Rob's House

I just learned that using the term "black supremacist" will get your tweet de-boosted.

It depends how far you go back. Most of my ancestry is British, but my great x 10^?? grandfather was a fish.

What would the mascot look like?

To bring this thread back to the original topic, I've heard it said that most of the major slave holders in the south were Jews. I've never pursued that theory, but DeSean Jackson may be able to shed some light on it.

Junior just threw down the gauntlet.

I know we don't agree on much, but I would have thought you had the ability to see the bigger picture. This is something I'd expect from Tibs.

A constitutional amendment would still trump a treaty, but given the way we've delegated 9 oligarchs the ability to amend the constitution by majority vote, it would not surprise me to see them make a run at it.

If you have nothing to hide why would you care if the police can search your house without a warrant?

For the most part I thought you nailed it. I'd argue against the point that there was nothing good about the Confederacy because there was a lot more to it than just slavery (e.g. state sovereignty) that were valid issues irrespective of slavery. Also, the highest estimate I've seen is 25% of southerners owning slaves, with other estimates coming in much lower. Otherwise I thought your post was on the money.

I have some quibbles with this, but I appreciate you bringing some nuanced perspective to the conversation.

I disagree with the highlighted portion, but love the rest of what you have to say. If I had to boil it down to one statement, our problem is we're more concerned with judging people than understanding them. We're told to listen to others tell us about their experience before judging, but only the chosen few. Most of the people who are quick to judge those of us who are resistant to the wholesale demonization of our heritage and ancestry have never taken the time to talk to us and really understand where we're coming from. Symbols of pride in one's heritage are nearly universal throughout the world. Those of Irish, Greek, Jewish, Mexican, etc. ancestry regularly show pride in their heritage, despite their historical warts. Indian tribes with histories of unimaginable brutality are allowed to honor their heritage. Southerners however, have had that stripped away, and had the entirety of our heritage reduced to one aspect with no consideration of the circumstances of the time. To most southerners, Confederate symbols are not symbolic of the Confederacy per se, but of a collective culture and identity common to the south. In the 70s when the Dukes of Hazard put a Rebel flag on the General Lee, no one with any sense thought it was a symbol of racism. It was just some good ole southern boys who didn't mean any harm fighting the system like two modern day Robin Hoods. Now we pretend the Confederacy is synonymous with slavery and any related symbolism of the south is a glorification of slavery. To the extent the raising of statues and flying of the battle flag were originally symbols of defiance toward anyone it was the north. Moreso, they were symbols of southern pride and perseverance, as well as symbols to honor their dead. Most southerners at the time had lost family and/or friends in the war. Nobody cares to understand because it's easier to shun nuanced analysis of complex situations in favor of binary judgments based on gross oversimplifications, just as it's easier to judge someone than to understand their experience and perspective.

A fringe totalitarian movement to eliminate cash is being pushed into the mainstream. It's justified under the guise of public health and economic efficiency, but it is one of the most terrifying propositions ever to enter the conversation and must be stamped out immediately. It will no doubt be embraced by those who have undying trust in the virtue of government, and accepted by those who can't see beneath the surface level of the issue. It will be easy to snow the unsuspecting masses who rarely use cash, so the warning bells must be rung before they've been duped. The following is a copy/paste that doesn't really get to the more disastrous implications, but lays out a lot of the issues that the average Joe hasn't considered. "A cashless society means no cash. Zero. It doesn’t mean mostly cashless and you can still use a ‘wee bit of cash here & there’. Cashless means fully digital, fully traceable, fully controlled. I think those who support a cashless society aren’t fully aware of what they are asking for. A cashless society means: * If you are struggling with your mortgage on a particular month, you can’t do an odd job to get you through. * Your child can’t go & help the local farmer to earn a bit of summer cash. * No more cash slipped into the hands of a child as a good luck charm or from their grandparent when going on holidays. * No more money in birthday cards. * No more piggy banks for your child to collect pocket money & to learn about the value of earning. * No more cash for a rainy day fund or for that something special you have been putting $20 a week away for. * No more little jobs on the side because your wages barely cover the bills or put food on the table. * No more charity collections. * No more selling bits & pieces from your home that you no longer want/need for a bit of cash in return. * No more cash gifts from relatives or loved ones. What a cashless society does guarantee: * Banks have full control of every single penny you own. * Every transaction you make is recorded. * All your movements & actions are traceable. * Access to your money can be blocked at the click of a button when/if banks need ‘clarification’ from you which will take about 3 weeks, a thousand questions answered & five thousand passwords. * You will have no choice but to declare & be taxed on every dollar in your possession. * The government WILL decide what you can & cannot purchase. * If your transactions are deemed in any way questionable, by those who create the questions, your money will be frozen, ‘for your own good’. Forget about cash being dirty. Stop being so easily led. Cash has been around for a very, very, very long time & it gives you control over how you trade with the world. It gives you independence. I heard a story where a man supposedly contracted Covid because of a $20 bill he had handled. There is the same chance of Covid being on a card as being on cash. If you cannot see how utterly ridiculous this assumption is then there is little hope. If you are a customer, pay with cash. If you are a shop owner, remove those ridiculous signs that ask people to pay by card. Cash is a legal tender, it is our right to pay with cash. Banks are making it increasingly difficult to lodge cash & that has nothing to do with a virus, nor has this ‘dirty money’ trend. Please open your eyes. Please stop believing everything you are being told. Almost every single topic in today’s world is tainted with corruption & hidden agendas. Please stop telling me & others like me that we are what’s wrong with the world when you hail the most corrupt members of society as your heroes. Politics & greed is what is wrong with the world; not those who are trying to alert you to the reality in which you are blindly floating along whilst being immobilised by irrational fear. Fear created to keep you doing & believing in exactly what you are complacently doing. Pay with cash & please say no to a cashless society while you still have the choice."

This got me thinking about the concept of privilege. How many people do you imagine could publicly praise Hitler and keep their high profile job?

Let's be fair. He's got "you're a racist" and "Orange Man Bad," so he's at least on par with Don Lemon.

I came here to post the link. This should be shared with people who are not on the right but still retain some semblance of rationality.

No, he really was from India.

None of those things are true. WRT to the credit card issue, I worked that job for several years and was very familiar with the process. There are particular patterns that have a high correlation with fraudulent use. The purpose is to stop credit card fraud that costs the company money. A black person's card is no more likely than a white person's card to be used, nor is there a higher incident of a black person's card being flagged. The pizza place did not deliver to white areas with comparable crime rates. Management didn't give a ***** about safety or race of anyone, all they cared about was making money. The only reason for restricting the delivery area was difficulty staffing and legal liability/insurance concerns. They even explored the idea of delivering to those neighborhoods because all they care about is money. I recall a black guy telling a manager, "tell your white ass bosses to go down there, because I'm not." And I knew the guy who wrote the paper in question, and he was a moron. I didn't read the paper but from his classroom comments I can only imagine a B was an act of generosity. And the first teacher was Indian (dots not feathers) and the one who did the blind grade was a gay liberal. When writing for the school paper I also did a story on the school's cancellation of a step show that was said to have been cancelled because it was "too racial." The guy in charge was very forthcoming and showed me the files. It turned out that the proposed step show was going to take up the entire activity budget and no one showed up for the meeting to discuss it. Following up on my initial leads I could find no one with first hand knowledge to the contrary, and it was a small school. The editor of the paper revised my article to run with the initial report instead of the findings of my investigation. Every black student on that campus thought the step show was cancelled because of racism. As I made very clear, these are just a few examples that illustrate the point that perception is not always reality. Maybe so, maybe not. But the point is that just because one perceives something as racist doesn't necessarily make it so. Are we just to assume pervasive anti-black racism because we're told to, or is it too much to ask for some evidence to support that assertion? 1. I think it's a bit of projection to label my arguments as dogmatic when I'm simply asking for evidence to support a narrative that is being presented as incontrovertible fact, and a fact that must be swiftly and strongly acted upon, without any evidence to support it, and places an obligation on all of us to contribute under threat of physical "discomfort". 2. I've never claimed racism doesn't exist. There are and always will be racist people of all colors. That doesn't mean that it is one-sided or that it is an overwhelming force of oppression for people in 21st century America. 3. As I've stated before, if this anti-black racism is as prevalent as you claim, I would expect to see significant evidence. Instead I see correlation conflated with causation, examples where racism is inferred solely on the basis of the respective races of those involved, and anecdotes that often prove false. This one's a little harder to quantify with precision, but if you look at the standard of living in all predominantly black countries compared to the living standard of blacks in America it isn't even close. Median household income for black Americans is over $40,000. The global average is around $10,000.00. Predominantly black countries are among the poorest. Of the 12 countries with the highest black populations outside of Africa the only ones that are even in the conversation are Canada, France, and the UK. https://www.worlddata.info/average-income.php https://www.statista.com/statistics/233324/median-household-income-in-the-united-states-by-race-or-ethnic-group/ http://statisticstimes.com/economy/african-countries-by-gdp-per-capita.php http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/index.php?en_programs_diaspora The fact that you have to go back 100+ years to make your point really makes my point. By your criteria there would always be overt racism even if were completely eradicated from the world because you could always drudge up facts from the distant past. And no people were as prosperous 100 years ago as we are today. Most people didn't even have indoor plumbing back then. Most African countries still don't. And here is the core of your argument. A weak ad hominem. "Your opinion is invalid because of the color of your skin, ergo, I am right."

What's your point?

It's already a "big win." I have no desire to see anything happen to this guy. This is about as much heat as anyone should get for this kind of thing. Desean is strongly anti-Semitic. I imagine he has similar feelings about white people, but I wouldn't feel any differently if he said the white man is the devil. I don't demand that people like me or pretend to like me. Until he's inciting violence, and I don't mean in some abstract way, I support his right to say what he thinks without falling victim to the cancel culture lynch mob. What's so glorious about this is the double standard being exposed for what it is. Not that it will have any lasting impact. By this time next week it will be forgotten and we'll be back to calling for people's heads over every minor transgression made by a member of the perceived oppressor group directed at a perceived victim group. But for the moment it's entirely satisfying to watch those who sanctimoniously declare their impassioned devotion to certain principles implicitly (or in some cases explicitly) admit that they selectively apply those principles only when they conform to their bias or agenda.

That's kind of the point. Where are all the woke white people on this?

??? Keep going.

You mean his hate crime hoax where he cried on TV because there was a garage door pull string in his garage? I think that came later in the thread.

??? This whole thing just tickles the ***** out of me. Everyone's been insanely hypersensitive about everything racism for weeks. This mother *****r literally praised HITLER, in context, and the same people are now resorting to mental contortions to justify their apathy. ? This thread made my whole week.