|
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 December 29 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2017 04:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 03:43 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 02:59 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 02:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 02:23 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 01:47 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 01:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I mean, we obviously occupy different realities so I don't see anything to be gained indulging your fantasies here. I'd agree most people on TL don't really care much about racism, largely because they aren't the target of it or the accompanying systemic oppression and habitual violations of our rights.
To the crowds credit, some people did say it like it is. To the contrary, I expect they care very deeply about keeping their forum free of it. They just don’t diminish the word by overlabeling it like some want. I also think they can accurately identify and ban for it despite not frequently being targets. Just because victims of white supremacy/racism finally have input doesn't mean those terms are being diminished, they are simply being enlightened. Yes, this is precisely the victimhood narrative that I’m glad isn’t overshadowing forum standards. On December 29 2017 02:02 Plansix wrote:
Alright this thread is the wrong venue, my opinion on the subject is that TL is pretty tolerant of polite, well worded racism and will quickly ban angry opposition to that racism. Or posters who feel that even humoring the racist argument for an ethnostate is a bridge to far. Obviously if they tolerate white supremacy accusations everywhere, they must also tolerate discussion of alt-right views and applications. They end in the same place. The hell are you talking about victimhood narrative? Are you disputing the definitions of racism and white supremacy you prefer predate their targets having input on their meaning? Dang: The moderators do a fine job identifying and banning for racism despite attempts to expand the definition or allege they can’t know from never having experienced it. GH: The expanded definitions don’t diminish the term. They’re the result of victims of white supremacy finally getting a voice. The term is now enlightened. By corollary, the moderation team is insufficiently knowledgeable of former silenced victims properly adjusting the term. The victimhood narrative is there exist silenced victims now speaking out should that should alter perceptions of racist speech. You stated it pretty succinctly yourself, and I applaud your honesty. Gotcha, so actually oppressed people being shut out of being able to influence the definitions of the words addressing their oppression is a "victimhood narrative" unworthy of your respect, but the cry baby victimhood persecuted white conservative crap you've been on for months is legitimate and should be taken seriously. You are a parody of yourself at this point. You’ve got the kernel of the truth here. By all means, call out other victimhood narratives that you think are false. It doesn’t preclude your own identification and exposition of an orthogonal or competing one. So this is confirmation you take your own victimhood narrative seriously? The specifics are probably better served for the main thread when there’s topic relevance. You probably know well enough from my past posting my thoughts on the matter (no matter how you choose to represent them nowadays).
I'm reading this as a "yes, I think the victimhood narrative I've been pushing for months is serious".
I'm inferring that you think your own victimhood narrative is more serious/significant than the one you perceive surrounding white supremacy and racism.
I think that's so laughably absurd I'm having a hard time believing you aren't yankin my chain. But you remind me at every opportunity that you think the victimhood narrative of Trump supporters is validated by every random liberal tweet you find.
|
https://apnews.com/7c23d09eb6d4446a95c14e38ddaf2c65/Roy-Moore-files-lawsuit-to-block-Alabama-Senate-result
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Democrat Doug Jones’ historic victory over Republican Roy Moore was declared official Thursday as Alabama election officials certified him the winner of the special Senate election earlier this month, despite claims of voter irregularities from his opponent.
Jones defeated Moore on Dec. 12 by about 22,000 votes in a stunning victory in a deeply red state. It was the first Democratic Senate victory in a quarter-century in Alabama. Moore was dogged by accusations of sexual misconduct involving teenage girls that occurred decades ago.\
...
Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill said he had not found any evidence of voter fraud, but that his office will investigate any complaint Moore submits.
Keep on trying Roy...
|
Oh please run again in 2020 Roy, I can see him winning the primary again to. It would be fun to watch his brand of crazy once again.
|
On December 29 2017 06:15 Adreme wrote:
Oh please run again in 2020 Roy, I can see him winning the primary again to. It would be fun to watch his brand of crazy once again.
He can try running for something in 2018? or is that not allowed.
|
On December 29 2017 06:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2017 06:15 Adreme wrote:
Oh please run again in 2020 Roy, I can see him winning the primary again to. It would be fun to watch his brand of crazy once again. He can try running for something in 2018? or is that not allowed.
I mean, you would be seen as such a loser at that point would you not? Oh can't win senate so now you're going for this? fuck off! (that is how I see voters in my mind anyway)
|
On December 29 2017 06:22 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2017 06:17 Gorsameth wrote:On December 29 2017 06:15 Adreme wrote:
Oh please run again in 2020 Roy, I can see him winning the primary again to. It would be fun to watch his brand of crazy once again. He can try running for something in 2018? or is that not allowed. I mean, you would be seen as such a loser at that point would you not? Oh can't win senate so now you're going for this? fuck off! (that is how I see voters in my mind anyway)
What if he won the primary again and was the challenger? I can only dream.
|
On December 29 2017 05:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 04:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 03:43 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 02:59 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 02:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 02:23 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 01:47 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
To the contrary, I expect they care very deeply about keeping their forum free of it. They just don’t diminish the word by overlabeling it like some want.
I also think they can accurately identify and ban for it despite not frequently being targets. Just because victims of white supremacy/racism finally have input doesn't mean those terms are being diminished, they are simply being enlightened. Yes, this is precisely the victimhood narrative that I’m glad isn’t overshadowing forum standards. On December 29 2017 02:02 Plansix wrote:
Alright this thread is the wrong venue, my opinion on the subject is that TL is pretty tolerant of polite, well worded racism and will quickly ban angry opposition to that racism. Or posters who feel that even humoring the racist argument for an ethnostate is a bridge to far. Obviously if they tolerate white supremacy accusations everywhere, they must also tolerate discussion of alt-right views and applications. They end in the same place. The hell are you talking about victimhood narrative? Are you disputing the definitions of racism and white supremacy you prefer predate their targets having input on their meaning? Dang: The moderators do a fine job identifying and banning for racism despite attempts to expand the definition or allege they can’t know from never having experienced it. GH: The expanded definitions don’t diminish the term. They’re the result of victims of white supremacy finally getting a voice. The term is now enlightened. By corollary, the moderation team is insufficiently knowledgeable of former silenced victims properly adjusting the term. The victimhood narrative is there exist silenced victims now speaking out should that should alter perceptions of racist speech. You stated it pretty succinctly yourself, and I applaud your honesty. Gotcha, so actually oppressed people being shut out of being able to influence the definitions of the words addressing their oppression is a "victimhood narrative" unworthy of your respect, but the cry baby victimhood persecuted white conservative crap you've been on for months is legitimate and should be taken seriously. You are a parody of yourself at this point. You’ve got the kernel of the truth here. By all means, call out other victimhood narratives that you think are false. It doesn’t preclude your own identification and exposition of an orthogonal or competing one. So this is confirmation you take your own victimhood narrative seriously? The specifics are probably better served for the main thread when there’s topic relevance. You probably know well enough from my past posting my thoughts on the matter (no matter how you choose to represent them nowadays). I'm reading this as a "yes, I think the victimhood narrative I've been pushing for months is serious". I'm inferring that you think your own victimhood narrative is more serious/significant than the one you perceive surrounding white supremacy and racism. I think that's so laughably absurd I'm having a hard time believing you aren't yankin my chain. But you remind me at every opportunity that you think the victimhood narrative of Trump supporters is validated by every random liberal tweet you find.
How else to explain the rise of white identity politics and Trump’s adoption of some of their gripes? Too many political and media figures adopted the view that you can have the wrong skin color to discuss crime and poverty. I really don’t understand why you bring this up now. We don’t have to play ‘rank your issues by priority’ every time I say something you don’t like.
|
On December 29 2017 06:15 Adreme wrote:
Oh please run again in 2020 Roy, I can see him winning the primary again to. It would be fun to watch his brand of crazy once again.
Oh, please. The only reason he won the primary was because the sexual molestation allegations were unknown.
|
The racism discussion returns. The struggle is endless:
I don’t think it is a ground breaking idea that people should stick to topics they are experts on. I am not an expert of the impacts and struggles cause by day to day racism in the US. I’ll leave discussing that to black and brown people. I’ll stick to growing up in an all white rural town and being the wealthiest family in that town, but not know it because I was only middle class.
If folks(myself included) took a moment and asked themselves if they have any reason to pontificate on a subject, we would all be off.
|
On December 29 2017 06:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2017 06:15 Adreme wrote:
Oh please run again in 2020 Roy, I can see him winning the primary again to. It would be fun to watch his brand of crazy once again. Oh, please. The only reason he won the primary was because the sexual molestation allegations were unknown.
That only depends on if a big number of the R's that stayed home over those allegations overlap with those R;s that vote in primaries
|
Norway28648 Posts
Clearly the sexual allegations would have made some (I'm guessing a pretty huge majority tbh) of republicans favor another republican even if they didn't make them favor a democrat..
|
|
|
^ worked well in Canada :O
|
Since there isn't many democrats now, the topic of Cannabis has been pushed to 2020, but if democrats were currently holding strong, it would of been a topic for 2018. Which is something I think both sides are bipartisan on for once...
|
On December 29 2017 06:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2017 05:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 04:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 03:43 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 02:59 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 02:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 02:23 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Just because victims of white supremacy/racism finally have input doesn't mean those terms are being diminished, they are simply being enlightened. Yes, this is precisely the victimhood narrative that I’m glad isn’t overshadowing forum standards. On December 29 2017 02:02 Plansix wrote:
Alright this thread is the wrong venue, my opinion on the subject is that TL is pretty tolerant of polite, well worded racism and will quickly ban angry opposition to that racism. Or posters who feel that even humoring the racist argument for an ethnostate is a bridge to far. Obviously if they tolerate white supremacy accusations everywhere, they must also tolerate discussion of alt-right views and applications. They end in the same place. The hell are you talking about victimhood narrative? Are you disputing the definitions of racism and white supremacy you prefer predate their targets having input on their meaning? Dang: The moderators do a fine job identifying and banning for racism despite attempts to expand the definition or allege they can’t know from never having experienced it. GH: The expanded definitions don’t diminish the term. They’re the result of victims of white supremacy finally getting a voice. The term is now enlightened. By corollary, the moderation team is insufficiently knowledgeable of former silenced victims properly adjusting the term. The victimhood narrative is there exist silenced victims now speaking out should that should alter perceptions of racist speech. You stated it pretty succinctly yourself, and I applaud your honesty. Gotcha, so actually oppressed people being shut out of being able to influence the definitions of the words addressing their oppression is a "victimhood narrative" unworthy of your respect, but the cry baby victimhood persecuted white conservative crap you've been on for months is legitimate and should be taken seriously. You are a parody of yourself at this point. You’ve got the kernel of the truth here. By all means, call out other victimhood narratives that you think are false. It doesn’t preclude your own identification and exposition of an orthogonal or competing one. So this is confirmation you take your own victimhood narrative seriously? The specifics are probably better served for the main thread when there’s topic relevance. You probably know well enough from my past posting my thoughts on the matter (no matter how you choose to represent them nowadays). I'm reading this as a "yes, I think the victimhood narrative I've been pushing for months is serious". I'm inferring that you think your own victimhood narrative is more serious/significant than the one you perceive surrounding white supremacy and racism. I think that's so laughably absurd I'm having a hard time believing you aren't yankin my chain. But you remind me at every opportunity that you think the victimhood narrative of Trump supporters is validated by every random liberal tweet you find. How else to explain the rise of white identity politics and Trump’s adoption of some of their gripes? Too many political and media figures adopted the view that you can have the wrong skin color to discuss crime and poverty. I really don’t understand why you bring this up now. We don’t have to play ‘rank your issues by priority’ every time I say something you don’t like.
How else to explain the rise of white victimhood politics and Trump 's adoption of some of their gripes?
It starts back when whiteness was created to oppress people by placing the worst fated whites slightly above those deemed non-white. Then a long chain of events lead us to today.
The only recent change is that white people don't get exclusive control over the conversation and that seems to be at the center of the white victimhood narrative you are subscribing to and suggest is more valid than the one you dismiss as overblown.
It's not that I don't like what you're saying (though I don't), it's that it's so rankly absurd I can't help but be fascinated by how you get there.
|
On December 29 2017 07:17 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Since there isn't many democrats now, the topic of Cannabis has been pushed to 2020, but if democrats were currently holding strong, it would of been a topic for 2018. Which is something I think both sides are bipartisan on for once...
Well it is hard for Rs to run on it seeing who the AG is
|
On December 29 2017 07:00 Plansix wrote:
The racism discussion returns. The struggle is endless:
I don’t think it is a ground breaking idea that people should stick to topics they are experts on. I am not an expert of the impacts and struggles cause by day to day racism in the US. I’ll leave discussing that to black and brown people. I’ll stick to growing up in an all white rural town and being the wealthiest family in that town, but not know it because I was only middle class.
If folks(myself included) took a moment and asked themselves if they have any reason to pontificate on a subject, we would all be off.
Just gonna chime in here to disagree.
It depends what exactly you are trying to discuss.
Anyone can discuss well researched facts about racism. Only victims of racism can discuss the experience of racism. If you want a deep factual discussion about racism then a single individual who has experienced it isn't in much of a better place to have that discussion, given that victims of racism have wildly differing opinions on the origin, remedy and nature of racism.
Lived experience is extremely important, but it doesn't preclude others from taking part in the discussion.
Oncologists don't need to be cancer survivors.
|
You are sort of making my argument for me. Of course expertise matters. I would listen to the Oncologist because they got a degree in cancer study and curing it. Anyone in this thread with a PHD in the study of discrimination, both historical and current, can talk about it all they want the topic. But I don’t think anyone has that degree. I don’t. My degree is in US history and it is not a PHD.
Just treat being black in the US like being from another country(if you are from the US). I try not to tell people in the UK how to fix whatever weird crime is plaguing their cities(I don’t know, is knife crime still a thing?) Or that their political issues are petty and they are hysterical, professional victims.
|
On December 29 2017 07:31 Plansix wrote:
You are sort of making my argument for me. Of course expertise matters. I would listen to the Oncologist because they got a degree in cancer study and curing it. Anyone in this thread with a PHD in the study of discrimination, both historical and current, can talk about it all they want the topic. But I don’t think anyone has that degree. I don’t. My degree is in US history and it is not a PHD.
Just treat being black in the US like being from another country(if you are from the US). I try not to tell people in the UK how to fix whatever weird crime is plaguing their cities(I don’t know, is knife crime still a thing?) Or that their political issues are petty and they are hysterical, professional victims.
No but if you have a degree in history you might well have interesting and relevant information that can make a positive contribution to the discussion.
Not sharing it because you are white is just a form of self hatred.
I'm not saying every moron should come on here spouting their racist shit all over the place but making grand generalizations about which groups are or are not allowed to discuss something is a bit OTT.
|
On December 29 2017 07:38 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2017 07:31 Plansix wrote:
You are sort of making my argument for me. Of course expertise matters. I would listen to the Oncologist because they got a degree in cancer study and curing it. Anyone in this thread with a PHD in the study of discrimination, both historical and current, can talk about it all they want the topic. But I don’t think anyone has that degree. I don’t. My degree is in US history and it is not a PHD.
Just treat being black in the US like being from another country(if you are from the US). I try not to tell people in the UK how to fix whatever weird crime is plaguing their cities(I don’t know, is knife crime still a thing?) Or that their political issues are petty and they are hysterical, professional victims. No but if you have a degree in history you might well have interesting and relevant information that can make a positive contribution to the discussion. Not sharing it because you are white is just a form of self hatred. I'm not saying every moron should come on here spouting their racist shit all over the place but making grand generalizations about which groups are or are not allowed to discuss something is a bit OTT.
But I didn’t make a grand generalization. I said none of the things you are claiming I said.
I am not an expert of the impacts and struggles cause by day to day racism in the US.
That was the limit of what I said I didn't feel qualified to talk about. And then I said that people should really think about how they want to contribute to the topic before speaking. I didn't' say "don't speak" at any point.
I don't really know who you are arguing with, but I don't think it is me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
