|
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 October 15 2017 15:20 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2017 15:13 thePunGun wrote:On October 15 2017 15:09 Slaughter wrote:On October 15 2017 15:05 thePunGun wrote:
Well talkin about it won't change a racists mind anyways. (Because biologically there's no such thing as race , other than dogs/cats or horses there's only one human race. That's a scientific fact, but racism, like most ideologies ignores science and common sense.)
His whole point was making "race" an issue divides us as humans and if we can't move past that we won't evolve as a society and as a species. This is the view of a child who has only recently heard about the concept of racism in American history. Well that's ironic, because your point is an assumption and NOT an argument. Then perhaps you should not present a simplistic solution that basically ignores the fundamental natures of humanity, how humans build and maintain sociopolitical systems, cultural development and transmission of ideas, the historical context of how the United States formed and its institutions as well as ideas about race and how that affected things etc etc. Your quote and suggestion ignore reality and the complex nature of the problem. We could solve all kinds of problems if we just ignored how humans act.
First of all this wasn't my solution, this was a mere quote of Morgan Freeman.
And second, you're not supposed to ignore how people act, you're supposed to see beyond the color of his skin and see the man.
|
On October 15 2017 15:27 thePunGun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2017 15:20 Slaughter wrote:On October 15 2017 15:13 thePunGun wrote:On October 15 2017 15:09 Slaughter wrote:On October 15 2017 15:05 thePunGun wrote:
Well talkin about it won't change a racists mind anyways. (Because biologically there's no such thing as race , other than dogs/cats or horses there's only one human race. That's a scientific fact, but racism, like most ideologies ignores science and common sense.)
His whole point was making "race" an issue divides us as humans and if we can't move past that we won't evolve as a society and as a species. This is the view of a child who has only recently heard about the concept of racism in American history. Well that's ironic, because your point is an assumption and NOT an argument. Then perhaps you should not present a simplistic solution that basically ignores the fundamental natures of humanity, how humans build and maintain sociopolitical systems, cultural development and transmission of ideas, the historical context of how the United States formed and its institutions as well as ideas about race and how that affected things etc etc. Your quote and suggestion ignore reality and the complex nature of the problem. We could solve all kinds of problems if we just ignored how humans act. First of all this wasn't my solution, this was a mere quote of Morgan Freeman. And second, you're not supposed to ignore how people act, you're supposed to see beyond the color of his skin and see the man.
Suppose in one hand and crap in the other and report back which hand fills up first.
But seriously, whiteness was created by white people, why haven't they destroyed it if they don't want to be able to identify people as not white?
|
On October 15 2017 15:10 thePunGun wrote:
Care to elaborate, why the opinion of an 80 year old african american man, who lived through decades of segregation before the civil rights movement even started is the dumbest thing ever uttered OuchyDathurts?
Not a single thing you listed means he can't have dumb af opinions? Not sure why you believe any of those things mean his opinions are infallible. I can find you someone who believes anything. He's an old guy who has a calming voice, he's not a great civil rights mind.
|
On October 15 2017 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2017 15:27 thePunGun wrote:On October 15 2017 15:20 Slaughter wrote:On October 15 2017 15:13 thePunGun wrote:On October 15 2017 15:09 Slaughter wrote:On October 15 2017 15:05 thePunGun wrote:
Well talkin about it won't change a racists mind anyways. (Because biologically there's no such thing as race , other than dogs/cats or horses there's only one human race. That's a scientific fact, but racism, like most ideologies ignores science and common sense.)
His whole point was making "race" an issue divides us as humans and if we can't move past that we won't evolve as a society and as a species. This is the view of a child who has only recently heard about the concept of racism in American history. Well that's ironic, because your point is an assumption and NOT an argument. Then perhaps you should not present a simplistic solution that basically ignores the fundamental natures of humanity, how humans build and maintain sociopolitical systems, cultural development and transmission of ideas, the historical context of how the United States formed and its institutions as well as ideas about race and how that affected things etc etc. Your quote and suggestion ignore reality and the complex nature of the problem. We could solve all kinds of problems if we just ignored how humans act. First of all this wasn't my solution, this was a mere quote of Morgan Freeman. And second, you're not supposed to ignore how people act, you're supposed to see beyond the color of his skin and see the man. Suppose in one hand and crap in the other and report back which hand fills up first. But seriously, whiteness was created by white people, why haven't they destroyed it if they don't want to be able to identify people as not white?
I don't think it's that simple, it's always been convenient for the ruling class to keep the poor divided, because united they're a threat.
Once the 99% learn to see beyond the divisive BS and actually start realizing the world is bigger than their own backyard, things might change.
I'm a cynical idealist and I have little to no expectation that any of that will ever happen... the cake is a lie.
|
On October 15 2017 15:50 thePunGun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2017 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2017 15:27 thePunGun wrote:On October 15 2017 15:20 Slaughter wrote:On October 15 2017 15:13 thePunGun wrote:On October 15 2017 15:09 Slaughter wrote:On October 15 2017 15:05 thePunGun wrote:
Well talkin about it won't change a racists mind anyways. (Because biologically there's no such thing as race , other than dogs/cats or horses there's only one human race. That's a scientific fact, but racism, like most ideologies ignores science and common sense.)
His whole point was making "race" an issue divides us as humans and if we can't move past that we won't evolve as a society and as a species. This is the view of a child who has only recently heard about the concept of racism in American history. Well that's ironic, because your point is an assumption and NOT an argument. Then perhaps you should not present a simplistic solution that basically ignores the fundamental natures of humanity, how humans build and maintain sociopolitical systems, cultural development and transmission of ideas, the historical context of how the United States formed and its institutions as well as ideas about race and how that affected things etc etc. Your quote and suggestion ignore reality and the complex nature of the problem. We could solve all kinds of problems if we just ignored how humans act. First of all this wasn't my solution, this was a mere quote of Morgan Freeman. And second, you're not supposed to ignore how people act, you're supposed to see beyond the color of his skin and see the man. Suppose in one hand and crap in the other and report back which hand fills up first. But seriously, whiteness was created by white people, why haven't they destroyed it if they don't want to be able to identify people as not white? I don't think it's that simple, it's always been convenient for the ruling class to keep the poor divided, because united they're a threat. Once the 99% learn to see beyond the divisive BS and actually start realizinng the world is bigger than their own backyard, things might change. I'm a cynical idealist and I have little to no expactation that any of that will ever happen... the cake is a lie.
Despite what many here probably think, I don't hate "whitey", I oppose the oppressor no matter what color. But white people have to destroy whiteness before anyone can ignore that it creates a non-white category.
That's not something POC can do for you as much as some people might really try to make it our job.
|
On October 15 2017 16:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2017 15:50 thePunGun wrote:On October 15 2017 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2017 15:27 thePunGun wrote:On October 15 2017 15:20 Slaughter wrote:On October 15 2017 15:13 thePunGun wrote:On October 15 2017 15:09 Slaughter wrote:On October 15 2017 15:05 thePunGun wrote:
Well talkin about it won't change a racists mind anyways. (Because biologically there's no such thing as race , other than dogs/cats or horses there's only one human race. That's a scientific fact, but racism, like most ideologies ignores science and common sense.)
His whole point was making "race" an issue divides us as humans and if we can't move past that we won't evolve as a society and as a species. This is the view of a child who has only recently heard about the concept of racism in American history. Well that's ironic, because your point is an assumption and NOT an argument. Then perhaps you should not present a simplistic solution that basically ignores the fundamental natures of humanity, how humans build and maintain sociopolitical systems, cultural development and transmission of ideas, the historical context of how the United States formed and its institutions as well as ideas about race and how that affected things etc etc. Your quote and suggestion ignore reality and the complex nature of the problem. We could solve all kinds of problems if we just ignored how humans act. First of all this wasn't my solution, this was a mere quote of Morgan Freeman. And second, you're not supposed to ignore how people act, you're supposed to see beyond the color of his skin and see the man. Suppose in one hand and crap in the other and report back which hand fills up first. But seriously, whiteness was created by white people, why haven't they destroyed it if they don't want to be able to identify people as not white? I don't think it's that simple, it's always been convenient for the ruling class to keep the poor divided, because united they're a threat. Once the 99% learn to see beyond the divisive BS and actually start realizinng the world is bigger than their own backyard, things might change. I'm a cynical idealist and I have little to no expactation that any of that will ever happen... the cake is a lie. Despite what many here probably think, I don't hate "whitey", I oppose the oppressor no matter what color. But white people have to destroy whiteness before anyone can ignore that it creates a non-white category. That's not something POC can do for you as much as some people might really try to make it our job.
Out of curiosity, in the scenario that the label of whiteness has been shed, what is your opinion on how white people should identify themselves?
|
Here's a thought stop dividing people into categories and identify as human...what's wrong with that?
|
On October 15 2017 16:04 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2017 16:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2017 15:50 thePunGun wrote:On October 15 2017 15:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2017 15:27 thePunGun wrote:On October 15 2017 15:20 Slaughter wrote:On October 15 2017 15:13 thePunGun wrote:On October 15 2017 15:09 Slaughter wrote:On October 15 2017 15:05 thePunGun wrote:
Well talkin about it won't change a racists mind anyways. (Because biologically there's no such thing as race , other than dogs/cats or horses there's only one human race. That's a scientific fact, but racism, like most ideologies ignores science and common sense.)
His whole point was making "race" an issue divides us as humans and if we can't move past that we won't evolve as a society and as a species. This is the view of a child who has only recently heard about the concept of racism in American history. Well that's ironic, because your point is an assumption and NOT an argument. Then perhaps you should not present a simplistic solution that basically ignores the fundamental natures of humanity, how humans build and maintain sociopolitical systems, cultural development and transmission of ideas, the historical context of how the United States formed and its institutions as well as ideas about race and how that affected things etc etc. Your quote and suggestion ignore reality and the complex nature of the problem. We could solve all kinds of problems if we just ignored how humans act. First of all this wasn't my solution, this was a mere quote of Morgan Freeman. And second, you're not supposed to ignore how people act, you're supposed to see beyond the color of his skin and see the man. Suppose in one hand and crap in the other and report back which hand fills up first. But seriously, whiteness was created by white people, why haven't they destroyed it if they don't want to be able to identify people as not white? I don't think it's that simple, it's always been convenient for the ruling class to keep the poor divided, because united they're a threat. Once the 99% learn to see beyond the divisive BS and actually start realizinng the world is bigger than their own backyard, things might change. I'm a cynical idealist and I have little to no expactation that any of that will ever happen... the cake is a lie. Despite what many here probably think, I don't hate "whitey", I oppose the oppressor no matter what color. But white people have to destroy whiteness before anyone can ignore that it creates a non-white category. That's not something POC can do for you as much as some people might really try to make it our job. Out of curiosity, in the scenario that the label of whiteness has been shed, what is your opinion on how white people should identify themselves?
It's about more than the "label" but to you question
If it's their "roots" they are trying to group with than "British heritage" for example would be fine (for now), but "human" works well.
|
On October 15 2017 13:45 thePunGun wrote:Danglars and GreenHorizons you 2 are at it again? The great Morgan Freeman once said when asked on 60 minutes about how we get rid of racism:"Stop talkin about it. I'm gonna stop callin' you a white man and I'm gonna ask you to stop callin' me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace and you know me as Morgan Freeman."I'm not askin you to stop.... But simply to consider the words of a man, who has lived through an entire lifetime of experiences, that lead him to this conclusion.
Racists is passé. Remember, now it’s “white supremacy isn't intended to be an insult, merely a descriptor of what is often advocated for in your posts.” Morgan Freeman can’t solve the kind of brinkmanship with Coates style “whiteness” and white supremacy talk. When white supremacy loses meaning like racist did (arguably it has), I wonder what’s the fringe lefts next hard punch term.
|
Canada11586 Posts
@GH
Now I'm confused. I presume you don't hold to the 'color blind' line of thinking. Because I'm fairly certain you've defended the idea on multiple occasions that certain problems are not just lower class problems or human problems, but black problems- but wouldn't blackness as a concept be just as inappropriate- that instead it should be Maasai heritage or Songhai heritage? And then after that "'human' works well?"
|
On October 15 2017 16:28 Falling wrote:
@GH
Now I'm confused. I presume you don't hold to the 'color blind' line of thinking. Because I'm fairly certain you've defended the idea on multiple occasions that certain problems are not just lower class problems or human problems, but black problems- but wouldn't blackness as a concept be just as inappropriate- that instead it should be Maasai heritage or Songhai heritage? And then after that "'human' works well?"
Maybe, if White America didn't systematically destroy any connections we had, robbing us of that privilege indefinitely.
But to the larger point my preference would be "human" and maybe eventually something that better recognized our interconnections with all beings
On October 15 2017 16:27 Danglars wrote:Racists is passé. Remember, now it’s “white supremacy isn't intended to be an insult, merely a descriptor of what is often advocated for in your posts.” Morgan Freeman can’t solve the kind of brinkmanship with Coates style “whiteness” and white supremacy talk. When white supremacy loses meaning like racist did (arguably it has), I wonder what’s the fringe lefts next hard punch term.
Do you think posts like this do anything but look even more foolish and further prove my points?
Danglars: "Don't call me racist it's too insulting for me to look past and advocate for your rights"
Also Danglars: "Racist doesn't mean anything, I wonder what term they'll come up with to totally not draw attention to my white fragility next"
|
On October 15 2017 15:05 thePunGun wrote:
Well talkin about it won't change a racists mind anyways. (Because biologically there's no such thing as race , unlike dogs/cats or horses there's only one human race. That's a scientific fact, but racism, like most ideologies ignores science and common sense.)
His whole point was making "race" an issue divides us as humans and if we can't move past that we won't evolve as a society and as a species.
Racism is already an issue, because of the systemic prejudices that are embedded in our countries' histories. The only way we're going to continue to make progress for civil rights is by a combination of education whenever possible, pointing out progress as it comes along, protesting when needed, and ostracism for the absolute craziest people to show what is acceptable and unacceptable. Yeah we should move past it, but we can't do that if we don't call it out and try to change things. We need to slowly move the needle of the status quo, and as more people learn and accept and care about these issues (which happens over time... many, many generations), then overall we can be a less racist society. On the spectrum of "being/ not being prejudiced", we hope that we can progress such that the number/ percentage of people who are extremely prejudiced dwindles as some start to slide into more of the middle, while those in the middle slide towards the ideal side of the spectrum. It's not quick and it's not easy, but the needle would be completely stagnant (or- even worse- move towards *more* prejudice) if we had no conversations or retaliations.
|
On October 15 2017 16:08 thePunGun wrote:
Here's a thought stop dividing people into categories and identify as human...what's wrong with that?
That is in general a very good idea. And if everyone were to do that, you would indeed have solved racism, and sexism, homophobia, islamophobia, and a lot of other shitty things. On a societal level, this is indeed an ideal end goal. But you run into problems. The main problem is how to get there. Because that doesn't magically, and it doesn't happen if the people who are open to that idea (Who are probably not a problem anyways) start doing it. The hard part is to get two groups of people to do that.
First, there is the obvious one. The asshole white supremacist obvious racist. Because just because you stop seeing race sure ass hell is not gonna stop a skinhead from beating up black people because they are black. Because he still sees race, and has no interest in changing that.
The second group of people are those who think that they do not see race, but are wrong. Like the cops who are more afraid of a black guy with a gun than of a white guy with a gun, and thus shoot black guys more often because they are more scary. Or the judges who put higher sentences on the crimes of black people on average. They probably don't see themselves as racist, and think that they judge each case by its own merits. But they also judge a black man more harshly than a white man. They think they don't see race, but they do.
The problem is not agreeing on an end goal. That is easy. A society where everyone is treated equal, no matter race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or whatever else classification. I doubt that a lot of people disagree with this. The problem is how to achieve that goal. That is the hard part.
|
On October 15 2017 16:08 thePunGun wrote:
Here's a thought stop dividing people into categories and identify as human...what's wrong with that?
Because this is naive.
Categorizing and labeling are an ingrained psychological response that help people identify each other, feel as part of a community, and not be lonely.
Categorization goes too far and leads to discrimination, but this idea about "we're all humans, let's shed labels and just be one community!" Is naive and foolish.
|
On October 15 2017 21:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2017 16:08 thePunGun wrote:
Here's a thought stop dividing people into categories and identify as human...what's wrong with that? Because this is naive. Categorizing and labeling are an ingrained psychological response that help people identify each other, feel as part of a community, and not be lonely. Categorization goes too far and leads to discrimination, but this idea about "we're all humans, let's shed labels and just be one community!" Is naive and foolish.
In order to shed labels you have to recognize they exist. Read the likes of Danglar and even talking about minorities, let alone the injustives they face is useless and hatred of white men.
Conservatives have invented a fantasy land where black people have equal opportunities and suffer no discriminations, where gay people don't need anything because it's all so great for them, where women are just the equal to men in terms of perspective and perception, and so since everything is good, anyone trying to make things better is a feminazi SJW nutcase and everyone talking about racism, sexism and homophobia is insulting with no reason because such things don't exist.
That's a good way to actually keep being racist, sexist, homophobic and push for a thinly veiled white supremacist agenda without ever having to reflect on yourself.
|
On October 15 2017 23:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2017 21:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 15 2017 16:08 thePunGun wrote:
Here's a thought stop dividing people into categories and identify as human...what's wrong with that? Because this is naive. Categorizing and labeling are an ingrained psychological response that help people identify each other, feel as part of a community, and not be lonely. Categorization goes too far and leads to discrimination, but this idea about "we're all humans, let's shed labels and just be one community!" Is naive and foolish. In order to shed labels you have to recognize they exist. Read the likes of Danglar and even talking about minorities, let alone the injustives they face is useless and hatred of white men. Conservatives have invented a fantasy land where black people have equal opportunities and suffer no discriminations, where gay people don't need anything because it's all so great for them, where women are just the equal to men in terms of perspective and perception, and so since everything is good, anyone trying to make things better is a feminazi SJW nutcase and everyone talking about racism, sexism and homophobia is insulting with no reason because such things don't exist. That's a good way to actually keep being racist, sexist, homophobic and push for a thinly veiled white supremacist agenda without ever having to reflect on yourself.
Yea, this is all completely true. The problem is that most conservatives just keep their head in the sand and ignore the problems that people that aren't them face.
|
Some of you guys are pretty harsh on Morgan Freeman. I'd suspect that he has overcome a lot more hurdles in life than almost anyone here and yet is probably more successful than everyone here. He's not some useful idiot of the right.
He's a man who has transcended his race within Hollywood by being one of the few black people to get race-neutral parts, which typically go to white people. He's also an extremely intellectually curious person who hosts shows like "Through the Wormhole", which digs into a lot of philosophical questions. He's not the host of the show simply because of his voice. He brings a lot to the show intellectually as well. Go dig up any late night interview where he's promoting the show and you'll find him to be more than just the voice.
His message is to treat him like Morgan Freeman, not "black guy". He has acted as Morgan Freeman, not as "black guy" and he has demanded that others treat him as Morgan Freeman, not as a "black guy". And in response, the world has treated him as Morgan Freeman and he has reaped the rewards. You could probably find plenty of fully-fledged bigots who would still say that he's a damn good actor.
And rather than sitting on the sidelines and saying that he doesn't know what he's talking about, maybe some of you you should listen and try to understand. Morgan Freeman grew up as a poor southern black boy, but learned how to control his reality and become a wild success. People who shout and complain about the unfairness of everything rarely do.
|
Morgan Freeman is ultimately just one person, not an authority on this subject. He does good acting and I am a fan, and I am often interested in what he has to say, but it's just any other opinion.
|
Norway28873 Posts
On October 16 2017 03:52 RenSC2 wrote:
Some of you guys are pretty harsh on Morgan Freeman. I'd suspect that he has overcome a lot more hurdles in life than almost anyone here and yet is probably more successful than everyone here. He's not some useful idiot of the right.
He's a man who has transcended his race within Hollywood by being one of the few black people to get race-neutral parts, which typically go to white people. He's also an extremely intellectually curious person who hosts shows like "Through the Wormhole", which digs into a lot of philosophical questions. He's not the host of the show simply because of his voice. He brings a lot to the show intellectually as well. Go dig up any late night interview where he's promoting the show and you'll find him to be more than just the voice.
His message is to treat him like Morgan Freeman, not "black guy". He has acted as Morgan Freeman, not as "black guy" and he has demanded that others treat him as Morgan Freeman, not as a "black guy". And in response, the world has treated him as Morgan Freeman and he has reaped the rewards. You could probably find plenty of fully-fledged bigots who would still say that he's a damn good actor.
And rather than sitting on the sidelines and saying that he doesn't know what he's talking about, maybe some of you you should listen and try to understand. Morgan Freeman grew up as a poor southern black boy, but learned how to control his reality and become a wild success. People who shout and complain about the unfairness of everything rarely do.
There is a limited amount of 'world famous actor' spots out there. It's easy for morgan freeman to expect people to treat him like morgan freeman rather than 'black guy' because he is immediately recognizable as morgan freeman. I mean I can agree that people are being overly harsh - to me morgan freeman's words are totally fine as like, an individual's point of view/ an individual's advice for what individuals can do, but it doesn't really work as an opinion for how society can best deal with racism.
|
Sexual misconduct has a pretty big spot in the limelight right now, and it is just a giant mud slinging mess. The Weinstein condemnation is trying to get aimed at Trump for his sordid history, but ol lecherous Bill screwed up any decent result from that long ago.
Bill Clinton's sexual history seems to be the foremost thing in helping Trump supporters normalize the allegations against Trump. Trump deflected to the Clinton's behavior in his apology for the Access Hollywood tape, and even brought Bill's accusers to the debates to detract from his own accusers. Then Trump might have faced scrutiny for his close association with Jeffrey Epstein, but again, Bill fucked that up. That scumbag Bill has given so much inadvertent cover for Trump that any criticism on the subject looks like partisan hypocrisy.
It's good at least that congress members have been resigning in recent times over sexual misconduct, because it shows shame isn't completely dead yet in politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
