|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 26 2017 03:46 Mohdoo wrote:
This is just like feminism. We need a different word. Racism and feminism are essentially dead as tools of discourse. We need to get more specific and use words suited for certain applications. So long as they don't actively lynch people, you will never get a rural white to admit they have "racist" positions or feelings.
I honestly think this entire issue needs to be redesigned and redone. If nothing else, it is plain and simply ineffective from the left. This issue has helped rally support within the party, but no minds are being changed.
Racism, as a term, is extremely charged, non-specific and...well...EXTREMELY...CHARGED. There is so much mental auto-correct that takes place as soon as the word is uttered.
that's why I favor using "bias" rather than "racism"
well, part of hte reaosn, there's also some other reasons, but they're not important here.
of course, to some extent, some bad actors on the other side will attempt to poison ANY word you use, which makes it harder to just swap words. and some aren't truly willing ot have the discussion at all (or they'd listen to the meaning of hte words and why you're using them as you are, and to understand the point you're making)
|
On September 26 2017 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +Ivanka Trump, the first daughter and adviser to the president, used a personal email address to communicate with a government official after her father took office, according to documents that the nonprofit American Oversight obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and shared exclusively with Newsweek.
The documents show that on February 28, Trump—identifying herself as Ivanka Kushner—emailed Linda McMahon, the administrator of the United States Small Business Administration, from a personal domain. At the time, Trump was operating inside the White House in a non-official capacity. She wrote that she wanted McMahon’s agency and her staff to “explore opportunities to collaborate” on issues related to “women’s entrepreneurship.” She copied on the correspondence the government email addresses for two other federal employees, Dina Powell and Julie Radford. SourceSo at this point who isn't using their private email.
Rather than using that to retroactively try to exonerate Hillary, why don't we stick to giving the Kushners the proper sanctions for mishandling government information?
|
On September 26 2017 03:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 03:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:On average, I like it when athletes voice their political opinions. But not always. I would have thought much higher of Paulo Di Canio if he hadn't. Generally though, athletes are role models and I want more people to involve themselves in politics and to be politically conscious.  How is calling the country racist being a role model? This has been my point about these racial issues all along: the free use of the term "racist" to defame a huge percentage of the country's population will never accomplish anything more than render the debate toxic and further polarize the sides. Police brutality is not a racial issue, but these idiots can't help themselves but make it one. They aren't unifying the country to solve a problem. They are further dividing it.
Yep. They've been trying to play both sides, between "everybody is a little racist" and "you have to be somewhat racist to have voted Trump" all the way up to "half the country's racist/most people that didn't vote Obama are racist." It's facially clear that it's meant as a pejorative. This history of the politicization of the term means it can't be rescued to signify that we should speak more politely to illegal immigrants or be more respectful of diverse lived experience or whatever. When this absolute bullshit gets called out, in service of actually understanding what's happening in the country, people retract, double-down, or snipe from the galleries. It'll keep coming up because the forum is so backwards on this issue.
|
On September 26 2017 03:52 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 03:46 Mohdoo wrote:
This is just like feminism. We need a different word. Racism and feminism are essentially dead as tools of discourse. We need to get more specific and use words suited for certain applications. So long as they don't actively lynch people, you will never get a rural white to admit they have "racist" positions or feelings.
I honestly think this entire issue needs to be redesigned and redone. If nothing else, it is plain and simply ineffective from the left. This issue has helped rally support within the party, but no minds are being changed.
Racism, as a term, is extremely charged, non-specific and...well...EXTREMELY...CHARGED. There is so much mental auto-correct that takes place as soon as the word is uttered. The word "racism" is used because there is no other word for it. You can't change the meaning, nor can you substitute another word into its place. Feminism has bee changed and adopted by so many people, it's lost its meaning and what it originally stood for. Being called a racist may be uncomfortable for some, but there's a reason why you may have been called that. (not you in particular)
The issue is that most people are just low tier and don't have a long background in discourse or applied philosophy. People think of their shitty grandparents when they think of "racist". They think of the KKK and getting in trouble for dating a black guy. So when we're talking about issues like minimizing injustice facing blacks, people don't realize their victim blaming has racist undertones.
|
On September 26 2017 03:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 03:16 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 03:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:On average, I like it when athletes voice their political opinions. But not always. I would have thought much higher of Paulo Di Canio if he hadn't. Generally though, athletes are role models and I want more people to involve themselves in politics and to be politically conscious. How is calling the country racist being a role model? This has been my point about these racial issues all along: the free use of the term "racist" to defame a huge percentage of the country's population will never accomplish anything more than render the debate toxic and further polarize the sides. Police brutality is not a racial issue, but these idiots can't help themselves but make it one. They aren't unifying the country to solve a problem. They are further dividing it. Yep. They've been trying to play both sides, between "everybody is a little racist" and "you have to be somewhat racist to have voted Trump" all the way up to "half the country's racist/most people that didn't vote Obama are racist." It's facially clear that it's meant as a pejorative. This history of the politicization of the term means it can't be rescued to signify that we should speak more politely to illegal immigrants or be more respectful of diverse lived experience or whatever. When this absolute bullshit gets called out, in service of actually understanding what's happening in the country, people retract, double-down, or snipe from the galleries. It'll keep coming up because the forum is so backwards on this issue.
I've never seen you try to engage with the people making an attempt to actually understand what's happening through the lens of racial power structures. These words ring hollow because you, just like the people calling half the country racist then putting their head in the sand, are not really talking about the issue.
|
On September 26 2017 03:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 03:16 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 03:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:On average, I like it when athletes voice their political opinions. But not always. I would have thought much higher of Paulo Di Canio if he hadn't. Generally though, athletes are role models and I want more people to involve themselves in politics and to be politically conscious. How is calling the country racist being a role model? This has been my point about these racial issues all along: the free use of the term "racist" to defame a huge percentage of the country's population will never accomplish anything more than render the debate toxic and further polarize the sides. Police brutality is not a racial issue, but these idiots can't help themselves but make it one. They aren't unifying the country to solve a problem. They are further dividing it. Yep. They've been trying to play both sides, between "everybody is a little racist" and "you have to be somewhat racist to have voted Trump" all the way up to "half the country's racist/most people that didn't vote Obama are racist." It's facially clear that it's meant as a pejorative. This history of the politicization of the term means it can't be rescued to signify that we should speak more politely to illegal immigrants or be more respectful of diverse lived experience or whatever. When this absolute bullshit gets called out, in service of actually understanding what's happening in the country, people retract, double-down, or snipe from the galleries. It'll keep coming up because the forum is so backwards on this issue.
This is a good example of "stupid" or "liar." I find it incredible insulting intellectually to see people around here say that "racist" isn't meant to be a pejorative term when they themselves very clearly use it as one. God, I can't tell these people to "fuck off" hard enough.
|
On September 26 2017 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 03:52 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 26 2017 03:46 Mohdoo wrote:
This is just like feminism. We need a different word. Racism and feminism are essentially dead as tools of discourse. We need to get more specific and use words suited for certain applications. So long as they don't actively lynch people, you will never get a rural white to admit they have "racist" positions or feelings.
I honestly think this entire issue needs to be redesigned and redone. If nothing else, it is plain and simply ineffective from the left. This issue has helped rally support within the party, but no minds are being changed.
Racism, as a term, is extremely charged, non-specific and...well...EXTREMELY...CHARGED. There is so much mental auto-correct that takes place as soon as the word is uttered. The word "racism" is used because there is no other word for it. You can't change the meaning, nor can you substitute another word into its place. Feminism has bee changed and adopted by so many people, it's lost its meaning and what it originally stood for. Being called a racist may be uncomfortable for some, but there's a reason why you may have been called that. (not you in particular) The issue is that most people are just low tier and don't have a long background in discourse or applied philosophy. People think of their shitty grandparents when they think of "racist". They think of the KKK and getting in trouble for dating a black guy. So when we're talking about issues like minimizing injustice facing blacks, people don't realize their victim blaming has racist undertones.
pfft.
Most people are just low tier.
The higher tier ones are the ones that call everyone racist because they won't use the term 'systemic' racism or unconscious bias. Why, i wonder? Anything to do with how outrageous it obviously is and how great it feels to troll people who disagree with them? I think so.
Of course, these high tier people then bitch and whine as if its not their fault when the people they went out of their way to piss off go and vote for Trump.
The highest tier of narcissism.
|
|
|
On September 26 2017 03:58 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:Ivanka Trump, the first daughter and adviser to the president, used a personal email address to communicate with a government official after her father took office, according to documents that the nonprofit American Oversight obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and shared exclusively with Newsweek.
The documents show that on February 28, Trump—identifying herself as Ivanka Kushner—emailed Linda McMahon, the administrator of the United States Small Business Administration, from a personal domain. At the time, Trump was operating inside the White House in a non-official capacity. She wrote that she wanted McMahon’s agency and her staff to “explore opportunities to collaborate” on issues related to “women’s entrepreneurship.” She copied on the correspondence the government email addresses for two other federal employees, Dina Powell and Julie Radford. SourceSo at this point who isn't using their private email. Rather than using that to retroactively try to exonerate Hillary, why don't we stick to giving the Kushners the proper sanctions for mishandling government information?
Do you have some weird instinctual need or contractual requirement to bring up Hillary Clinton up whenever possible or a set number of times a day?
I'm just pointing out the incredible level of obliviousness and hypocrisy by the team which made email security one of the biggest issues of the campaign.
|
You go LeBron! Power to the people!
|
On September 26 2017 02:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 02:52 Emnjay808 wrote:
I was wondering why the NFL thread hardly had any political talk, but it was all here lol. Now I got something to distract me from studying o/ Like I said last night, people generally don't want to mix sports and politics. And this is one of the reasons why the NFL is going to be the big loser in all of this.
STOP SPREADING THIS LIE!
It's ridiculous and obnoxious, and at this point I know you know it's not true but you keep repeating it anyway. Stop!
|
On September 26 2017 04:07 LegalLord wrote:You go LeBron! Power to the people!
did you see Trumps clap back at the GSW with ‘The penguins have been invited and they’re coming!’
you got em good man. the 100% white team in the whitest sport in america didn’t have their invitation revoked and that really gets your point across about how it’s not about race.
like even if i wanted to take his word for it that it’s not about race for him, and i’ll admit i don’t, how could I?
|
On September 26 2017 04:06 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 03:58 LegalLord wrote:On September 26 2017 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:Ivanka Trump, the first daughter and adviser to the president, used a personal email address to communicate with a government official after her father took office, according to documents that the nonprofit American Oversight obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and shared exclusively with Newsweek.
The documents show that on February 28, Trump—identifying herself as Ivanka Kushner—emailed Linda McMahon, the administrator of the United States Small Business Administration, from a personal domain. At the time, Trump was operating inside the White House in a non-official capacity. She wrote that she wanted McMahon’s agency and her staff to “explore opportunities to collaborate” on issues related to “women’s entrepreneurship.” She copied on the correspondence the government email addresses for two other federal employees, Dina Powell and Julie Radford. SourceSo at this point who isn't using their private email. Rather than using that to retroactively try to exonerate Hillary, why don't we stick to giving the Kushners the proper sanctions for mishandling government information? Do you have some weird instinctual need or contractual requirement to bring up Hillary Clinton up whenever possible or a set number of times a day? I'm just pointing out the incredible level of obliviousness and hypocrisy by the team which made email security one of the biggest issues of the campaign.
It's an obvious connection. An insinuation that it's pretty clear you were making ("oh look, everybody is doing it now!") and we know who is the go-to email individual.
And on that topic, looking more closely, this is a non-story by a non-journalistic news source. As a non-employee communicating from the outside, using a personal email makes perfect sense.
|
On September 26 2017 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 02:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 02:52 Emnjay808 wrote:
I was wondering why the NFL thread hardly had any political talk, but it was all here lol. Now I got something to distract me from studying o/ Like I said last night, people generally don't want to mix sports and politics. And this is one of the reasons why the NFL is going to be the big loser in all of this. STOP SPREADING THIS LIE! It's ridiculous and obnoxious, and at this point I know you know it's not true but you keep repeating it anyway. Stop!
You should go comfort all of the NFL owners who are shitting themselves over this political mess that they have gotten themselves into.
|
On September 26 2017 04:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 26 2017 02:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 02:52 Emnjay808 wrote:
I was wondering why the NFL thread hardly had any political talk, but it was all here lol. Now I got something to distract me from studying o/ Like I said last night, people generally don't want to mix sports and politics. And this is one of the reasons why the NFL is going to be the big loser in all of this. STOP SPREADING THIS LIE! It's ridiculous and obnoxious, and at this point I know you know it's not true but you keep repeating it anyway. Stop! You should go comfort all of the NFL owners who are shitting themselves over this political mess that they have gotten themselves into.
Fine, if you stop repeating this trash lie.
On September 26 2017 03:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 03:35 Artisreal wrote:On September 26 2017 03:32 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 03:30 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 03:23 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 03:18 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 03:09 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 03:04 Mohdoo wrote:On September 26 2017 02:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 02:52 Emnjay808 wrote:
I was wondering why the NFL thread hardly had any political talk, but it was all here lol. Now I got something to distract me from studying o/ Like I said last night, people generally don't want to mix sports and politics. And this is one of the reasons why the NFL is going to be the big loser in all of this. Viewers don't want to be confronted with these ethics issues while watching sports. But the athletes themselves have identities and personalities and have shown a willingness to express their beliefs. No matter what job someone is doing, they are still a human and should not be silenced or discouraged from speaking out. It keeps feeling like some people see sports like the military or something. Like these guys are expected to be stoic or something. There are a few things at work here. First, people don't want to be bombarded with politics in their entertainment unless they're actively seeking politics out. Second, the message at issue here is a particularly toxic one that people really don't want to be beaten over the head with. Average Joe Whitey doesn't want to hear people tell him that his country is racist, which necessarily implies that he is racist. Third, Average Joe Whitey really doesn't want to hear this message from a bunch of patently privileged sports athletes who earn millions of dollars per year and, for all intents and purposes, live in fantasy land. The problem to me is that people see an accusation of racism as an irremovable stain on their character, rather than something that also isn't really their fault, just something that they should acknowledge and try to improve. If a black person says they feel discriminated against, there is no reason - not even wealth - to disbelieve them. Of course people see it as a stain on their character rather than just another adjective. Look at how the Left uses the term for its political purposes. Look at how Leftist posters use the term around here. The intent is clearly defamatory, and the response from anyone to whom the Left tries to attach this label rightfully will be somewhere between "fuck you" and "I hope you get run over by a bus." Where 'the Left' (possibly the worst of the all-encompassing generalisation made) call someone racist, it is fairly often because they are. Sometimes they are not racist, and 'the Left' (whatever this means) is mistaken, but that's OK because if no one is allowed to call anyone racist, which is surely the alternative, then racism will never get called out. If 'the Left' (in this case the people kneeling) protest structural racism, then they have called the system racist which we can, with some thought, establish as a nuanced criticism of both our institutions and individuals within society. Its not an insult to anyone, just an observation. Just because Joe Whitey is too sensitive to accept that observation doesn't mean it isn't true. Do you think that 40%+ of the country is racist? That's the argument that is being advanced by the Left and many posters here. That is a very clear overuse of the term. It's very clear that your usage of racism is very apologetic towards perpetrators so feel free to accept differing opinions on that one. Of course I'm going to be apologetic towards the "racists" when the entire republican party and all conservatives/right-wingers are being labeled "racists." It's a patently absurd use of the term. And I find it very telling that y'all won't concede either that this is an overuse of the term or that this use of the term has a negative impact on discourse.
This is such trash I'm pretty sick of seeing it.
The racism has a negative impact on the discourse, the term just upsets too many on the right's white fragility.
|
On September 26 2017 04:11 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 04:06 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 26 2017 03:58 LegalLord wrote:On September 26 2017 03:52 ticklishmusic wrote:Ivanka Trump, the first daughter and adviser to the president, used a personal email address to communicate with a government official after her father took office, according to documents that the nonprofit American Oversight obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and shared exclusively with Newsweek.
The documents show that on February 28, Trump—identifying herself as Ivanka Kushner—emailed Linda McMahon, the administrator of the United States Small Business Administration, from a personal domain. At the time, Trump was operating inside the White House in a non-official capacity. She wrote that she wanted McMahon’s agency and her staff to “explore opportunities to collaborate” on issues related to “women’s entrepreneurship.” She copied on the correspondence the government email addresses for two other federal employees, Dina Powell and Julie Radford. SourceSo at this point who isn't using their private email. Rather than using that to retroactively try to exonerate Hillary, why don't we stick to giving the Kushners the proper sanctions for mishandling government information? Do you have some weird instinctual need or contractual requirement to bring up Hillary Clinton up whenever possible or a set number of times a day? I'm just pointing out the incredible level of obliviousness and hypocrisy by the team which made email security one of the biggest issues of the campaign. It's an obvious connection. An insinuation that it's pretty clear you were making ("oh look, everybody is doing it now!") and we know who is the go-to email individual. And on that topic, looking more closely, this is a non-story by a non-journalistic news source. As a non-employee communicating from the outside, using a personal email makes perfect sense.
See, now you're just projecting onto me.
Tut, tut Legal. You've become so boring lately.
|
@GH -- Of course I'm not going to stop using that argument. I know it's right and, judging by the muted responses that I get from people around here, effective.
|
On September 26 2017 04:03 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:On September 26 2017 03:52 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 26 2017 03:46 Mohdoo wrote:
This is just like feminism. We need a different word. Racism and feminism are essentially dead as tools of discourse. We need to get more specific and use words suited for certain applications. So long as they don't actively lynch people, you will never get a rural white to admit they have "racist" positions or feelings.
I honestly think this entire issue needs to be redesigned and redone. If nothing else, it is plain and simply ineffective from the left. This issue has helped rally support within the party, but no minds are being changed.
Racism, as a term, is extremely charged, non-specific and...well...EXTREMELY...CHARGED. There is so much mental auto-correct that takes place as soon as the word is uttered. The word "racism" is used because there is no other word for it. You can't change the meaning, nor can you substitute another word into its place. Feminism has bee changed and adopted by so many people, it's lost its meaning and what it originally stood for. Being called a racist may be uncomfortable for some, but there's a reason why you may have been called that. (not you in particular) The issue is that most people are just low tier and don't have a long background in discourse or applied philosophy. People think of their shitty grandparents when they think of "racist". They think of the KKK and getting in trouble for dating a black guy. So when we're talking about issues like minimizing injustice facing blacks, people don't realize their victim blaming has racist undertones. pfft. Most people are just low tier. The higher tier ones are the ones that call everyone racist because they won't use the term 'systemic' racism or unconscious bias. Why, i wonder? Anything to do with how outrageous it obviously is and how great it feels to troll people who disagree with them? I think so. Of course, these high tier people then bitch and whine as if its not their fault when the people they went out of their way to piss off go and vote for Trump. The highest tier of narcissism.
The people you describe here are also low tier. Low resolution thinking is low tier. People who can't pull apart issues and isolate nuance are low tier. Rural communities are particularly susceptible to low-tier thinking because rural communities are typically overly homogenous, which doesn't give people as many opportunities to have their beliefs and systems of thinking challenged or morphed as they grow up. Rural communities are plain and simply not given the same opportunities as larger cities because the total number of ethical/philosophical collisions are fewer. Pulling apart ideas and searching for nuance occurs less often when hierarchy and homogeneity are as present as they are in rural communities.
A very similar thing happens in universities, but in a different way. The people who think screaming "RACIST" at factory workers and expecting something to change are people who don't have enough empathy or understanding of rural communities and don't understand why they are difficult to reach.
So yes, most people are low tier.
|
On September 26 2017 04:16 xDaunt wrote:
@GH -- Of course I'm not going to stop using that argument. I know it's right and, judging by the muted responses that I get from people around here, effective.
No, it's really not. It's so absurdly ridiculous and people have shown why it is so many times they have probably lost interest in even entertaining it anymore. Plus it's not like white fragility is limited to the right.
It's just completely and wholly idiotic to say that people want to keep politics out of sports. Likewise it's comparably ridiculous to suggest it's the way oppressed people confront their oppressors and not the oppressors who are wrong.
|
On September 26 2017 04:16 xDaunt wrote:
@GH -- Of course I'm not going to stop using that argument. I know it's right and, judging by the muted responses that I get from people around here, effective.
People (Or at least me) have just gotten really tired of you.
How can you say that people don't want to link sports and politics if you have that gigantic nationalistic flag and hymn thing at the start of your sports? If that isn't politics, i don't know what would be. I guess the trick is to simply define everything you want as "not politic", which means it is fine to put into basically anything, and everything other people want that conflicts with that as "politic", which means that they are only allowed to voice that opinion in the exact way that you prefer, but which you also refuse to actually state, so any time someone voices their problems with something that you do not agree with, you can simply deflect on the way that they are voicing that opinion in, and thus avoid having to talk about the actual underlying issues.
Putting a shroud over statues is just too horrible. Kneeling during an anthem? OMG how dare they!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
