Jump to content

The Impeachment of Trump?


Airbrush
 Share

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

So now we are on to white privilege.  Whites don't have any privilege that all people shouldn't have.  The fact non whites don't have the same privileges is called racial discrimination.  I'm for eliminating racial discrimination so that all races have the same privileges.  Those that speak about white privilege are arguing that privileges should be taken from whites so that no one has privileges.  I don't see that as a positive or progressive stance. 

Does the same hold true with regard to the Nazi party? Am I a political bigot because I detest the Nazi party?  How about Communist like Stalin, Putin, Pol Pot, Mao.  I detest them as well. Does that make me a political bigot. How about Pinochet? I detest him as well.

 

I think you are misunderstanding the concept what is typically meant with white privilege. It is the acknowledgement that certain racial inequalities are not (exclusively) caused by active discrimination. Rather, it is confluence of factors that may disadvantage certain groups. This could for example be previous systematic discrimination that resulted in families not being able to create a network of financial and other support, which the majority folks could (on average) take advantage of. Or confinements of groups into high poverty areas with low access to good schools and other services. Even if one removed discriminatory practices, it would take efforts and time to address these issues (such as improving infrastructure, access to schools or even accumulation of family wealth). There can also be subtle effects that are harder even to identify. For example if there are jobs that are traditionally held by males of females, the opposing gender may have a harder time to get into because of preconceptions. Even if one puts up rules to to outlaw discrimination by gender, the people doing the hiring (especially when it comes to high qualified jobs) may have predominant experience with one particular gender and may entirely consist of said gender. That may put candidates that appear differently at a disadvantage as esp in those jobs intangible aspects can be considered a bad fit. 

That is, white privilege is used to acknowledge structural inequalities that are not necessarily easily addressed by just passing equality laws, for example. Rather, by being part of the majority or the presumed norm, an individual is more likely to interact and be perceived by their peers who, in turn, are more likely to evaluate a person based on their individual characteristics rather than by the overall perception of the group one may belong to. Note that none of these examples call for the removal of rights or privileges of the majority class. In order to have the same privileges for everyone, it would be needed to put everyone on the same starting line and eliminate differential perception of other groups. However, it is quite uncertain how that can be achieved in practical terms.

Edited by CharonY
Link to comment
Share on other sites


 

30 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Am I a political bigot because I detest the Nazi party?  How about Communist like Stalin, Putin, Pol Pot, Mao.

Well, to use your fractured historical logic in earlier threads, Stalin was a communist. Conservatives unapologetically shrug off Russian interference in the election of Trump, so therefore you must love communists.

Now do you see how absurd your point about liberals 100 years ago is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is very difficult to have these kinds of discussions because, invariably, accusations of racism start to get tossed around.
Or Nazi sympathizer/apologist. Or white privilege.

One tries to make a point that initially there was violence on both sides at a protest/counter-protest ( maybe not to the same extent ) and there are thinly veiled accusations levelled that he is a Nazi sympathizer and making excuses for their vile ideas and behaviour.

One tries to make a point that a small, root cause of racism in America is due to racists who once identified as democrats ( there are many root causes ), and he is labelled as a racist. Or 'political bigot', whatever that means. For all any of us know, waitforufo may be black/middle eastern/oriental/aboriginal.

I think all any of us want is a solution which doesn't lead to more incidents like Charlottesville. And we all have different ideas on how that can be achieved. If we want a solution to how people can treat each other with more respect, maybe we should start, on this forum, by treating each other, and each othe's ideas with more respect.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

It is very difficult to have these kinds of discussions because, invariably, accusations of racism start to get tossed around.
Or Nazi sympathizer/apologist. Or white privilege.

One tries to make a point that initially there was violence on both sides at a protest/counter-protest ( maybe not to the same extent ) and there are thinly veiled accusations levelled that he is a Nazi sympathizer and making excuses for their vile ideas and behaviour.

One tries to make a point that a small, root cause of racism in America is due to racists who once identified as democrats ( there are many root causes ), and he is labelled as a racist. Or 'political bigot', whatever that means. For all any of us know, waitforufo may be black/middle eastern/oriental/aboriginal.

I think all any of us want is a solution which doesn't lead to more incidents like Charlottesville. And we all have different ideas on how that can be achieved. If we want a solution to how people can treat each other with more respect, maybe we should start, on this forum, by treating each other, and each othe's ideas with more respect.

 

You're very much mischaracterizing what waitforufo said in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So earlier I posted this image.

Image result for lynchings at democratic party rallies

Can't get more racist than appointing a know KKK member who defended racial murderers and filibustered anti-lunching legislation to the Supreme Court.

So why am I carrying an image of this racist around in my pocket (dime)?  Shouldn't we tear down all memorials of him?  Shouldn't his name be struck from every government project and building?  He is also the guy that signed into law the aid to families with dependent children act.  An act the Daniel Patrick Moynihan said destroyed the black family.  Shouldn't we do a thorough job eliminating government memorials to racists?  Remember, I'm in favor of completely eliminating Confederate memorials.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ waitforufo African American voters voted 89% for Clinton and have consistently voted Democrat , 80's to low 90's percent, since LBJ. Civil rights icons like John Lewis and Jesse Jackson are Democrats. How do you square that reality with your claim that the modern Democratic party are the party of racists and responsible for our countries history of racists?

Edited by Ten oz
Misspell word
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

For all any of us know, waitforufo may be black/middle eastern/oriental/aboriginal.

The federal government considers me to be a native American.  I have the tribal papers to prove that by the way.  I consider myself to be a human being.  You would be surprised the benefits I could receive because of my status.  I accept none of these benefits.  

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

@ waitforufo African American voters voted 89% for Clinton and have consistently voted Democrat , 80's to low 90's percent, since LBJ. Civil rights icons like John Lewis and Jesse Jackson are Democrats. How do you square that reality with your claim that the modern Democratic party are the party of racists and responsible for our countries history of racists?

I read history books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

I think all any of us want is a solution which doesn't lead to more incidents like Charlottesville. And we all have different ideas on how that can be achieved. If we want a solution to how people can treat each other with more respect, maybe we should start, on this forum, by treating each other, and each othe's ideas with more respect.

 

Unless of course you continue lay Harper's transgressions of our constitution at the feet of Trudeau. Nary word of outrage to the victim's family other than letting it stand their daughter was among a group of violent protesters.

That door swings both ways, my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

 

I read history books.

Enlighten me as to why African Americans, including those who suffered during segregation, are overwhelmingly Democrat today. Should be easy for such a well read person as yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, RangerX, but she was at a protest which included violent protesters ( and on both sides, look up Redneck Revolt ).

But I don't see what any of this has to do with either J Trudeau, or S Harper.
( try to keep up )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MigL said:

No, RangerX, but she was at a protest which included violent protesters ( and on both sides, look up Redneck Revolt ).

But I don't see what any of this has to do with either J Trudeau, or S Harper.
( try to keep up )

It has everything to do with it.

Keep up? Bullshit. You are the one who jumped in the thread with a finger wagging tone about how everyone, except yourself should behave.

In the Harper/Trudeau thing, you did exactly the same thing you are doing here. Blaming liberals for conservatives actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, MigL said:

It is very difficult to have these kinds of discussions because, invariably, accusations of racism start to get tossed around.
Or Nazi sympathizer/apologist. Or white privilege.

 

I understand what you are saying but have never had that problem when discussing issues related to race. If you often find yourself being accused of racist thought or apologist arguments which aid to cover racist concept perhaps you should think a bit more about what you are saying and challenge yourself on what you believe as to whether or not it is racist. Seriously, if I often found myself being labeled a chauvinist when discussing women I when commit to some introspection rather than just assume time after time people are wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now I'm a racist too, because my arguments are racist...

You just proved my point, by being your usual, tolerant, progressive self.
( yes, I'm being extremely sarcastic )

Maybe I should take some time off before I really tell you ( and RangerX ) what I think..

Oh what the hell..
i'll take my suspension.
You're a jackass because you make asinine comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's Trump's lie d'jour.

http://time.com/4905420/donald-trump-pershing-pigs-blood-muslim-tweet/

More like racist rant of the day. Your living, breathing walking example of Trump's version of knowing facts before speaking.

His minions are flopping like fish equivocating this now.

42 minutes ago, MigL said:

Maybe I should take some time off before I really tell you ( and RangerX ) what I think..

Oh what the hell..
i'll take my suspension.
You're a jackass because you make asinine comments.

Censorship isn't my thing. I'd rather you stick around for all the world to see, snowflake.

Broadly proving my points in your own words time and time again suits me just fine.

But if you need to be a victim, fill your boots. Just don't claim I or any other liberal enabled it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MigL said:

So now I'm a racist too, because my arguments are racist...

You just proved my point, by being your usual, tolerant, progressive self.
( yes, I'm being extremely sarcastic )

Maybe I should take some time off before I really tell you ( and RangerX ) what I think..

Oh what the hell..
i'll take my suspension.
You're a jackass because you make asinine comments.

If one engages in baiting people, one should not be surprised if someone eventually bites. I thought that was the goal, after all? Safe spaces and so on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, waitforufo said:

Not true.  I'm simply pointing out who is responsible for racism in America today and how that legacy is impacting us today.   

Racists are responsible for racism, waitforufo.

Ignorance and insecurity is responsible for racism, waitforufo.

Tribal tendencies and lack of connection to bigger communities and countless many other things are responsible for racism, waitforufo.

Suggesting, however, that the democratic party from over 100 years ago is responsible for racism is just stupid, and you're not stupid, waitforufo. Kindly please stop acting and speaking like you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, iNow said:

Tribal tendencies and lack of connection to bigger communities and countless many other things are responsible for racism, waitforufo.

What do you have against the tribes.  The Federal government tells me I'm a tribal member.  They made my family register as tribal members during the Dawes Rolls.

Also, it wasn't 100 years ago. Every hear of George Wallace. 

Q: Who was the governor of Georgia when they dedicated Stone Mountain, the birth place of the Second KKK? 

A: Jimmy Carter

Edited by waitforufo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2017 at 10:01 AM, Delta1212 said:

Do the people interviewed in this documentary sound like their primary motivation was defending a Southern War Hero's statue: 

 

An incredible, insightful, important 22 minutes. These people respect strength. We must push back against them with overwhelming force, overwhelming numbers, and overwhelming passion. Silence is no longer an option.

2 hours ago, waitforufo said:

What do you have against the tribes

Tribes? Nothing. Tribal tendencies, positioning others as outgroups so as to dehumanize them, and arbitrary ridiculous divisions that divide us and harm us as a culture? Nearly everything.

Once more, waitforufo, you offer further evidence of one of my previous points. This isn't about worldview or ideology, or even about protecting tradition or heritage. It's about trolling and sadism and standing up forcefully against these childish reptilian tendencies.  

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/08/2017 at 3:54 PM, MigL said:

Maybe war hero was the wrong choice of words, but he was an integral, if not major, part of US history.
You can't take down a statue and 'remove' him from that history.
Just like you can't ban/censor previously produced works of literature because they offend modern sensibilities.

 

I agree. You can't and mustn't whitewash history. Lest we forget... Every nation should carry it's symbols of pride and shame in equal view. It's the bad parts as well as the good parts that makes them what they are today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, waitforufo said:

What do you have against the tribes.  The Federal government tells me I'm a tribal member.

I'm reasonably sure that iNow was talking about the instinctive and cultural tendency of humans to cluster in small groups and, as an outgrowth of that, to identify strongly with those that have similar appearance and habits, and to suspect those who are different in these characteristics. I don't think he was expressing a problem with the Shoshone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I agree. You can't and mustn't whitewash history. Lest we forget... Every nation should carry it's symbols of pride and shame in equal view. It's the bad parts as well as the good parts that makes them what they are today. 

Removing venerations to Civl War Generals isn't whitewhiting historty. It is not usual to build monuments to ones belligerents. Battlefield memorials, museum displays, history books,and etc is how nearly every war is remebered in the U.S..We name schools, highways, parks, and so on after those we mean to pay great respect to in honor of their contribution to the nation. It is nonsensical to bestow that respect on those who committed treason and attempts to end the nation.

 

Most of these Confederate venerations were put up well after the Civil War and in places of no reasonable relation to the Civil War. In Idaho they have a Robert E. Lee Creek in the the Boise National Forest and a Robert E. Lee campground in the capital. Idaho wasn't even a state during the Civil War. Idaho has no relationship to the Confederacy. The peak period of schools being named after confederates and parks being built was during civl rights. These things don't date back to the Civil War itself. This discussion reminds me a bit of past national conversations about the the words "under god" in the pledge of allegiance. There are always those who argue that the founders we religious and it alters or rewrites history to remove "under god" from the pledge. In reality the pledge was written in 1892 long after all the founders were dead and the "under god" part was added in 1954. The alternative history is including "under god" and not vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2017 at 10:54 AM, MigL said:

 You can't take down a statue and 'remove' him from that history

No you can't. As in, it doesn't work that way. Taking down a statue does not remove something from history. I don't see a lot of statues of Hitler around, and yet he's very much a part of history.

Statues are there for admiration. We should not be admiring traitors. AFAICT, it's quite uncommon to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am British but I would not object to a statue of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel being erected in the UK, though I do object to the one of Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris in London. There is much to admire about the former, and much to decry about the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.