Safetydan
Well-Known Member
No. I don't want to.
The official "let's impeach Trump" thread
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
No. I don't want to.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Douchebag K
Well-Known Member
Your loss. Most livable city in the world
Getting Traded
Banned
Well, Gone With the Wind, while one of the greatest movies ever, did portray slavery unrealistically and in a good light.
Safetydan
Well-Known Member
Except for all those Asians mucking up the roads with their awful parallel parking. No thanks man. I have enough problems in my life.
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
That's not an answer...
Race is a part of your everyday existence and affects most of your interactions with other people. This has nothing to do with the 19th century, except for the ways that legacy has led to today's conditions. People wouldn't be talking about race if race were not a source of problems for them.
JazzyFresh
Banned
Meh. I think it's something the left uses as politics tool to intimidate, divide, make others look bad, and feel moral superiority. It's an easy way to completely turn any conversation into an absolute mess and get away from what's really going on. Calling Trump racist because he said Gone with the Wind is just flat out a way to attack Trump. No matter how hard you try, that wasn't racism... Again the left just used race to make people hate and more divided.
I've been called racist in this very forum multiple times and I truthfully have never said a racist thing in my life outside of maybe some distasteful jokes. It actually baffles me that people think their skin color makes them better or worse than anybody else. It's one of humans most worthless disgusting traits.
There are some terrible people out there and unfortunately since the word racist gets thrown out like candy anymore the true racist can blend in since the word has lost its truthful meaning. It's supposed to be a power word with meaning not some worthless insult.
Last edited:
Naturally, since it's not a problem for you. I've seen people make similar comments about sexism, homophobia, ablism, etc. People often feel that when they are not affected by a problem, it's not a real problem.
Did it occur to you that, as a person not affected by racism, perhaps your opinion on what is racist is not particularly reliable or authoritative?
Can there be racist actions without racist intent?
Red
Well-Known Member
Replaced the DNI with a yes man loyalist, who will shield him from briefings he would not like.
Denied subpoenas in the House impeachment inquiry, despite the Constitution granting Congress the check of Executive Branch oversight in our system of checks and balances.
Turning his attention directly upon members of the Supreme Court who were appointed by Democratic presidents. That's the next branch the authoritarian president would love to control. The fact that he would even do this is jaw dropping. But not unexpected from a demagogue who thinks he is above the law. But I'm sure our resident Trump apologists will let this go right over their heads, nothing to see here. Perfectly normal....
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/don...-court-justices-bias-direct/story?id=69202950
Trump brings the autocrat's logic to the Supreme Court:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/25/trump-brings-autocrats-logic-supreme-court/
Denied subpoenas in the House impeachment inquiry, despite the Constitution granting Congress the check of Executive Branch oversight in our system of checks and balances.
Turning his attention directly upon members of the Supreme Court who were appointed by Democratic presidents. That's the next branch the authoritarian president would love to control. The fact that he would even do this is jaw dropping. But not unexpected from a demagogue who thinks he is above the law. But I'm sure our resident Trump apologists will let this go right over their heads, nothing to see here. Perfectly normal....
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/don...-court-justices-bias-direct/story?id=69202950
Trump brings the autocrat's logic to the Supreme Court:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/25/trump-brings-autocrats-logic-supreme-court/
Last edited:
Don't be so confident in the stupidity of others. Sad about it, OK.
Old-fashioned theology, in Biblical terms, asserts that "Every knee shall bow" at the last day, the final judgment, confessing the Lordship and judgment of God. But perhaps you are right..... I hope not....because the few who won't be there, if any..... of for that matter, all of us if that event never comes.....will be those who chose, like Lucifer, to do eternal war with God. This is such an absolute rule, theologically, it rivals the Islamic judgment that nonbelievers must righteously be just annihilated and wiped out of Allah's universe.
Few Mormons really comprehend, today, the socialist or communistic roots, evident in the Book of Mormon discourses and in some New Testament passages, of their faith. I don't exclude the possibility that a determined Godless philosopher like Marx might have been in the streets of London when some Mormon Elders stood on some damn corner soapbox extolling the virtues of Zion and the United Order and the imperatives of gathering in the American New Jerusalem. Marx, going home from such an amusing, or bemusing, spectacle, might have borrowed Utopia from the socialist Christians, dispensing with God altogether and claiming the dream as his own.
Most of politics is most efficiently understood as an argument amongst siblings, in the absence of their parents, about who's the boss of who and what belongs to whom.
In my view, that is the esence of erudite intellectual strainings over ideals in the collegiate ivory towers or ivy-covered behemoth buildings funded by taxpayers to keep bums warm while they wander about in their own minds, as well as the political partisanship du jour.
The determination not to believe in or hope for the existence of a Truth or a God more valid than our own mortal delusions of grandeur is a determination to glory in ourselves regardless of merit, and the yawning gate to vast realms of foolishness.
The very fact that we do not know, and cannot prove to existence of a stable, enduring eternal reality is confession enough that we should at least try to construct one, with determined care to be sure we don't believe in something less.
The beginning of intelligence is the decision to hope there is something better to hope for than our own ways, than what we are now.
Of course, I am the greatest fool in this site for refusing to just recognize a political operation for what it is and failing to go somewhere else to babble.
But, like I said at the start of this little blurb, I'm reluctant to just believe humans are hopelessly stupid. Even Red and OB.
My gal Sonnie Johnson has chosen to make her home in her own family, her own community, her own religion, and in her own melanin. While I glean some good from her perspective, I could never quite "fit in" because I'm not what she is.
"Race" or "racism" is a false construct for any argument, any discussion.... as well as the other isms you embrace. Once you accept the hypothesis as relevant, you are mired in the mud of your own definitions.
I see the discussions built from such stuff as artificial, like strings on a puppet.... as a device used to manipulate others of presumably no intelligence and presumptively no real "stuffing" we could call "life". You make humans mere objects. You dehumanize us all, by resorting to such arguments.
It is human nature, and in fact, in various respects, the nature of all living things, to respond to whatever is perceived, in either a positive or negative way. Single celled organism are evidently doing that as soon as we can recognize their abilities or methods. Everything responds to nutrition by selectively absorbing it across cell membranes, already equipped with sites for transport, or with tactics like engulfing, redefining boundaries.
The attempt to moralize it positively or negatively is your own determination to be "the boss" of others. Political idealism or not, it is just that stupid.
The decision to recognize others positively, whatever they are, and to posit positive rights and respect them, is better made by focusing not on the problems you presume to fix, but on the positive values you wish to embrace.
hmmm..... I think I just said.... It's better to respect others than to preach to them......
OK, there is no way we can really escape our humanity and leave all our beliefs or notions behind and make it cleanly into your damn Utopia, and there is no reason we should want to. And, apparently, there is no place where we can escape from your determination to impose your beliefs on us.
Might be more accurate to say it portrayed slavery "realistically" in terms of what the Southern plantations owners preferred to see it as. No doubt there were some slaves who were appreciated, even loved, by their owners much better than Chevron appreciates or loves its free-ranging "slaves", or say some slaughterhouse/meatpacker values its "illegal immigrant" cheap labor. The "Me Too" people obviously don't feel our elites have really made all that much progress, and one way or another our elites, our "managers", and our "owner" class today exploits us all regardless of our melanin or lack thereof, just as horribly and efficiently as the slave owners ever did.
But hey, we get to find our own little apartments to live in, and pay the bills for, and quarrel with the landlords over the plumbing. And we get to sit in front of flat-screened TVs to take our daily propaganda and worship our owners and their star entertainers, at least when we're not on the job or sleeping, whatever time that is.....
I'm sure OB calls all that "Progress".
Blackwell got it right. Property is what creates all other rights. Property is equivalent, as a right, to "Life". Unless a human has access to the resources of the good earth, enough to supply food and fiber and weapons for defense, we can be nothing more than slaves under any political system.
Life depends on the stuff we can control and use for ourselves.
Of course. All categorizations are, at their heart, false. They are abstractions that allow us to simplify a complex world.
Sure. If you have a better way, bring it on.
"Discussions" is a false construct. You lumping all different kinds of interactions based on a few identifiable features. "Humans" is a false construct, applied to very distinct organisms based on a commonality of ancestry.
We use labels because they describe things. The label "discussion" refers to an interaction with certain basic features, the label "human" refers to organisms with a specific ancestry, and the label "racism" refers to behaviors with specific effects.
1) So, your position is that when societies refuse to let black people ride in certain seats on the bus, sit at specific lunch counters, or go to specific public schools, this is neither morally positive nor morally negative?
2) You think calling out someone else for poor behavior is the same as asserting control over their lives?
History says otherwise.
I agree that any utopia, if possible, is so far off that I would probably not recognize it if I were to see it.
I find your last sentence ironic, since by your standard, here you are imposing your belief on me.
Since "racist" is only a word people use negatively or positively, and the meaning exists variably in the heads of the people using the word, it fails as an objective standard relating either religious, moral, scientific or legal "fact" in any discussion.
Make up some other damn word people can use any way they want, and make of crime of it, too. Your logic would be the same, and the political use of the word would be the same.
Here's one: "Socialist".
Can there be criminal actions without criminal intent? Can there be socialist actions without socialist intent?
Can there be virtuous actions without virtuous intent?
You say people often feel that when they are not affected by a problem, it's not a real problem. A problem for who? A "problem" in the abstract, is pretty much a useless discussion.
You seem to want to infer that people who are not even thinking of "race" or skin color as morbidly preoccupied with its relevance. I'd say that if you have to start any discussion of any human interaction as necessarily influenced negatively by "race" or skin color, you've got a problem with imposing your imagination on the subject.
I'd also say we are all "racist" in various ways, some positive and some negative, and that it's nobody's business unless we are objectively damaging another person's rights or being very unfair or hurtful intentionally. Beyond that, we all have the right to love what we love, to be comfortable with who and what we are, and to choose our friends accordingly. Most people hurt themselves most in their bigotry, in their prejudices, and in their ignorance of all kinds.
Learning to appreciate others who are in some superficial way "different" is a high human accomplishment, and an advantage in the business of life and the joy of life. Learning to appreciate others who are substantiatively different in belief, in culture, or values, is an even higher accomplishment. When you can get along with people whatever they are, you are doing yourself a great favor.
And, OB, this little sermonette is just to say, I really hate the political use of people's problems to push a false political agenda like Progressivism, where the intent is to legislate, regulate, and totally dominate human beings for the express power of the little ruler class.
In regard to that last sentence, in the context of my otherwise throwing out all kinds of comments about how intractable you are and how hopeless it seems to divert you from your course, you could at least laugh at it all, and accept that I have recognized the futility of imposing my beliefs.
The difference between us, I think, might be my more complete rejection of "government" and "law" as means for imposing anything on other humans.
That would leave my arguments pretty much out there as free gifts anyone can chose to think about, or not. But in my mind, I would be horrified if anyone just took what I write as "scripture" and stopped there with all further effort to move the discussion forward somehow.
Actually, the problem is how people get treated. The identification of this problem as "racism" is in certain heads, including mine.
I agree. I am not a good authority on which actions are racist or not. Mostly, I read and consider the opinions of people who are affected by those actions, or similar actions, on a regular basis.
However, in this particular discussion, JazzyFresh was complaining about what "the left" does. I was not identifying any particular act as racist.
I'm pretty sure the answer, legally, is "yes".
I'm not sure what "socialist intent" means.
That's a great philosophical question. Do actions in and of themselves have a property of virtue? If so, then yes.
How about if you only start some discussions as influenced by race?
Agreed, with the understanding that even though they hurt themselves most, people with negative feelings/action based on race still hurt others as well.
Agreed.
OK.
You may have a more elevated opinion of humans than I. Without law, I see humanity as descending into force-based hierarchical structures where the few on the top answer to nothing at all except more force.
