|
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. |
Canada11418 Posts
It's a rather strange article. On one hand sure, maybe you don't want to make friends with people that you strongly disagree with. Friendship isn't compelled, so you are free to do as you please with your friends. But on the otherhand, I wonder just how impossible it is to make friends currently, if it must be taught to children. Being taught that you should mistrust whites seems weird compared to discovering that you cannot trust whites.
|
United States43587 Posts
He elaborates in the article what he means by friendship. To him it means that they see you and your problems as equivalent to their own, a true peer. Genuine empathy towards you, rather than treating you as a character in their own life. It's not "don't hang out with people outside your race", or anything like that.
The problem is that the white majority in America simply doesn't have the back of black Americans when it counts. When blue collar jobs dry up, real estate prices crater, and drugs ruin communities the voting response depends dramatically on the skin colour of the people getting fucked. The same people prescribing government money propping open coal mines and steel plants are the ones who previously prescribed bootstraps. The same people prescribing money for the opioid epidemic previously prescribed prison.
|
On November 13 2017 05:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Two companies have said they will no longer advertise during Fox News’s “Hannity” after critics called for the companies to pull their ads over Sean Hannity’s coverage of the sexual misconduct allegations against Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore (R).
Realtor.com and Keurig both said they are stopping their ads from airing during the show after being questioned about the advertisements on Twitter. Neither company specifically said their decision was over Moore coverage, but only made the announcement in response to critics.
“Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We are adjusting our media buy to no longer include this show placement. –MS,” Realtor.com wrote to a Twitter user on Friday who tweeted a clip of Hannity’s Fox News show at the company.
Keurig said in a tweet to the president of liberal group Media Matters for America that the company is stopping its ad during Hannity’s show.
“Angelo, thank you for your concern and for bringing this to our attention,” the Keurig account wrote to Angelo Carusone. “We worked with our media partner and FOX news to stop our ad from airing during the Sean Hannity Show.”
Another company, Eloquii, said Hannity is blocked from its advertising list, but did not specify on what medium.
Media Matters has for months tried to put pressure on Hannity’s advertisers. In May the group published a list of the Fox News host's advertisers on its website.
The latest push comes after Hannity during his Thursday night show urged viewers not to rush to judgment regarding the allegations against Moore.
“Every single person in this country deserves the presumption of innocence,” Hannity said. “With the allegations against Judge Moore, none of us know the truth of what happened 38 years ago. The only people that would know are the people involved in this incident.”
Hannity also said Moore should drop out of the race if the allegations against him are true.
“If it’s true he should step aside and leave the Senate race,” Hannity said.
Hannity then interviewed Moore on Friday during his radio show, which is nationally syndicated.
Moore in the interview denied accusations leveled against him by a woman who said he initiated sexual contact with her when she was 14 and he was 32. The Washington Post reported the allegation and also included accounts from three other women who said Moore attempted to court them around the same time period, when they were between 16 and 18 years old. Source
These are not smart people
|
On November 13 2017 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 06:53 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Mohdoo, I don't why you waited so long to let all this latent hostility toward black people to come out.
Just the ones that latch on to extremism as a form of empowerment. I struggled a lot with racism during my childhood and I never let it bring me down. I frown on the types who let their frustration get the better of them. I am better than that. They can be too. What was "extremism" in that article? + Show Spoiler +I feel like this is going to end up the same way the last times you made these foolish rants... The problem is that you aren't willing to see that a lot of the ideals you hold on to are only appealing to you because they finally make you feel in control of the situation. You don't need to feel in control of the situation. You can continue on, powerless against a lot of the forces negatively impacted, just like me, and work towards making the world a better place without the polarization. These ideas don't come across as extreme to you because they are what you see as the only way to actually feel like you're making a difference. They are extreme, they polarize situations and they make people less likely to listen to your message. So sure, you pat yourself on the back for feeling like you're making a difference, but you're not. Edit: to answer your question, the "with us or against us" is the extremism. That's not extreme, it's a statement of fact.
You are choosing to interpret the situation that way because you need to have well defined definitions of friend and foe so that you feel more safe. This is all just a reaction to feeling powerless. You don't need to be so rigid in your definition of friend and foe. This all feels like how you have chosen to respond to a life of feeling powerless rather than a well thought out perspective on how to best accomplish goals.
It's not that people are actually your enemies. It's that you are so frustrated that you aren't willing to drudge through all the nuance and difficulty of bringing people over to your cause who plain and simply aren't convinced yet.
|
United States43587 Posts
On November 13 2017 07:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 06:53 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Mohdoo, I don't why you waited so long to let all this latent hostility toward black people to come out.
Just the ones that latch on to extremism as a form of empowerment. I struggled a lot with racism during my childhood and I never let it bring me down. I frown on the types who let their frustration get the better of them. I am better than that. They can be too. What was "extremism" in that article? + Show Spoiler +I feel like this is going to end up the same way the last times you made these foolish rants... The problem is that you aren't willing to see that a lot of the ideals you hold on to are only appealing to you because they finally make you feel in control of the situation. You don't need to feel in control of the situation. You can continue on, powerless against a lot of the forces negatively impacted, just like me, and work towards making the world a better place without the polarization. These ideas don't come across as extreme to you because they are what you see as the only way to actually feel like you're making a difference. They are extreme, they polarize situations and they make people less likely to listen to your message. So sure, you pat yourself on the back for feeling like you're making a difference, but you're not. Edit: to answer your question, the "with us or against us" is the extremism. That's not extreme, it's a statement of fact. You are choosing to interpret the situation that way because you need to have well defined definitions of friend and foe so that you feel more safe. This is all just a reaction to feeling powerless. You don't need to be so rigid in your definition of friend and foe. This all feels like how you have chosen to respond to a life of feeling powerless rather than a well thought out perspective on how to best accomplish goals. It's not that people are actually your enemies. It's that you are so frustrated that you aren't willing to drudge through all the nuance and difficulty of bringing people over to your cause who plain and simply aren't convinced yet.
Is racism really an area where there are more than two sides? Where someone can legitimately say "I'm not pro-racism, I just don't think we should get rid of it"?
"I'm not saying I think the police should deny the constitutional rights of blacks, I just think that we should stop investigating the cases of them doing that"
|
On November 13 2017 07:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 07:46 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 06:53 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Mohdoo, I don't why you waited so long to let all this latent hostility toward black people to come out.
Just the ones that latch on to extremism as a form of empowerment. I struggled a lot with racism during my childhood and I never let it bring me down. I frown on the types who let their frustration get the better of them. I am better than that. They can be too. What was "extremism" in that article? + Show Spoiler +I feel like this is going to end up the same way the last times you made these foolish rants... The problem is that you aren't willing to see that a lot of the ideals you hold on to are only appealing to you because they finally make you feel in control of the situation. You don't need to feel in control of the situation. You can continue on, powerless against a lot of the forces negatively impacted, just like me, and work towards making the world a better place without the polarization. These ideas don't come across as extreme to you because they are what you see as the only way to actually feel like you're making a difference. They are extreme, they polarize situations and they make people less likely to listen to your message. So sure, you pat yourself on the back for feeling like you're making a difference, but you're not. Edit: to answer your question, the "with us or against us" is the extremism. That's not extreme, it's a statement of fact. You are choosing to interpret the situation that way because you need to have well defined definitions of friend and foe so that you feel more safe. This is all just a reaction to feeling powerless. You don't need to be so rigid in your definition of friend and foe. This all feels like how you have chosen to respond to a life of feeling powerless rather than a well thought out perspective on how to best accomplish goals. It's not that people are actually your enemies. It's that you are so frustrated that you aren't willing to drudge through all the nuance and difficulty of bringing people over to your cause who plain and simply aren't convinced yet. Is racism really an area where there are more than two sides? Where someone can legitimately say "I'm not pro-racism, I just don't think we should get rid of it"?
You're still choosing to ignore nuance. People can be very against racism, yet think affirmative action is bad. They can think all sorts of "I agree with this, but not that" without being terrible people. Are you really trying to say there are 2 sets of beliefs regarding race in this world? Two sets of people who all agree on like 20 different racial issues and completely disagree with the other group on all 20?
|
On November 13 2017 07:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 07:49 KwarK wrote:On November 13 2017 07:46 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 06:53 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Mohdoo, I don't why you waited so long to let all this latent hostility toward black people to come out.
Just the ones that latch on to extremism as a form of empowerment. I struggled a lot with racism during my childhood and I never let it bring me down. I frown on the types who let their frustration get the better of them. I am better than that. They can be too. What was "extremism" in that article? + Show Spoiler +I feel like this is going to end up the same way the last times you made these foolish rants... The problem is that you aren't willing to see that a lot of the ideals you hold on to are only appealing to you because they finally make you feel in control of the situation. You don't need to feel in control of the situation. You can continue on, powerless against a lot of the forces negatively impacted, just like me, and work towards making the world a better place without the polarization. These ideas don't come across as extreme to you because they are what you see as the only way to actually feel like you're making a difference. They are extreme, they polarize situations and they make people less likely to listen to your message. So sure, you pat yourself on the back for feeling like you're making a difference, but you're not. Edit: to answer your question, the "with us or against us" is the extremism. That's not extreme, it's a statement of fact. You are choosing to interpret the situation that way because you need to have well defined definitions of friend and foe so that you feel more safe. This is all just a reaction to feeling powerless. You don't need to be so rigid in your definition of friend and foe. This all feels like how you have chosen to respond to a life of feeling powerless rather than a well thought out perspective on how to best accomplish goals. It's not that people are actually your enemies. It's that you are so frustrated that you aren't willing to drudge through all the nuance and difficulty of bringing people over to your cause who plain and simply aren't convinced yet. Is racism really an area where there are more than two sides? Where someone can legitimately say "I'm not pro-racism, I just don't think we should get rid of it"? You're still choosing to ignore nuance. People can be very against racism, yet think affirmative action is bad. They can think all sorts of "I agree with this, but not that" without being terrible people. Are you really trying to say there are 2 sets of beliefs regarding race in this world? Two sets of people who all agree on like 20 different racial issues and completely disagree with the other group on all 20?
you seem conflicted, let me help you. You are not an ally. You can drop the pretense if you want and just tell us what you really think.
|
On November 13 2017 07:43 KwarK wrote:
He elaborates in the article what he means by friendship. To him it means that they see you and your problems as equivalent to their own, a true peer. Genuine empathy towards you, rather than treating you as a character in their own life. It's not "don't hang out with people outside your race", or anything like that.
The problem is that the white majority in America simply doesn't have the back of black Americans when it counts. When blue collar jobs dry up, real estate prices crater, and drugs ruin communities the voting response depends dramatically on the skin colour of the people getting fucked. The same people prescribing government money propping open coal mines and steel plants are the ones who previously prescribed bootstraps. The same people prescribing money for the opioid epidemic previously prescribed prison.
Not 100% the same thing, though, is it? Inner city blacks and rural whites... there's more than just the racial divide.
If interests now overlap.. hey.. let's burn this bridge / keep it burned?
Plenty of whites who don't want the fed gov to fix coal country. But.. they aligned and won an election.
|
On November 13 2017 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 07:53 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 07:49 KwarK wrote:On November 13 2017 07:46 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 06:53 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Mohdoo, I don't why you waited so long to let all this latent hostility toward black people to come out.
Just the ones that latch on to extremism as a form of empowerment. I struggled a lot with racism during my childhood and I never let it bring me down. I frown on the types who let their frustration get the better of them. I am better than that. They can be too. What was "extremism" in that article? + Show Spoiler +I feel like this is going to end up the same way the last times you made these foolish rants... The problem is that you aren't willing to see that a lot of the ideals you hold on to are only appealing to you because they finally make you feel in control of the situation. You don't need to feel in control of the situation. You can continue on, powerless against a lot of the forces negatively impacted, just like me, and work towards making the world a better place without the polarization. These ideas don't come across as extreme to you because they are what you see as the only way to actually feel like you're making a difference. They are extreme, they polarize situations and they make people less likely to listen to your message. So sure, you pat yourself on the back for feeling like you're making a difference, but you're not. Edit: to answer your question, the "with us or against us" is the extremism. That's not extreme, it's a statement of fact. You are choosing to interpret the situation that way because you need to have well defined definitions of friend and foe so that you feel more safe. This is all just a reaction to feeling powerless. You don't need to be so rigid in your definition of friend and foe. This all feels like how you have chosen to respond to a life of feeling powerless rather than a well thought out perspective on how to best accomplish goals. It's not that people are actually your enemies. It's that you are so frustrated that you aren't willing to drudge through all the nuance and difficulty of bringing people over to your cause who plain and simply aren't convinced yet. Is racism really an area where there are more than two sides? Where someone can legitimately say "I'm not pro-racism, I just don't think we should get rid of it"? You're still choosing to ignore nuance. People can be very against racism, yet think affirmative action is bad. They can think all sorts of "I agree with this, but not that" without being terrible people. Are you really trying to say there are 2 sets of beliefs regarding race in this world? Two sets of people who all agree on like 20 different racial issues and completely disagree with the other group on all 20? you seem conflicted, let me help you. You are not an ally. You can drop the pretense if you want and just tell us what you really think.
lol, as if you and your allies get anything done. You just yell loud and tell yourself you've accomplished something by "taking a stand", meanwhile, life goes on as always. I've lived a very empowered life and have worked hard at reversing racism in my community and helping to empower other young people of color. How about I do my thing and you do yours? 
|
United States43587 Posts
On November 13 2017 07:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 07:49 KwarK wrote:On November 13 2017 07:46 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 06:53 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Mohdoo, I don't why you waited so long to let all this latent hostility toward black people to come out.
Just the ones that latch on to extremism as a form of empowerment. I struggled a lot with racism during my childhood and I never let it bring me down. I frown on the types who let their frustration get the better of them. I am better than that. They can be too. What was "extremism" in that article? + Show Spoiler +I feel like this is going to end up the same way the last times you made these foolish rants... The problem is that you aren't willing to see that a lot of the ideals you hold on to are only appealing to you because they finally make you feel in control of the situation. You don't need to feel in control of the situation. You can continue on, powerless against a lot of the forces negatively impacted, just like me, and work towards making the world a better place without the polarization. These ideas don't come across as extreme to you because they are what you see as the only way to actually feel like you're making a difference. They are extreme, they polarize situations and they make people less likely to listen to your message. So sure, you pat yourself on the back for feeling like you're making a difference, but you're not. Edit: to answer your question, the "with us or against us" is the extremism. That's not extreme, it's a statement of fact. You are choosing to interpret the situation that way because you need to have well defined definitions of friend and foe so that you feel more safe. This is all just a reaction to feeling powerless. You don't need to be so rigid in your definition of friend and foe. This all feels like how you have chosen to respond to a life of feeling powerless rather than a well thought out perspective on how to best accomplish goals. It's not that people are actually your enemies. It's that you are so frustrated that you aren't willing to drudge through all the nuance and difficulty of bringing people over to your cause who plain and simply aren't convinced yet. Is racism really an area where there are more than two sides? Where someone can legitimately say "I'm not pro-racism, I just don't think we should get rid of it"? You're still choosing to ignore nuance. People can be very against racism, yet think affirmative action is bad. They can think all sorts of "I agree with this, but not that" without being terrible people. Are you really trying to say there are 2 sets of beliefs regarding race in this world? Two sets of people who all agree on like 20 different racial issues and completely disagree with the other group on all 20?
Obviously there are not two completely homogenous and unified groups, split along racial lines. But if we allow ourselves to generalize then yes, there are people who are fine with white supremacy and people who are not, and the vast majority of people who are fine with white supremacy happen to be white. They might be happy to condemn what they see as racism, but they're conspicuously absent when asked to do anything to rectify the systematic advantages they benefited from and continue to benefit from.
|
On November 13 2017 07:43 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 05:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Two companies have said they will no longer advertise during Fox News’s “Hannity” after critics called for the companies to pull their ads over Sean Hannity’s coverage of the sexual misconduct allegations against Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore (R).
Realtor.com and Keurig both said they are stopping their ads from airing during the show after being questioned about the advertisements on Twitter. Neither company specifically said their decision was over Moore coverage, but only made the announcement in response to critics.
“Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We are adjusting our media buy to no longer include this show placement. –MS,” Realtor.com wrote to a Twitter user on Friday who tweeted a clip of Hannity’s Fox News show at the company.
Keurig said in a tweet to the president of liberal group Media Matters for America that the company is stopping its ad during Hannity’s show.
“Angelo, thank you for your concern and for bringing this to our attention,” the Keurig account wrote to Angelo Carusone. “We worked with our media partner and FOX news to stop our ad from airing during the Sean Hannity Show.”
Another company, Eloquii, said Hannity is blocked from its advertising list, but did not specify on what medium.
Media Matters has for months tried to put pressure on Hannity’s advertisers. In May the group published a list of the Fox News host's advertisers on its website.
The latest push comes after Hannity during his Thursday night show urged viewers not to rush to judgment regarding the allegations against Moore.
“Every single person in this country deserves the presumption of innocence,” Hannity said. “With the allegations against Judge Moore, none of us know the truth of what happened 38 years ago. The only people that would know are the people involved in this incident.”
Hannity also said Moore should drop out of the race if the allegations against him are true.
“If it’s true he should step aside and leave the Senate race,” Hannity said.
Hannity then interviewed Moore on Friday during his radio show, which is nationally syndicated.
Moore in the interview denied accusations leveled against him by a woman who said he initiated sexual contact with her when she was 14 and he was 32. The Washington Post reported the allegation and also included accounts from three other women who said Moore attempted to court them around the same time period, when they were between 16 and 18 years old. Source https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/929760853678686208These are not smart people
So how could one boycott something which you've already bought...
|
On November 13 2017 08:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 07:53 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 07:49 KwarK wrote:On November 13 2017 07:46 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 06:53 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Mohdoo, I don't why you waited so long to let all this latent hostility toward black people to come out.
Just the ones that latch on to extremism as a form of empowerment. I struggled a lot with racism during my childhood and I never let it bring me down. I frown on the types who let their frustration get the better of them. I am better than that. They can be too. What was "extremism" in that article? + Show Spoiler +I feel like this is going to end up the same way the last times you made these foolish rants... The problem is that you aren't willing to see that a lot of the ideals you hold on to are only appealing to you because they finally make you feel in control of the situation. You don't need to feel in control of the situation. You can continue on, powerless against a lot of the forces negatively impacted, just like me, and work towards making the world a better place without the polarization. These ideas don't come across as extreme to you because they are what you see as the only way to actually feel like you're making a difference. They are extreme, they polarize situations and they make people less likely to listen to your message. So sure, you pat yourself on the back for feeling like you're making a difference, but you're not. Edit: to answer your question, the "with us or against us" is the extremism. That's not extreme, it's a statement of fact. You are choosing to interpret the situation that way because you need to have well defined definitions of friend and foe so that you feel more safe. This is all just a reaction to feeling powerless. You don't need to be so rigid in your definition of friend and foe. This all feels like how you have chosen to respond to a life of feeling powerless rather than a well thought out perspective on how to best accomplish goals. It's not that people are actually your enemies. It's that you are so frustrated that you aren't willing to drudge through all the nuance and difficulty of bringing people over to your cause who plain and simply aren't convinced yet. Is racism really an area where there are more than two sides? Where someone can legitimately say "I'm not pro-racism, I just don't think we should get rid of it"? You're still choosing to ignore nuance. People can be very against racism, yet think affirmative action is bad. They can think all sorts of "I agree with this, but not that" without being terrible people. Are you really trying to say there are 2 sets of beliefs regarding race in this world? Two sets of people who all agree on like 20 different racial issues and completely disagree with the other group on all 20? you seem conflicted, let me help you. You are not an ally. You can drop the pretense if you want and just tell us what you really think. lol, as if you and your allies get anything done. You just yell loud and tell yourself you've accomplished something by "taking a stand", meanwhile, life goes on as always. I've lived a very empowered life and have worked hard at reversing racism in my community and helping to empower other young people of color. How about I do my thing and you do yours?
Haha. I can see why you backed "A progressive that gets thing done" now. But I'm glad you're finally out, should be freeing.
|
On November 13 2017 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 08:02 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 07:53 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 07:49 KwarK wrote:On November 13 2017 07:46 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 06:53 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Just the ones that latch on to extremism as a form of empowerment. I struggled a lot with racism during my childhood and I never let it bring me down. I frown on the types who let their frustration get the better of them. I am better than that. They can be too. What was "extremism" in that article? + Show Spoiler +I feel like this is going to end up the same way the last times you made these foolish rants... The problem is that you aren't willing to see that a lot of the ideals you hold on to are only appealing to you because they finally make you feel in control of the situation. You don't need to feel in control of the situation. You can continue on, powerless against a lot of the forces negatively impacted, just like me, and work towards making the world a better place without the polarization. These ideas don't come across as extreme to you because they are what you see as the only way to actually feel like you're making a difference. They are extreme, they polarize situations and they make people less likely to listen to your message. So sure, you pat yourself on the back for feeling like you're making a difference, but you're not. Edit: to answer your question, the "with us or against us" is the extremism. That's not extreme, it's a statement of fact. You are choosing to interpret the situation that way because you need to have well defined definitions of friend and foe so that you feel more safe. This is all just a reaction to feeling powerless. You don't need to be so rigid in your definition of friend and foe. This all feels like how you have chosen to respond to a life of feeling powerless rather than a well thought out perspective on how to best accomplish goals. It's not that people are actually your enemies. It's that you are so frustrated that you aren't willing to drudge through all the nuance and difficulty of bringing people over to your cause who plain and simply aren't convinced yet. Is racism really an area where there are more than two sides? Where someone can legitimately say "I'm not pro-racism, I just don't think we should get rid of it"? You're still choosing to ignore nuance. People can be very against racism, yet think affirmative action is bad. They can think all sorts of "I agree with this, but not that" without being terrible people. Are you really trying to say there are 2 sets of beliefs regarding race in this world? Two sets of people who all agree on like 20 different racial issues and completely disagree with the other group on all 20? you seem conflicted, let me help you. You are not an ally. You can drop the pretense if you want and just tell us what you really think. lol, as if you and your allies get anything done. You just yell loud and tell yourself you've accomplished something by "taking a stand", meanwhile, life goes on as always. I've lived a very empowered life and have worked hard at reversing racism in my community and helping to empower other young people of color. How about I do my thing and you do yours? Haha. I can see why you backed "A progressive that gets thing done" now. But I'm glad you're finally out, should be freeing.
I'm not "now" out of anything. I've never been a member of your fringe perspective. I will continue to fight racism as I have been. It's not like you've got the anti-racism community on some sort of lockdown. You may yell the loudest, but I am willing to bet you've gotten a lot less done than me 
|
United States43587 Posts
On November 13 2017 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 07:43 KwarK wrote:
He elaborates in the article what he means by friendship. To him it means that they see you and your problems as equivalent to their own, a true peer. Genuine empathy towards you, rather than treating you as a character in their own life. It's not "don't hang out with people outside your race", or anything like that.
The problem is that the white majority in America simply doesn't have the back of black Americans when it counts. When blue collar jobs dry up, real estate prices crater, and drugs ruin communities the voting response depends dramatically on the skin colour of the people getting fucked. The same people prescribing government money propping open coal mines and steel plants are the ones who previously prescribed bootstraps. The same people prescribing money for the opioid epidemic previously prescribed prison. Not 100% the same thing, though, is it? Inner city blacks and rural whites... there's more than just the racial divide. If interests now overlap.. hey.. let's burn this bridge / keep it burned? Plenty of whites who don't want the fed gov to fix coal country. But.. they aligned and won an election.
I'm not arguing that hanging onto grudges is productive or that the overlap of interests shouldn't be capitalized upon, just that the reality is that it took a white American drug epidemic to treat drugs as a societal problem rather than an individual one.
It's great that there is now the potential for a coalition there but the overlap should not be mistaken for empathy.
|
United States43587 Posts
On November 13 2017 08:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 07:43 Nevuk wrote:On November 13 2017 05:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Two companies have said they will no longer advertise during Fox News’s “Hannity” after critics called for the companies to pull their ads over Sean Hannity’s coverage of the sexual misconduct allegations against Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore (R).
Realtor.com and Keurig both said they are stopping their ads from airing during the show after being questioned about the advertisements on Twitter. Neither company specifically said their decision was over Moore coverage, but only made the announcement in response to critics.
“Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We are adjusting our media buy to no longer include this show placement. –MS,” Realtor.com wrote to a Twitter user on Friday who tweeted a clip of Hannity’s Fox News show at the company.
Keurig said in a tweet to the president of liberal group Media Matters for America that the company is stopping its ad during Hannity’s show.
“Angelo, thank you for your concern and for bringing this to our attention,” the Keurig account wrote to Angelo Carusone. “We worked with our media partner and FOX news to stop our ad from airing during the Sean Hannity Show.”
Another company, Eloquii, said Hannity is blocked from its advertising list, but did not specify on what medium.
Media Matters has for months tried to put pressure on Hannity’s advertisers. In May the group published a list of the Fox News host's advertisers on its website.
The latest push comes after Hannity during his Thursday night show urged viewers not to rush to judgment regarding the allegations against Moore.
“Every single person in this country deserves the presumption of innocence,” Hannity said. “With the allegations against Judge Moore, none of us know the truth of what happened 38 years ago. The only people that would know are the people involved in this incident.”
Hannity also said Moore should drop out of the race if the allegations against him are true.
“If it’s true he should step aside and leave the Senate race,” Hannity said.
Hannity then interviewed Moore on Friday during his radio show, which is nationally syndicated.
Moore in the interview denied accusations leveled against him by a woman who said he initiated sexual contact with her when she was 14 and he was 32. The Washington Post reported the allegation and also included accounts from three other women who said Moore attempted to court them around the same time period, when they were between 16 and 18 years old. Source https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/929760853678686208These are not smart people So how could one boycott something which you've already bought...
A Keurig is probably the best case for doing that, it's essentially a subscription service isn't it? Don't you have to buy those little cartridges that make environmentalists cry?
|
On November 13 2017 08:06 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 08:02 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 07:53 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 07:49 KwarK wrote:On November 13 2017 07:46 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] What was "extremism" in that article? + Show Spoiler +I feel like this is going to end up the same way the last times you made these foolish rants... The problem is that you aren't willing to see that a lot of the ideals you hold on to are only appealing to you because they finally make you feel in control of the situation. You don't need to feel in control of the situation. You can continue on, powerless against a lot of the forces negatively impacted, just like me, and work towards making the world a better place without the polarization. These ideas don't come across as extreme to you because they are what you see as the only way to actually feel like you're making a difference. They are extreme, they polarize situations and they make people less likely to listen to your message. So sure, you pat yourself on the back for feeling like you're making a difference, but you're not. Edit: to answer your question, the "with us or against us" is the extremism. That's not extreme, it's a statement of fact. You are choosing to interpret the situation that way because you need to have well defined definitions of friend and foe so that you feel more safe. This is all just a reaction to feeling powerless. You don't need to be so rigid in your definition of friend and foe. This all feels like how you have chosen to respond to a life of feeling powerless rather than a well thought out perspective on how to best accomplish goals. It's not that people are actually your enemies. It's that you are so frustrated that you aren't willing to drudge through all the nuance and difficulty of bringing people over to your cause who plain and simply aren't convinced yet. Is racism really an area where there are more than two sides? Where someone can legitimately say "I'm not pro-racism, I just don't think we should get rid of it"? You're still choosing to ignore nuance. People can be very against racism, yet think affirmative action is bad. They can think all sorts of "I agree with this, but not that" without being terrible people. Are you really trying to say there are 2 sets of beliefs regarding race in this world? Two sets of people who all agree on like 20 different racial issues and completely disagree with the other group on all 20? you seem conflicted, let me help you. You are not an ally. You can drop the pretense if you want and just tell us what you really think. lol, as if you and your allies get anything done. You just yell loud and tell yourself you've accomplished something by "taking a stand", meanwhile, life goes on as always. I've lived a very empowered life and have worked hard at reversing racism in my community and helping to empower other young people of color. How about I do my thing and you do yours? Haha. I can see why you backed "A progressive that gets thing done" now. But I'm glad you're finally out, should be freeing. I'm not "now" out of anything. I've never been a member of your fringe perspective. I will continue to fight racism as I have been. It's not like you've got the anti-racism community on some sort of lockdown. You may yell the loudest, but I am willing to bet you've gotten a lot less done than me
Your good intentions just happen to reinforce white supremacy. I'm saying you can drop the pretense of the good intentions and realize there's nothing extreme you're objecting to.
|
On November 13 2017 08:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 08:06 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 08:02 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 07:53 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 07:49 KwarK wrote:On November 13 2017 07:46 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
The problem is that you aren't willing to see that a lot of the ideals you hold on to are only appealing to you because they finally make you feel in control of the situation. You don't need to feel in control of the situation. You can continue on, powerless against a lot of the forces negatively impacted, just like me, and work towards making the world a better place without the polarization. These ideas don't come across as extreme to you because they are what you see as the only way to actually feel like you're making a difference. They are extreme, they polarize situations and they make people less likely to listen to your message. So sure, you pat yourself on the back for feeling like you're making a difference, but you're not.
Edit: to answer your question, the "with us or against us" is the extremism. That's not extreme, it's a statement of fact. You are choosing to interpret the situation that way because you need to have well defined definitions of friend and foe so that you feel more safe. This is all just a reaction to feeling powerless. You don't need to be so rigid in your definition of friend and foe. This all feels like how you have chosen to respond to a life of feeling powerless rather than a well thought out perspective on how to best accomplish goals. It's not that people are actually your enemies. It's that you are so frustrated that you aren't willing to drudge through all the nuance and difficulty of bringing people over to your cause who plain and simply aren't convinced yet. Is racism really an area where there are more than two sides? Where someone can legitimately say "I'm not pro-racism, I just don't think we should get rid of it"? You're still choosing to ignore nuance. People can be very against racism, yet think affirmative action is bad. They can think all sorts of "I agree with this, but not that" without being terrible people. Are you really trying to say there are 2 sets of beliefs regarding race in this world? Two sets of people who all agree on like 20 different racial issues and completely disagree with the other group on all 20? you seem conflicted, let me help you. You are not an ally. You can drop the pretense if you want and just tell us what you really think. lol, as if you and your allies get anything done. You just yell loud and tell yourself you've accomplished something by "taking a stand", meanwhile, life goes on as always. I've lived a very empowered life and have worked hard at reversing racism in my community and helping to empower other young people of color. How about I do my thing and you do yours? Haha. I can see why you backed "A progressive that gets thing done" now. But I'm glad you're finally out, should be freeing. I'm not "now" out of anything. I've never been a member of your fringe perspective. I will continue to fight racism as I have been. It's not like you've got the anti-racism community on some sort of lockdown. You may yell the loudest, but I am willing to bet you've gotten a lot less done than me You're good intentions just happen to reinforce white supremacy. I'm saying you can drop the pretense of the good intentions and realize there's nothing extreme you're objecting to.
My good intentions address racism in a way distinct from your own. But as I keep trying to help you understand, your rigid perspective is only a result of your own emotional failings. You cracked under the same pressure I thrived in. It made you cynical and need to hold on to easy to digest ideas of right and wrong because you couldn't tolerate it otherwise. I stayed strong. I stay engaged. You fell off the deep end because you couldn't handle life as a victim of racism.
|
On November 13 2017 08:11 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 08:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 08:06 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 08:02 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 07:53 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 07:49 KwarK wrote:On November 13 2017 07:46 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2017 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
That's not extreme, it's a statement of fact.
You are choosing to interpret the situation that way because you need to have well defined definitions of friend and foe so that you feel more safe. This is all just a reaction to feeling powerless. You don't need to be so rigid in your definition of friend and foe. This all feels like how you have chosen to respond to a life of feeling powerless rather than a well thought out perspective on how to best accomplish goals. It's not that people are actually your enemies. It's that you are so frustrated that you aren't willing to drudge through all the nuance and difficulty of bringing people over to your cause who plain and simply aren't convinced yet. Is racism really an area where there are more than two sides? Where someone can legitimately say "I'm not pro-racism, I just don't think we should get rid of it"? You're still choosing to ignore nuance. People can be very against racism, yet think affirmative action is bad. They can think all sorts of "I agree with this, but not that" without being terrible people. Are you really trying to say there are 2 sets of beliefs regarding race in this world? Two sets of people who all agree on like 20 different racial issues and completely disagree with the other group on all 20? you seem conflicted, let me help you. You are not an ally. You can drop the pretense if you want and just tell us what you really think. lol, as if you and your allies get anything done. You just yell loud and tell yourself you've accomplished something by "taking a stand", meanwhile, life goes on as always. I've lived a very empowered life and have worked hard at reversing racism in my community and helping to empower other young people of color. How about I do my thing and you do yours? Haha. I can see why you backed "A progressive that gets thing done" now. But I'm glad you're finally out, should be freeing. I'm not "now" out of anything. I've never been a member of your fringe perspective. I will continue to fight racism as I have been. It's not like you've got the anti-racism community on some sort of lockdown. You may yell the loudest, but I am willing to bet you've gotten a lot less done than me You're good intentions just happen to reinforce white supremacy. I'm saying you can drop the pretense of the good intentions and realize there's nothing extreme you're objecting to. My good intentions address racism in a way distinct from your own. But as I keep trying to help you understand, your rigid perspective is only a result of your own emotional failings. You cracked under the same pressure I thrived in. It made you cynical and need to hold on to easy to digest ideas of right and wrong because you couldn't tolerate it otherwise. I stayed strong. I stay engaged. You fell off the deep end because you couldn't handle life as a victim of racism.
That's hilarious. You think your bold acceptance of racism is a virtue. You didn't survive where I cracked. It's actually the opposite. You've allowed yourself to become their unwitting stooge. Proud of it too.
|
'Different assumptions'.
That's all this is.
The problem is that there is a group of the hard left that has a radical philosophy at the foundation of their beliefs. They believe that all of life and politics is the story of a war between different identity groups, and that the whole world should be interpreted as an expression of this power struggle. They think that concepts such as race and sex are socially constructed and that some of these constructs are harmful and should be destroyed (ie whiteness).
It works as a set of beliefs but its so divorced from the everyday reality of most people that they just don't understand where the left is coming from at all.
Now because most people have decided that this is BS they call anyone who doesn't subscribe to the philosophy as an enemy.
|
On November 13 2017 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
Anyone who says "fuck you and your cause" was only superficially supportive if at all. There's nothing being said in articles like the one posted or much of anywhere of note that would ever make the people saying "fuck you and your cause" not selfish supporters of white supremacy.
Well I'm not necessarily talking about just the article posted - that's just more of a starting point. Really, that article doesn't exactly evoke strong emotions one way or the other, for me at least. The conclusion is quite unfortunate, but would I do the same in the same situation? Well it's not exactly purely hypothetical for me personally since I've had to deal with something similar in the past, but the answer is a not-so-simple sort of "yes and no." I can of course only speak for myself.
But again, people can be perfectly sympathetic to the idea of fighting against police violence, all the while being thoroughly disgusted with BLM and doing what they can to distance themselves from that group. If that makes a person racist by your metrics, then let it be racist. But if you want to rely only on purists for your own cause, then you will fail. You need the support of marginally sympathetic people, even if not as much as you like, if you want to get anywhere.
On November 13 2017 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's not like we're arguing over which TV show is better where it's all subjective and opinion based. White America has exploited Black people for it's entire existence is simply a fact.
You're kind of doing the same thing that internet feminists are so rightfully disdained for: conflating genuine grievances with not-so-genuine ones and using it for a form of victim rent-seeking. I certainly hope that's not what you're going for.
On November 13 2017 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
It just makes white America very uncomfortable and angry to be confronted with that fact, that's a problem with them, not the people pointing it out.
Is this back to the whole discomfort fetish that assumes that any form of discomfort is a good thing?
Again, this sort of has to go both ways. You haven't really addressed the issue of how much ownership you're willing to take over the previously-mentioned shittiness of "your" side. If all white people have to take ownership of all bad things that they don't stand strongly enough against, why shouldn't that go both ways?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
