist.
You made the decision to "watch about 5 blurry seconds of that guy's behavior" and used that to close the book on this issue. You could have read the article, or watched the entire unedited video. You didn't do that, all would have been a better use of your time instead of going back and forth with me.
David Stewart's racist act was that he allowed his bias to blind him to the fact that these guys were clearly working. They were wearing uniforms with their names and the freight company's name on the uniforms and the truck they were driving. There was no reason to suspect that these gentlemen were doing anything other than delivering freight.
Your racist act is a refusal to acknowledge the aggressions of these men and acknowledge the very obvious racial bias they are showing. Your need for some nebulous proof of the racism gives safe harbor for these things to continue. When they do happen the burden of seeing theses things out to a result where no one gets killed or arrested falls squarely on the gentlemen doing nothing but trying to put in an honest days work. Your type of racism, the kind that allows actions based on biases to thrive, is the absolute worst kind. It's the kind that causes the most stress in the lives of black and brown people. So why people of your ilk look down at the McMichael's of the world, it's you that make our lives hard, every damn day. There's nothing anyone can tell you about the harms of bias or aggressions, micro or macro that can make you change your mind. You have a very narrow definition of what's racist. It's not because you don't want to end racism, it's much more important to you that you can look at yourself and feel like you aren't one of them.
You should be disgusted that these guys, just trying to make an honest living, can't have their work day interrupted, but it's just yawning indifference because that guy didn't call them niggers.
Like I said when I posted the tweet, y'all always have the option to just leave us the eff alone.
Sleep well, spracne.
-
Yeah, I'm sure he makes a practice of blocking everyone he doesn't know from leaving the community for 30 minutes, probably right, nothing unusual about that at all.
I'll help you out, it's racist, very much so in fact. Your soft pedaling of this incident is also racist.
You made the decision to "watch about 5 blurry seconds of that guy's behavior" and used that to close the book on this issue. You could have read the article, or watched the entire unedited video. You didn't do that, all would have been a better use of your time instead of going back and forth with me.
David Stewart's racist act was that he allowed his bias to blind him to the fact that these guys were clearly working. They were wearing uniforms with their names and the freight company's name on the uniforms and the truck they were driving. There was no reason to suspect that these gentlemen were doing anything other than delivering freight.
Your racist act is a refusal to acknowledge the aggressions of these men and acknowledge the very obvious racial bias they are showing. Your need for some nebulous proof of the racism gives safe harbor for these things to continue. When they do happen the burden of seeing theses things out to a result where no one gets killed or arrested falls squarely on the gentlemen doing nothing but trying to put in an honest days work. Your type of racism, the kind that allows actions based on biases to thrive, is the absolute worst kind. It's the kind that causes the most stress in the lives of black and brown people. So why people of your ilk look down at the McMichael's of the world, it's you that make our lives hard, every damn day. There's nothing anyone can tell you about the harms of bias or aggressions, micro or macro that can make you change your mind. You have a very narrow definition of what's racist. It's not because you don't want to end racism, it's much more important to you that you can look at yourself and feel like you aren't one of them.
You should be disgusted that these guys, just trying to make an honest living, can't have their work day interrupted, but it's just yawning indifference because that guy didn't call them niggers.
Like I said when I posted the tweet, y'all always have the option to just leave us the eff alone.
Sleep well, spracne.
I've been pretty clear that all I did was watch the video in the Tweet. You're probably correct, in large part. I'm just trying to be consistent.
-
The moving company parts of this 'sode. :lol:
https://www.tbs.com/shows/the-last-og/season-3/episode-6/the-breaks-uncut
-
Maybe what Spracs is saying is that 99% of these interactions are racist but we can't with 100% certainty know that this one is?
-
Probably best fits here... Looking forward to this documentary film coming out on Juneteenth this summer.
https://uncletom.com/
-
You would think after a week of seeing a woman lose her job for attempting to use the cops as a weapon against a black man, and living in a city on fire because the cops murdered another black man, that this behavior would stop for just one day. NOPE. White people just can't let this crap go, not even for a solitary day.
If you're reading this hopefully you aren't the type that make black and brown people have to prove they belong somewhere, especially somewhere as trivial as a gym in a WeWork building. If you know someone like this, stop them, just leave people the eff alone.
https://twitter.com/anisalrh/status/1265510620285239297
Now this dude lost his job, for what? Because he couldn't imagine these dudes could have rightfully been at this gym. I couldn't imagine giving two shits about who is working out where.
The comments to the video have a lot of info, including messages from this clown.
Honestly he should have been fired after this.
Venture capitalist and his Lake Calhoun neighbors unimpressed by Native Americans
Tom Austin is not a historian, a sociologist, or a political scientist.
Readers of this morning's Star Tribune opinion section will recognize as much, probably well before they reach the tagline of Austin's guest column, which labels him as the "CEO and managing partner of the F2 Group, a venture capital and private equity firm in Minneapolis."
And yet, somehow, Austin feels qualified to try his hand at both historical analysis and public opinion research. The results are very bad.
Austin describes his undertaking as follows: He spent the summer trying to speak with "virtually every homeowner who lives directly along Lake Calhoun, plus a couple hundred neighbors who live within a few blocks."
http://www.citypages.com/news/venture-capitalist-and-his-lake-calhoun-neighbors-unimpressed-by-native-americans/454492023
-
https://twitter.com/nyy_deplorable/status/1266525204815269888
Facts.
-
https://twitter.com/nyy_deplorable/status/1266525204815269888
Facts.
Shut up, monkey.
-
https://twitter.com/laurelleyva/status/1266723452221874177
:peek:
-
https://twitter.com/laurelleyva/status/1266723452221874177
:peek:
Using Minn as our guide it would be hard to argue against that.
Toss in Joe and Klo, and they ran maniacal lunatic racist war monger Hillary in ‘16.
Amaze
-
Yikes
https://twitter.com/IAm_BigCam/status/1269319583523094528
-
How the hell don't we have a master Karen thread? Anyway
https://twitter.com/thejessica_j/status/1280890225456111616
-
How the hell don't we have a master Karen thread? Anyway
https://twitter.com/thejessica_j/status/1280890225456111616
That guy was put in such a crummy situation. Sounds like he just wanted to go out and watch some birds, and then he was thrust into this cultural flashpoint that he never asked for.
-
Weaponizing Whiteness.
That's a new one for me.
Interesting
-
How the hell don't we have a master Karen thread? Anyway
https://twitter.com/thejessica_j/status/1280890225456111616
That guy was put in such a crummy situation. Sounds like he just wanted to go out and watch some birds, and then he was thrust into this cultural flashpoint that he never asked for.
What a classy move. Shame on the Karen for trying to cheapen it.
-
How the hell don't we have a master Karen thread? Anyway
https://twitter.com/thejessica_j/status/1280890225456111616
That guy was put in such a crummy situation. Sounds like he just wanted to go out and watch some birds, and then he was thrust into this cultural flashpoint that he never asked for.
I ain't mad at him, he can feel however he wants to feel but his opinion on whether or not she should be charged for this crime is as valid as mine or dax's.
-
How the hell don't we have a master Karen thread? Anyway
https://twitter.com/thejessica_j/status/1280890225456111616
That guy was put in such a crummy situation. Sounds like he just wanted to go out and watch some birds, and then he was thrust into this cultural flashpoint that he never asked for.
What a classy move. Shame on the Karen for trying to cheapen it.
Classy, lol. Also -100 for the gross misapplication of the word "Karen."
-
How the hell don't we have a master Karen thread? Anyway
https://twitter.com/thejessica_j/status/1280890225456111616
That guy was put in such a crummy situation. Sounds like he just wanted to go out and watch some birds, and then he was thrust into this cultural flashpoint that he never asked for.
What a classy move. Shame on the Karen for trying to cheapen it.
Classy, lol. Also -100 for the gross misapplication of the word "Karen."
Wow
-
How the hell don't we have a master Karen thread? Anyway
https://twitter.com/thejessica_j/status/1280890225456111616
That guy was put in such a crummy situation. Sounds like he just wanted to go out and watch some birds, and then he was thrust into this cultural flashpoint that he never asked for.
I ain't mad at him, he can feel however he wants to feel but his opinion on whether or not she should be charged for this crime is as valid as mine or dax's.
True. His willingness to cooperate though is up to him.
-
if this becomes the official Karen thread then this info needs to be here so it isn't missed
https://twitter.com/kron4news/status/1273461685324570625
named it the "CAREN Act"
https://twitter.com/joycecutler/status/1280609888129789954
:lol:
-
I love that proposal, I'm sure the conversation will turn into ones first amendment right to call the police whenever you want for whatever you want.
-
How the hell don't we have a master Karen thread? Anyway
https://twitter.com/thejessica_j/status/1280890225456111616
That guy was put in such a crummy situation. Sounds like he just wanted to go out and watch some birds, and then he was thrust into this cultural flashpoint that he never asked for.
I ain't mad at him, he can feel however he wants to feel but his opinion on whether or not she should be charged for this crime is as valid as mine or dax's.
True. His willingness to cooperate though is up to him.
Good thing is the prosecutors won't need his cooperation.
-
Which makes it that much worse that his name is now being dragged by twitter observers.
-
How the hell don't we have a master Karen thread? Anyway
https://twitter.com/thejessica_j/status/1280890225456111616
That guy was put in such a crummy situation. Sounds like he just wanted to go out and watch some birds, and then he was thrust into this cultural flashpoint that he never asked for.
What a classy move. Shame on the Karen for trying to cheapen it.
Classy, lol. Also -100 for the gross misapplication of the word "Karen."
She’s a twitter Karen.
-
Which makes it that much worse that his name is now being dragged by twitter observers.
He didn't have to say anything, did he? What was there to gain by doing that? Again, words have consequences, his is that he has to not search his name on twitter for a couple of days, boo hoo.
-
How the hell don't we have a master Karen thread? Anyway
https://twitter.com/thejessica_j/status/1280890225456111616
That guy was put in such a crummy situation. Sounds like he just wanted to go out and watch some birds, and then he was thrust into this cultural flashpoint that he never asked for.
What a classy move. Shame on the Karen for trying to cheapen it.
Classy, lol. Also -100 for the gross misapplication of the word "Karen."
She’s a twitter Karen.
Because she had an opinion? Did she ask to speak to a manager, threaten to call the cops? Having an opinion someone doesn't like makes you a Karen?
-
Karen about some crap that don’t concern you
-
Which makes it that much worse that his name is now being dragged by twitter observers.
He didn't have to say anything, did he? What was there to gain by doing that? Again, words have consequences, his is that he has to not search his name on twitter for a couple of days, boo hoo.
My word he's just a guy caught up in a viral video. He was asked a question and answered it, he didn't go through some kind of cost/benefit analysis before giving that quote.
And you think the twitter Karens can't stir up enough controversy to make a guy like Christian unemployable solely because he's now controversial? It's not just his feelings at stake.
-
I thought filing a false report was already a crime.
-
Which makes it that much worse that his name is now being dragged by twitter observers.
He didn't have to say anything, did he? What was there to gain by doing that? Again, words have consequences, his is that he has to not search his name on twitter for a couple of days, boo hoo.
My word he's just a guy caught up in a viral video. He was asked a question and answered it, he didn't go through some kind of cost/benefit analysis before giving that quote.
And you think the twitter Karens can't stir up enough controversy to make a guy like Christian unemployable solely because he's now controversial? It's not just his feelings at stake.
Stop man, people are disagreeing his thought process, no one is going after him, this is ridiculous.
-
I thought filing a false report was already a crime.
It is and that's the point people are making about the bird watcher. The proposed CAREN act in San Francisco takes this a step farther because often these calls to the cops don't actually lead to a report being filed.
-
Which makes it that much worse that his name is now being dragged by twitter observers.
He didn't have to say anything, did he? What was there to gain by doing that? Again, words have consequences, his is that he has to not search his name on twitter for a couple of days, boo hoo.
Smells like harassment. ;) cc @rage against the mckee
-
Keep arresting these Karens
https://twitter.com/Purplegarter1/status/1279786684817735684
-
https://twitter.com/KarenAttiah/status/1282716505025794051?s=20
-
Lol. Good luck with that, Karen.
-
That’s just the content we need to get the Woke World thread back on track.
-
They should change their name to the Power Rangers. Have 9 different colored uniforms on the field at all times (would probably have to create a couple of new rangers to do this) and alter the batting helmets to look more authentic.
-
Lol. Good luck with that, Karen.
When worlds collide
-
They should change their name to the Power Rangers. Have 9 different colored uniforms on the field at all times (would probably have to create a couple of new rangers to do this) and alter the batting helmets to look more authentic.
It’s really not too hard if you consider the green and white rangers as two different rangers. That gives you 7 of the original rangers.
What about the other two you ask? Alpha 5 and zordon of course. What a stupid question lmao.
-
Keep arresting these Karens
https://twitter.com/Purplegarter1/status/1279786684817735684
It's pretty obvious this dude is a stupid eff. What kind of response is "I don't know what color are you?" as an answer to the obvious question "Are you following me because I'm black?".
-
How the hell don't we have a master Karen thread? Anyway
https://twitter.com/thejessica_j/status/1280890225456111616
That guy was put in such a crummy situation. Sounds like he just wanted to go out and watch some birds, and then he was thrust into this cultural flashpoint that he never asked for.
I ain't mad at him, he can feel however he wants to feel but his opinion on whether or not she should be charged for this crime is as valid as mine or dax's.
True. His willingness to cooperate though is up to him.
Good thing is the prosecutors won't need his cooperation.
Wonder how Christian Cooper feels now, actually I still don't give a eff. This woman is a threat to the public, and there should be sharp legal consequences to deter this crap. Using harsh sentences as a so called deterrent has been used for generations, no need to suddenly reverse course now.
https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1316393519410536453
-
She needs to do a little time, think it over.
-
Wonder how Christian Cooper feels now
He's got it all figured out.
In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. Cooper declined to answer specific questions about the second 911 call or about Ms. Cooper’s potential plea deal. For him, the encounter in Central Park is “not about Amy Cooper,” but about a larger societal problem, he said.
“My response is very simple: we have to make sure we don’t get distracted,” Mr. Cooper said. “We have a very important goal — and we have to stay focused on it — which is reforming policing, getting systemic change to the structural racism in our society.”
-
Wonder how Christian Cooper feels now
He's got it all figured out.
In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. Cooper declined to answer specific questions about the second 911 call or about Ms. Cooper’s potential plea deal. For him, the encounter in Central Park is “not about Amy Cooper,” but about a larger societal problem, he said.
“My response is very simple: we have to make sure we don’t get distracted,” Mr. Cooper said. “We have a very important goal — and we have to stay focused on it — which is reforming policing, getting systemic change to the structural racism in our society.”
Captain False Equivalency
-
She’s literally going through the justice system right now. How are you seriously pissed at the victim?
-
She’s literally going through the justice system right now. How are you seriously pissed at the victim?
You think I'm pissed at the dude because I pointed out that his statement is a false equivalency? Forget about me, what's your angle here?
-
I’ve got no angle. You just seem to upset at the guy and I’m not sure why. Your last two posts were about not caring what he has to say and that he’s drawing false equivalences.
-
Well I'm not upset and it isn't the least bit controversial that someone could have an opinion about this woman and still want to end systemic racism. The two things have nothing to do with each other. It's like someone asking him whether he likes chunky or creamy peanut butter and he responds "I'd rather we focus on eliminating childhood hunger." Like 75% of the posts on this board are dedicated to making fun of our holding someone account for saying something stupid, it's weird that you're choosing this to draw a line.
This dude keeps weighing in publicly to literally avoid the question he's being.asked because his entire world, his job, his hobby, his schooling, and probably his personal relationships are surrounded by people who more identify with her than with him and being the one black guy in the group and that black guy throwing a well heeled white woman under the bus to advance a greater cause puts him in a very bad spot. You definitely need to trust me on this one.
What he's doing is meant to make people like you, who are in his life, comfortable, it's why you're working so hard to cape up for this cornball.
-
Guess I just misunderstood
-
maybe racism!
https://twitter.com/ossoff/status/1317231042089111552
-
Just came to post this and it's definitely racist. That dude definitely knows how to say Kamala's name, he's served on committees with her. He knew he'd get a pop for mispronouncing her name, a sad, but accurate commentary on maga.
Also we haven't discussed the panties that the trump staff has handed out as masks this week.
-
Pretty gross
-
what a strange and tiny world.
https://twitter.com/BetoMedia/status/1318972981419397120
-
what a strange and tiny world.
https://twitter.com/BetoMedia/status/1318972981419397120
Why did you post this in this thread?
-
Why did you post this in this thread?
so that others could experience some pale shadow of the feeling of serendipity that i experienced when i came across the tweet.
-
What in the world? Interesting spot for the bird watcher to pop up.
-
Why did you post this in this thread?
so that others could experience some pale shadow of the feeling of serendipity that i experienced when i came across the tweet.
I appreciated it. Steve Kerr on the 29th!
-
Steve Kerr on the 29th!
:excited:
-
do we have a kush thread?
https://twitter.com/DNCWarRoom/status/1320721622429552644
-
https://twitter.com/RubenGallego/status/1320750911040360449
-
https://twitter.com/terencessb/status/1342002633679097858
https://twitter.com/kylehurley24/status/1342684267516743681
https://twitter.com/kylehurley24/status/1343693176356425728
https://twitter.com/FPSpr33zy/status/1343644571121704962
-
I’ve given it a lot of thought, and answer on that one is yes.
-
Damn that was a satisfying video to watch.
-
I love the guy that just pays for his vodka and walks out as if nothing was happening
-
it is somewhat unfortunate that he dropped the tea on the flip
other than that...
perfection
-
How the hell don't we have a master Karen thread? Anyway
https://twitter.com/thejessica_j/status/1280890225456111616
That guy was put in such a crummy situation. Sounds like he just wanted to go out and watch some birds, and then he was thrust into this cultural flashpoint that he never asked for.
I ain't mad at him, he can feel however he wants to feel but his opinion on whether or not she should be charged for this crime is as valid as mine or dax's.
True. His willingness to cooperate though is up to him.
Good thing is the prosecutors won't need his cooperation.
Wonder how Christian Cooper feels now, actually I still don't give a eff. This woman is a threat to the public, and there should be sharp legal consequences to deter this crap. Using harsh sentences as a so called deterrent has been used for generations, no need to suddenly reverse course now.
https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1316393519410536453
Wonder how Christian Cooper feels now, Part II.
This bitch. I've reconsidered, she should have gone to jail.
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1397727520716361730
What the eff kind of lawyer does this klanswoman have that they can't even write the initial press release without sounding the worlds loudest dog whistle?
"Even a perfunctory investigation would have shown that Plaintiff did not shout at Christian Cooper or call the police from Central Park on May 25, 2020 because she was a racist -- she did these things because she was alone in the park and frightened to death after being selected as the next target of Christian Cooper, an overzealous birdwatcher engaged in Central Park's ongoing feud between birdwatchers and dog owners," the complaint stated.
He caped up for her and in return her lawyers tried to publicly paint him as a predator and violent criminal.
God, I hope this witch is barren.
-
Man, you'd think she'd kind of want to just like, slink away into obscurity after all of that. Change your name and restart.
-
Tangent: I was watching a Central Park birding documentary from 2012 and spotted Christian Cooper in it. Also spotted author Jonathan Franzen.
-
Was Christian Cooper selecting one of his targets in the video?
-
Tangent: I was watching a Central Park birding documentary from 2012 and spotted Christian Cooper in it. Also spotted author Jonathan Franzen.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210528/5d284193bf6209463d1643d3ecb1e2ec.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk