If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
The point is it's bad form for journalism professors to call for ejecting the press.
Precisely, unfortunately he's hell-bent on disagreeing with me over anything and everything, no matter the subject. So it clouds his vision. "OMGerd CTP posted, must refute what he's saying!!1"
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
While the article is titles "Free Speech on Public College Campuses," it includes information on Supreme Court rulings covering 1st Amendment issues on College Campuses. Basically, even though they may receive federal funds, students don't necessarily receive full 1st Amendment protections.
Originally Posted by subego
The point is it's bad form for journalism professors to call for ejecting the press.
Couldn't agree more. I think if you re-read my post, you will see that I said he had a valid point on this.
However, the 1st Amendment comment was about as valid as when my children try the "I thought this was a free country" line when I tell them to go to bed.
Precisely, unfortunately he's hell-bent on disagreeing with me over anything and everything, no matter the subject. So it clouds his vision. "OMGerd CTP posted, must refute what he's saying!!1"
No, I only refute what you say when it is particularly egregious. I let the majority of the ill-informed and fantastical stuff you say pass without comment.
And in any case, I thought you had me on ignore. Imagine that, you posting something misleading.
Mobs are indiscriminate. It is easy to imagine scenarios like were seen in the US after 9/11 where Sikhs were assaulted and had their businesses vandalised because they were mistaken by mouth-breathers to be Muslims.
The likelihood of an angry and unruly mob getting their targets even mostly right in next to zero. The likelihood that the overall social situation would improve after an outbreak of large-scale violence, indiscriminate or discriminate, is also next to zero.
I have to say, I'm a little bit puzzled that I have to defend the idea that mob violence committed against any group of people is not a good idea and that you would not have to be a left-wing nut job to want to avoid it.
Sorry for the delay!
I honestly (no snark), appreciate you giving me your analysis.
I'm going to exaggerate things here, hopefully for clarity.
We have our "decider". The person who makes the call whether to release news of the attacks. We'll call him Henk.
Henk has to use all his decider resources to generate a hypothesized "disorder" quotient. It's a number from 0 to 100. Henk lets the news out, he predicts that much relative shit will hit the fan.
Let's say the number Henk comes up with is 100. No one will blame Henk for withholding the news.
Let's say the number Henk comes up with is 0, but he still withholds the news. That's where someone can start safely lobbing left-wing nut job accusations. The only thing being protected here is perception, at the cost of putting people at risk.
We already know Henk made the call to withhold the news. How we judge him depends what we guess the number was. If it's too low he's a left-wing nut job. If it's high, he's a good egg. If it's in between, he's overzealous.
I came into this under the assumption that at the least, the real number is low. It's possible Henk had a higher number, and was just wrong about it. At some point, if his number is so far off from reality, we can call him grossly incompetent, if not a nut job.
You've put forth a credible argument Henk got high enough numbers to be put in the far less damning "overzealous" category.
I can't provide incontrovertible evidence the real number, regardless of what Henk had, is low. It's mostly based on my general perception. I'm certainly aware of the ethnic tensions, and don't want to minimize them, but the lack of vigilantism once the news was released, and the fact Europeans en masse think Henk is some kind of colossal ****-up, certainly push me towards thinking Cologne isn't quite the simmering cauldron of racial hatred Henk seems to think it is.
Sure you do, puddin'. The magnitude of your butthurt speaks volumes, and now you're following me like a fanboy. (and no, you still don't understand what was so egregious about what Click did, and that doesn't surprise me at all.)
I do have you on ignore, but I can still open your posts and see the garbage you're spewing whenever the mood strikes me. I consider it a bonus; most of the time you're quiet, but if I want to read your idiocy I can. Speaking of, that's more than enough for one day, I'm just gonna put you back in the box.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
There is basically nothing I disagree with in your analysis- and we certainly agree we agree on some major points.
1. The decision to suppress information was misguided
2. It was also unnecessary
What we MAY disagree on is the likely motive- and I say likely because we are only observers and were certainly not in the room when decisions we being made.
I have seen no evidence, either in deed or in word, that leads me to believe that the information was suppressed because of a progressive agenda that served to excuse the behaviour of the assailants. There has not been, as has been erroneously reported on this board, an outbreak of apologists justifying sexual assaults because of culture. It has not been met with silence from feminists. The people of Germany, and of Europe in general, were outraged, and vocally so, about the assaults and the cover-up.
Have there been massive failures of public protection because of 'cultural sensitivity' in the past? Absolutely. Was that the case in Cologne? I really don't think so- I've seen no reporting- and I mean reporting and not commentary- that supports it.
What we MAY disagree on is the likely motive- and I say likely because we are only observers and were certainly not in the room when decisions we being made.
I have seen no evidence, either in deed or in word, that leads me to believe that the information was suppressed because of a progressive agenda that served to excuse the behaviour of the assailants. There has not been, as has been erroneously reported on this board, an outbreak of apologists justifying sexual assaults because of culture. It has not been met with silence from feminists. The people of Germany, and of Europe in general, were outraged, and vocally so, about the assaults and the cover-up.
I'd say we're likely in agreement here too. Protecting the assailants crosses over the left-wing nut job event horizon into the black hole of the diabolic. I don't think that's the case, and even if I did for whatever reason, I wouldn't level the accusation without some strong evidence to back it up.
My accusation is Henk is a bonehead. At worst, his thought process was "I have the choice to protect innocent refugees, or innocent Germans. I choose to protect the innocent refugees because I'm tired of them getting the shit end of the stick."
It's not like I'm even unsympathetic to this line of reasoning, it's just the wrong hill upon which to plant the policy flag for it.
I'd say we're likely in agreement here too. Protecting the assailants crosses over the left-wing nut job event horizon into the black hole of the diabolic. I don't think that's the case, and even if I did for whatever reason, I wouldn't level the accusation without some strong evidence to back it up.
My accusation is Henk is a bonehead. At worst, his thought process was "I have the choice to protect innocent refugees, or innocent Germans. I choose to protect the innocent refugees because I'm tired of them getting the shit end of the stick."
It's not like I'm even unsympathetic to this line of reasoning, it's just the wrong hill upon which to plant the policy flag for it.
We are slowly getting closer to understanding each other.
My view is that the choice was not to 'protect innocent refugees, or innocent Germans,' but rather 'protect some innocent Germans from assault or my entire city from chaos.' This seems much more likely to me, but nonetheless, totally wrongheaded.
I do have you on ignore, but I can still open your posts and see the garbage you're spewing whenever the mood strikes me. I consider it a bonus; most of the time you're quiet, but if I want to read your idiocy I can. Speaking of, that's more than enough for one day, I'm just gonna put you back in the box.
Hold up ... wait a minute!
Are these words coming out the mouth of the same CTP who argued me down that I didn't have him on my ignore list when I made this exact same point to him? The same CTP who said it was a "lie"?
The same CTP who claimed secret knowledge of a non-existent PM supposedly sent to me by an admin?
The same CTP who claimed that he couldn't be on my ignore list because he supposedly sent me a PM afterwards and offered this screenshot of a draft PM that was never sent as "proof"? And when challenged on this point claimed that he received an error message saying it wasn't allowed when he clicked send ... yet conveniently failed to take a screenshot of said error message with this PM?
We've had this conversation before about how you clearly don't understand how the ignore function actually works. Yet you continue to talk sh*t anyway. It's just .... odd.
Who am I kidding? Of course it's the same CTP! Because as I've said before more often than not he is completely full of sh*t!!!
OAW
PS: And FTR ... I finally took CTP off my ignore list a month or so ago. His output of colossally ignorant comments had increased to the point where I was clicking "View Post" on the majority of them anyway. The entertainment value of watching someone continually making himself look like an idiot on a public forum was just too strong to resist.
*more lies and distortions from MacNN's pathological liar*
Do you ever get tired of telling all these lies? It has to be hard to live with yourself, knowing that you can't control it. Just stop; you know I sent the PM (I did) and none of the rest of that is at all relevant to what I said. You've been caught in what? Half a dozen "whoppers"? Making shit up about me or my family (that seems to be one of your favorite hobbies, though why you attack people you've never encountered is beyond me), or the issue you're discussing, entirely. What does it benefit you to constantly lie? You think there's no search function? Seek help, what you're doing isn't normal behavior.
(and stop thread-crapping, I'm tired of having mine closed over your BS.)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Do you ever get tired of telling all these lies? It has to be hard to live with yourself, knowing that you can't control it. Just stop; you know I sent the PM (I did) and none of the rest of that is at all relevant to what I said.
You know I gotta hand it to you. You are nothing if not consistent. Consistently full of sh*t. But consistent nonetheless. If posting links to your own words IN CONTEXT makes me a "pathological liar" in your estimation then that speaks volumes about you!
Let's set aside the simple fact that if you had actually done what you claimed you could have easily posted a screenshot with this supposed PM in your Sent Items folder at the time. Because I find it "less than credible" that if you actually had a legitimate opportunity to prove me to be "telling all these lies" you would instead choose to hide behind that unsent draft BS. The thing that's "relevant" here ... which I've demonstrated with your own words in black and white ... is that in addition to your ongoing delusions of grandeur you are also not above exhibiting pure, unadulterated hypocrisy. Your words to Paco500 are in fact the exact same thing I was saying to you about how the ignore list actually functions on the forum. Yet you saw fit to be contentious with me about it. Even went so far as to concoct some imaginary PM to "prove" that somehow I was "telling lies" about having you on my ignore list when I made this same point to you. But when you make it to someone else somehow it's ... different. I mean your hypocrisy is so out-of-control you actually had the nerve to let this BS come out of your mouth ...
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Precisely, unfortunately he's hell-bent on disagreeing with me over anything and everything, no matter the subject. So it clouds his vision.
*More BS from MacNN's pathological liar, this time ignoring that Sent Items aren't saved by default (I'd switched accounts and hadn't turned that feature on yet) and that it's already been explained to him. Either he's terribly forgetful or he's deliberately trying to mislead people... again*
Again, stop threadcrapping. You're way off topic, attention-whoring again, and it's quickly become pathetic.
Really? Like ... seriously?
Yes, but he's not nearly as much of a fanboy as you are.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I'm not sure this thread ever had a real "track" to get back onto, but if the spitwads, vitriol, and purse swinging continues, this thread will go the way of the first one. Fast, too.
If we discuss ideas, we do not characterize (which includes "mischaracterize") other participants, nor dredge up statements to use in characterizing them. Discuss ideas, on the merits of those ideas, and this thread has a chance at life. Otherwise, it's doomed.
We are slowly getting closer to understanding each other.
My view is that the choice was not to 'protect innocent refugees, or innocent Germans,' but rather 'protect some innocent Germans from assault or my entire city from chaos.' This seems much more likely to me, but nonetheless, totally wrongheaded.
I fully admit this is a possibility, and I'd certainly prefer it to be the case.
Beyond what I've already mentioned, probably the biggest reason I'm landing on the opposite conclusion is, well...
There's a George Carlin joke, "white people shouldn't play the blues, it's white people's job to give you the blues".
In this context, I'd rewrite it as "it's not white people's job to riot, it's white people's job to flee the riot."
I mean, I'm only half kidding when I say white people who want to riot can just get a badge.
Then add on top of it we're talking Germany, both the richest country in Europe, and a country with a biiiiig sore spot when it comes to poor race relations.
I'm sure there are nuances I'm glossing over, but the idea of these attacks precipitating widespread mayhem almost seems like, well, joke material.
Liberal women destroying the regressive Feminist narrative:
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
What do you think? Voting for someone just because they have a vagina (or a penis) is stupid. It's one of the most regressive political actions a person could take. Hillary's lackies have even gone so far as to start calling female Sanders supporters "Bernie Broads".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
New wrinkle in this whole affair. Read this article. I will concede up front that it is from the left-leaning huffington post, so do with that what you will.
The two things that stand out:
Originally Posted by The article
Just three of the 58 suspects arrested in connection with January's mass sex attack were refugees, local public prosecutor Ulrich Bremer has confirmed.
And
Originally Posted by The article
Germany has also seen a spike in racially motivated arson attacks on refugees' homes and shelters since the incident, with vigilante gangs vowing to 'clean up Cologne' in a mass "manhunt".
In Leipzig, 250 members of local anti-migrant group Pegida attacked doner kebab fast food stalls, set cars ablaze and smashed windows.
If this is accurate reporting, I think it at least supports the theory that information on the attacks was (wrongly) withheld over public order concerns. Or, perhaps if the authorities had gotten out in front of it and been open about the situation, some of the ensuing vigilante nonsense could have been avoided.
Originally Posted by subego
I fully admit this is a possibility, and I'd certainly prefer it to be the case.
Beyond what I've already mentioned, probably the biggest reason I'm landing on the opposite conclusion is, well...
There's a George Carlin joke, "white people shouldn't play the blues, it's white people's job to give you the blues".
In this context, I'd rewrite it as "it's not white people's job to riot, it's white people's job to flee the riot."
I mean, I'm only half kidding when I say white people who want to riot can just get a badge.
Then add on top of it we're talking Germany, both the richest country in Europe, and a country with a biiiiig sore spot when it comes to poor race relations.
I'm sure there are nuances I'm glossing over, but the idea of these attacks precipitating widespread mayhem almost seems like, well, joke material.
"On Monday, Mr Bremer dismissed how his remarks had been reported, saying that the overwhelming majority of those arrested 'fall into the general category of refugees'."
Back to your Safe Space hug box, you whiny hyper-privileged brats. Seriously, this guy is all of 60 kilos soaking wet, and yet he's somehow able to cripple an entire school's SJW/feminist population. "The social sciences depts will be closed the rest of the week to deal with the damage due to his visit."
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I mean, some 50 refugees get arrested, and the report is "three out of 58 arrests are from Syria and Iraq".
Am I just some right-wing tool for thinking there's an agenda here?
P.S. to Paco: I'm worried these last three posts may have come off like I'm accusing you of something. I'm not.
If I am reading the reports correctly, the majority of arrests were of immigrants rather than refugees, with most coming from Algeria and Morocco I believe. This may be a distinction without a difference if one opposes immigration in general or just immigration from Muslim countries, but there is a difference between legal, documented migrants and the new wave of refugees.
I thought the more interesting part of the article I linked was the reports of anti-immigrant/refugee violence since the incident, which has, predictably, caught up innocents- businesses have been vandalised and destroyed because of the skin colour of the owners.
None of this changes either of my opinions- that the decision to keep the reports of the assaults secret was a mistake and that the decision was likely motivated by a desire to keep public order rather than a progressive plot to discourage criticism of muslims.
According to the paper, students and faculty members held a wound-licking gathering at a cultural center on campus, where students described “feeling scared, hurt, and discriminated against.”
“A variety of different organizations and departments were present to listen, answer questions and show support” to the apparently weak and vulnerable students, who just a few days prior had disrupted Yiannopoulos’ event by smearing fake blood on their faces and chanting protest slogans.
One student at the event told the Targum that they “broke down crying” after the event, while another reported that he felt “scared to walk around campus the next day.” According to the report, “many others” said they felt “unsafe” at the event and on campus afterwards.
“It is upsetting that my mental health is not cared about by the University,” said one student at the event. “I do not know what else to do for us to be heard for us to be cared about. I deserve an apology, everyone in this room deserves an apology.”
A number of organizations were at the event to offer support to the poor, traumatised students. These included Psychiatric Services, the Office for Violence Prevention and Victim Assistance, and the Rutgers University Police. However, as far as we know, none of the protesting students were institutionalized, arrested for vandalism, or for assaulting the peaceful attendees of Milo’s talk with red paint.
Rutgers students are displaying clear-cut signs of the crybully phenomenon, whereby the regressive left feels victimized, traumatized and attacked even while they are viciously attacking others. In the case of Milo’s talk at Rutgers, there is no question that their behaviour encompassed vandalism at the very least. Yet the students still believe themselves to be victims — so much so that they set up therapy sessions and complain about their mental health.
I don't even particularly like Milo, he's a Trump supporter (WTF?!), but this shit is amazing. I can't tell you how much I've enjoyed following it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The term “social justice,” a potentially useful term, has – as we well know – been taken hostage by progressives in both the secular world and the Church. They have made it a catchall term to aid them in imposing ideological formulas and newly conceived rights on our common institutions, or to promote their favored causes de jure.
These “Social Justice Warriors” (SJWs in digital parlance), who support state-enforced redistribution, same-sex marriage, transgenderism, Black Lives Matter, and Occupy Wall Street agendas, also portray their opponents as evil people opposed to all that is good, and often employ tactics designed to silence or repress those who dare to disagree.
Writing about these “dangerous pseudo-progressive authoritarians” in a New York Observer article titled “The Totalitarian Doctrine of ‘Social Justice Warriors’” journalist Cathy Young concluded, “Because SocJus is so focused on changing bad attitudes and ferreting out subtle biases and insensitivities, its hostility to free speech and thought is not an unfortunate by-product of the movement but its very essence.”
In an effort to rescue “social justice” from this fate and to clarify its true meaning, Templeton Prize winner Michael Novak, and Paul Adams, Professor Emeritus of social work at the University of Hawaii, have co-authored an impressive book, Social Justice Isn’t What You Think It Is.
The authors contend that “social justice,” rightly understood, is not a state of public affairs but personal virtue. To explain that premise and “to seek out a fresh statement of the definition of social justice – one that is true to the original understanding, ideologically neutral among political and economic partisans, and applicable to the circumstances of today,” the book is divided into two parts.
The first, “The Theory” of social justice is written by Novak and the second part, by Adams, is devoted to “The Practice.”
Social Justice was introduced as a new virtue by Pope Pius XI in his 1931 encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno. He called this form of justice “social” because its aim was to improve the common good of a “free and responsible people” by employing social activities closely related to the basic unit of society: the family. Activities could include the creation of local religious and educational facilities and the administering of essential services.
This virtue is also expected to reach ends that cannot be actualized by the individual alone. People are expected to learn three skills: “the art of forming associations, willingness to take leadership of small groups, and the habit and instinct of cooperation with others.”
Social justice wasn’t meant to be dependent on large, impersonal, domineering, and cumbersome federal and state bureaucracies that tend to smother individual and local initiatives. Rather it is a habit of the heart that brings people together to form associations that provide “social protection against atomistic individualism, while at the other pole it protects considerable civic space from the direct custodianship of the state.”
Novak concludes his portion of the work by stressing:
Both Catholic social teaching and the social-work empowerment tradition reject the individualist hypertrophy of the autonomous unencumbered self no less than the hypertrophy of the state. The space – of civil society or mediating structures – between individual and state is the one in which conscience is shaped and the virtues on which it depends are developed through practice and habituation. The virtue of social justice also requires and develops that space in which citizens join together in pursuit of the common good.
As for Catholic social justice in action, Professor Adams describes it as the pre-eminent virtue of free societies. Social workers are virtue-driven and are called to act with people “to improve the common good of families, a local neighborhood, a city, a whole nation, the whole world.”
Social work, Adams argues, is neither individualist nor collectivist, but is devoted to strengthening the caring and self-regulatory capacity of the family and to reduce dependency on the “bureaucratic-professional state.”
Adams greatest fear is that social workers who adhere to Judeo-Christian teaching on life, death, family, and marriage will be driven from their professions. Conscience exemptions are being eliminated in most medical and counseling fields. Conscience has been redefined as merely “personal values that must be left at the office door when duty calls.”
Today clients or patients are sovereign. Any legal practice they demand, the social profession must provide or participate in providing. The professional’s right and duty, Adams observes, “to use her judgment about what is required or indicated or morally permissible is nullified.” The balance of rights between professional and client no longer exists, however, and client empowerment “radically disempowers, even dehumanizes, the professional.”
All too often social service professionals and healthcare workers must either execute policies or perform procedures they find morally degrading – or find a different line of work.
The war on conscience aims at destroying subsidiary associational life, particularly in Church and family. And if Social Justice Warriors succeed, religious freedom will be reduced to freedom of worship and the Church will have to abandon a prime corporate responsibility of caring for the poor, sick, homeless, and orphans.
Because battles over conscience in the public square are so daunting, Novak and Adams conclude that the most important words of Catholic social justice must become: “Do not be afraid.” They call on us to aspire upward and to “draw strength from the example of so many heroines and heroes who have gone before us, winning small victory after small victory, even in the darkest of times.”
So it appears that Black Lives Matter protesters have been told that their exclusionist, racist BS doesn't fly WRT public property:
Library officials have told Nashville's chapter of the Black Lives Matter movement that meetings restricting those who attend by race aren't allowed on public property.
The decision has outraged Black Lives Matter members. But Nashville Public Library officials said they’re following a library policy that specifies all meetings at their facilities must be open to the public and news media.
So they had to move their bigoted gathering to a church (where they probably hear it every Sunday, anyway).
"We were surprised about it, but we shouldn't have been," Crutchfield said. "We kind of know the history about how this goes in this country. … It's definitely something we want to make public to tell people what's going on in the city."
Unless they're white, I guess. That's a far cry from:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Doncha think? Isn't it time we just dropped the pretense and called these scumbags what they truly are? A racist hate group. #KillAllWhitePeople
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Dude, pretty much everything you post is conservative propaganda. Not only that but the sort of propaganda that is obviously untrue, often because its far more true of conservatives.
I'm sure you come up with every word of it all by yourself though. The RWMCJ gets all their opinions from you.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Dude, pretty much everything you post is conservative propaganda. Not only that but the sort of propaganda that is obviously untrue, often because its far more true of conservatives.
It's no more opinionated than what you scrape off the BBC, let alone the Guardian or Telegraph.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Right, one of the most respected news outlets in the world is publishing more made up BS than Fox, Infowars, Washington Post and the rest of the circle jerk circuit.
How can anyone who thinks himself liberal possibly claim that with a straight face?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
The BBC has been full of shit for a long time, all the lies regarding the migrants is proof of that.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
These are they type that would say Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell aren't black. Nightly Show Panel Questions Whether Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio Are Really True Hispanics
What do they expect, that Rubio or Cruz go around sounding like Ricky Ricardo?
My family has been in the US so long that you have to go back to before the US/Mexico war to find some one who was born in Mexico. Even then they were born in what is now New Mexico or Arizona.
but the same cuckoos on the Left warmly embrace Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King as black. It's hilarious, you can't make this shit up!
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
but the same cuckoos on the Left warmly embrace Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King as black. It's hilarious, you can't make this shit up!
Rachel Dolezal was universally mocked for her shenanigans on the "Left". Especially by African-Americans. So you are just talking nonsense as far as that is concerned. As for Shaun King, your issue with him being considered "black" is what? And before you make yourself look like an idiot please be aware that African-Americans come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. I have blood relatives with his skin tone. The man has always maintained he is bi-racial. And let's keep it real ... in America if you are mixed with black you are considered black. That old One-Drop Rule and all that jazz. The first time I ever saw a picture of the man long before this "fauxtroversy" I assumed he was bi-racial cause he just looks like he is mixed with something even though he could easily "pass" if he chose to. Oh wait, are you going by the fact that his mother is white and the person listed on the birth certificate as his father is also white? I suppose you think it is just totally unheard of for a white woman in the South (they are from Kentucky) to hide the fact that she was creeping with a black man by pinning the baby on a white guy she was also involved with because she could?
Rachel Dolezal was universally mocked for her shenanigans on the "Left". Especially by African-Americans. So you are just talking nonsense as far as that is concerned. As for Shaun King, your issue with him being considered "black" is what? And before you make yourself look like an idiot please be aware that African-Americans come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. I have blood relatives with his skin tone. The man has always maintained he is bi-racial. And let's keep it real ... in America if you are mixed with black you are considered black. That old One-Drop Rule and all that jazz. The first time I ever saw a picture of the man long before this "fauxtroversy" I assumed he was bi-racial cause he just looks like he is mixed with something even though he could easily "pass" if he chose to. Oh wait, are you going by the fact that his mother is white and the person listed on the birth certificate as his father is also white? I suppose you think it is just totally unheard of for a white woman in the South (they are from Kentucky) to hide the fact that she was creeping with a black man by pinning the baby on a white guy she was also involved with because she could?
A couple of questions: If it wrong for "white folks" to decide who is or isn't black, why is it ok for them (or the two black guys on the Daily show) to decide that Rubio and Cruz aren't Latino; and do you think are Justice Thomas or Sowell black?
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is standing behind Rachel Dolezal, the president of Spokane, Washington's NAACP chapter, after reports that the 37-year-old may have misrepresented her race when applying for the city's Office of Police Ombudsman Commission.
"One's racial identity is not a qualifying criteria or disqualifying standard for NAACP leadership," the NAACP said in a statement today.
Which seems quite reasonable and inclusive n'est-ce pas?
Originally Posted by Chongo
I don't know she had to put up the charade though.
Exactly. And the point is that no one, certainly not the NAACP or anyone else on the "left" and most definitely not black people in general defended her when it comes to misrepresenting her racial background.
Originally Posted by Chongo
A couple of questions: If it wrong for "white folks" to decide who is or isn't black, why is it ok for them (or the two black guys on the Daily show) to decide that Rubio and Cruz aren't Latino; and do you think are Justice Thomas or Sowell black?
1. Larry Wilmore and Jordan Carlos (the two black guys) from the Nightly Show are comedians. And satire is a key component of the show itself. Let's keep that in mind with respect to the context of the discussion.
2. Larry Wilmore didn't "decide" that Rubio and Cruz weren't Latino. He asked why they don't embrace their Hispanic heritage (on the campaign trail).
3. The individuals questioning the Latino "cred" of Rubio and Cruz were actually Grace Parra and Jose Antonio Vargos who are both Latinos and the reasons why are quite clear ....
LARRY WILMORE: Why do you think Cruz and Rubio don't really embrace their Hispanic heritage?
NIGHTLY SHOW CONTRIBUTOR JORDAN CARLOS: Whoa! They're Hispanic?
WILMORE: Yeah. I know. Or do they just use it when it's convenient?
NIGHTLY SHOW CONTRIBUTOR GRACE PARRA: That's what will what they do, they use it when it's convenient and to me, it’s really upsetting especially when it comes to the issue of bilingualism because Rubio speaks perfect Spanish —
JOSE ANTONIO VARGAS: Perfect Spanish, yeah
PARRA: — and he never chooses to pull it out. Jeb Bush also, Jeb Bush —
ANTONIO VARGAS: Perfect Spanish.
PARRA: — perfect Spanish and during his entire campaign, never spoke it. He just never.
WILMORE: Well, he had the upside down explanation point a couple of times.
PARRA: That's true.
CARLOS: He did.
WILMORE: He did. Out of fairness. That's true.
PARRA: I think race is important to talk about when talking about this because it feels like, in an attempt to get rich, white voters —
ANTONIO VARGAS: Yes.
PARRA: Rubio and Cruz have actually alienated Latinos to the point where Latinos don't trust them. We don’t even necessarily consider them Latino because they haven’t embraced their heritage.
So it's not that Rubio and Cruz aren't Latino ethnically. Obviously they are. The issue is that the policy positions they adopt are viewed by more than a few Latinos to be more about ingratiating themselves with the overwhelmingly white GOP electorate ... many of whom routinely exhibit anti-Hispanic sentiment ... at the expense of the political interests of the masses of Latino people in the US.
4. As for Justice Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell my personal view of them ... and that of the overwhelming majority of African-Americans ... is exactly the same as I outlined above. I'll substitute a few words to make it abundantly clear ...
"So it's not that Thomas and Sowell aren't Black ethnically. Obviously they are. The issue is that the policy positions they adopt are viewed by more than a few African-Americans to be more about ingratiating themselves with the overwhelmingly white GOP electorate ... many of whom routinely exhibit anti-black sentiment ... at the expense of the political interests of the masses of African-American people in the US."
Ah, as long as you toe the line you are Black or Latino, got it. I need to turn in my Latino card then.
That's it, isn't it? Either you believe like them or they exclude you from your own culture. It happened to my ex-wife and my PA, both black Republicans, they were straight-up ostracized for being different, "kicked out of the tribe" if you will, and called "Aunt Jemimas".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Rachel Dolezal was universally mocked for her shenanigans on the "Left". Especially by African-Americans. So you are just talking nonsense as far as that is concerned. As for Shaun King, your issue with him being considered "black" is what? And before you make yourself look like an idiot please be aware that African-Americans come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. I have blood relatives with his skin tone. The man has always maintained he is bi-racial. And let's keep it real ... in America if you are mixed with black you are considered black. That old One-Drop Rule and all that jazz. The first time I ever saw a picture of the man long before this "fauxtroversy" I assumed he was bi-racial cause he just looks like he is mixed with something even though he could easily "pass" if he chose to. Oh wait, are you going by the fact that his mother is white and the person listed on the birth certificate as his father is also white? I suppose you think it is just totally unheard of for a white woman in the South (they are from Kentucky) to hide the fact that she was creeping with a black man by pinning the baby on a white guy she was also involved with because she could?
Dolezal was ribbed at first, but that died off. Hell, she didn't even lose her job with the NAACP, or whomever it was she works for, for lying. As for Shaun, there's no one in his family who is black and if he didn't dye his hair and crop it at his scalp he'd look more caucasian than me (and I DO have a black great-grandmother and I'm half Cuban). They're both parasites using the black community. That's REAL cultural appropriation, not the BS that Miley Cyrus and Katy Perry get ridiculed for. It doesn't matter though, because King and Dolezal toe the line.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Dolezal was ribbed at first, but that died off. Hell, she didn't even lose her job with the NAACP, or whomever it was she works for, for lying.
Perhaps that's because she resigned.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
As for Shaun, there's no one in his family who is black and if he didn't dye his hair and crop it at his scalp he'd look more caucasian than me (and I DO have a black great-grandmother and I'm half Cuban). They're both parasites using the black community. That's REAL cultural appropriation, not the BS that Miley Cyrus and Katy Perry get ridiculed for. It doesn't matter though, because King and Dolezal toe the line.
If you are talking about his white mother's family that's probably true. But when it comes to his black father's family that likely isn't the case. Are you suggesting that both Shaun King and his mother are lying about his biological father being a black man?
Now this is Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King ..,
And this is actor Wentworth Miller …
These two gentlemen have a very similar look. So is Wentworth Miller lying when he says he has a black father?
And this is actor Rashida Jones who happens to be my cousin …
Is she lying when she says her father is black as well?
And check out these two lovely young ladies. They are twins ..,
Is the red-head lying when she says she has a black mother?
My point is that every person I've mentioned here looks as "Caucasian" as they come but they still have a black parent. It happens all the time. Just because you don't like Shaun King's politics that doesn't mean he's lying about his parentage. Get over it.
The BBC has been full of shit for a long time, all the lies regarding the migrants is proof of that.
IIRC we recently established that you hold left wing politicians to a higher standard than their right wing counterparts. I'm going to assert that this is actually pretty normal behaviour. While it is in fact a bullshit double standard, its kind of understandable.
I see no reason to extend the same courtesies to the media. I'm not saying there is no left wing bias anywhere, clearly there is, but its gentle when compared to that of the right. You often barely even notice it by comparison.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
There's a long history of people making specific claims about their ethnic and/or "racial" heritage for various reasons. In the 1940s and 1950s (probably a lot wider time fram than that), a lot of people with a substantial percentage of African ancestry claimed "Latin" ethnicity, based on Caribbean ancestors (or not, but they claimed it anyway). It was also common for someone who could "pass as white" to present themselves as such, to avoid both the societal limits placed on blacks and the "stigma" of being biracial.
How one "identifies" "racially" has far more to do with how one has been brought up, and how they feel they fit in social settings. If someone has parents of different continental ancestry (I like that phrase much better than "race" because this planet has only one human race), I don't think it is anyone else's place to second guess how they "identify".
Can someone explain to me how we got to this part of the discussion in a thread supposedly about "neo progressive shenanigans"? Should I change the title of the thread to "Arguments About Ethnicity Claims"?
Top