Rob's House

Just to give you a heads up, that's a term of white fragility used by racists. You may want to avoid it. I know you guys aren't privy to all the new *****, but that's what you have me here for.

I agree with you, but most of the woke folks do not. In fact, for the first month after St. George was killed the common refrain was that if you spoke against the riots but hadn't spoken out against cops you were a racist. You may not have, but a whole lotta people who are real damn quiet right now were shouting that ***** from the rooftops.

This is making the rounds right now. Black guy writes about how he was almost lynched and posts some videos of the encounter. Could be true, could be bogus. If you read his account and then watch the video there's a clear incongruence. Looks like a run of the mill altercation. But to read the comments this guy's account is the word of God and all the people on the other side are being doxxed. This guy's a political activist, and he drops a link at the bottom for those who want to support his activism. Was he really "lynched" or is this a Smollettesque attempt to go viral and get exposure? I don't know the answer, but I'd be real curious to hear the other side of the story. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10222147157086001&id=1175677046 He also did a YouTube show about it.

No surprises here. Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Manipulators Are More Likely To Engage in 'Virtuous Victim Signaling,' Says Study. https://reason.com/2020/07/07/narcissists-psychopaths-and-manipulators-are-more-likely-to-engage-in-virtuous-victim-signaling-says-study/

Your ability to even ask this question comes from a place of privilege.

What's naive is accepting everything you hear at face value without skepticism. You didn't inquire as to any of the examples, yet you somehow know I'm "uninformed." Let me share just a small few of the endless stream of examples. I used to work in credit card fraud where an algorithm blocks a card based on spending patterns typical of stolen cards. The algorithm doesn't factor race, and no human eye evaluates the process, but I've had countless people tell me their card was stopped because of racism. In college a black guy claimed he got a B because the professor was racist. The school had another professor grade the paper without knowing who wrote it. He gave it a C. I used to work at a pizza place. We didn't deliver to certain neighborhoods because they were very highly ranked for murders per capital nationwide. But if I had a nickel for every time I heard it was because we were racist and hated making money if it meant black people got pizza I could retire early. That's just the tip of the iceberg of things I've experienced personally. I could go on about this all day. The overwhelming majority of claims of racism I've ever heard have been baseless or outright false. And that's prior to two months ago when for no particular reason everyone decided we were living in the 1800s again and everything under the sun suddenly became racist. I'm challenging previously and currently held beliefs and ideas right now any you and many others are afraid and threatened by this discussion. Why is that? If we need to "change" from the freest and most prosperous country in the history of the world, I'd like to be real clear on what we're changing, why and how. I'm not hearing a whole lot of substance. All I hear is that black Americans, who are the freest and most prosperous black people anywhere in the history of the planet, are woefully oppressed. This is based on ???, and to fix it we're going to ???. Burning cities, tearing down statues, and changing mascots doesn't seem effective. Neither does imposing your will on people to make them "uncomfortable" enough to comply with demands that you can't articulate in an effort to end whatever this "systemic racism" that you can't define or identify is. And pursuing "justice" against innocent people for things they never did, and claiming grievances for things you never experienced, is not any kind of "change" I'm interested in. That's cognitive dissonance. If you got something to say stand up and say it.

Thank you. Glad to see others taking up the cause.

I agree. If we keep supporting the people who are destroying our country just wishing and hoping for Republicans to save us we might as well hand it over to the commies right now. I fear no one's going to do *****. You can't boycott everyone all the time, but you can target the biggest, most egregious offenders. But we can't be bothered. It's too inconvenient to switch from Google to DuckDuckGo, Amazon to Walmart, Lowe's to Home Depot, McDonald's to Wendy's, Coke to Pepsi. Liberals don't put up with that ***** for a second. If any of those companies rebuffed them the way they have us they'd cut them off and chastise their friends for buying from them. But we just go about our business, buying their goods and services letting them know loud and clear that they can shaft us all they like, we'll keep coming back for more.

I appreciate the clarification.

Still haven't heard you offer anything of substance to refute that theory. I already said I'd be open to hearing other evidence. You're staking your entire argument on a study for which I already pointed out many fatal flaws with specificity. It's possible you could be right, but you haven't made a very strong case.

The difference is I've considered everything you've offered, which isn't much, and come to a measured conclusion that is consistent with all the facts. Rather than reply with facts and counterpoints you have conclusions and memes. You're not open to the possibility that you could be wrong about any of this. The difference is I've considered everything you've offered, which isn't much, and come to a measured conclusion that is consistent with all the facts. Rather than reply with facts and counterpoints you have conclusions and memes. You're not open to the possibility that you could be wrong about any of this.

It is high. Although it's notable that the the 52% includes any perceived discrimination, even if slight. It's also noteworthy that this is perception. How many of these people were actually discriminated against, and how many attributed racism to a situation where it did not apply? I have no idea. I have firsthand knowledge of several instances of people claiming racism where none exists. It's anecdotal, so I can't quantify it, but it is a relevant consideration. It's also worth noting that the door swings both ways. I know of a handful of examples where I know for a fact that a person was discriminated against for being white wrt employment and contracts. That too is anecdotal, but it's a factor to consider. It's well established that blacks get favorable treatment wrt college admissions. This doesn't necessarily mean that blacks don't have it worse overall - I can't really say one way or the other - but it does cast a lot of doubt on the systemic oppression narrative. If we consider only the facts that support our beliefs and discount all that are inconsistent with them, we're not pursuing truth, we're rationalizing.

The main point of that example goes back to a previous conversation that HBF claimed I hadn't sourced. The point being refuted is that we must shut up and listen to the black voice which claims overt oppression. The point I was making is that there isn't a single black opinion, but rather a wide variety of black opinions, many of which do not support the media narrative. The other noteworthy portion is that nearly half of black people in 2019 did not believe that race was a hindrance to them getting ahead. To listen to the news and some conversations here you'd think it was unanimous. Look at the difference between their perception and their real life experience.

It shows only 52% believe they have personally been hindered in their ability to get ahead, even a little bit, by racism. The rest shows the gap between reality and perception. It also shows that black folks have a variety of opinions and are not a monolithic group.

I cancelled Disney streaming service along with Netflix and Amazon Prime. I'm not going to support those actively pursuing the cultural rot of our country so I can watch mindless TV. The only service I kept is Hulu. If more conservatives stopped bending over this garbage would end.

I tagged you in the post and posted another study that had similar findings in the original thread. I also posted links in this one, but no matter how much evidence I provide it seems you'll always dismiss it without explanation. Conspicuously absent from any of your arguments is any supporting evidence. You simply state the narrative and resort to the same sort of "argument" you've presented above. If you have empirical evidence supporting this theory I'd like to see it but you can't because it does not exist. The police brutality angle has sputtered out and morphed into a broad "systemic racism" argument because the former, as it has been characterized, is fairly easily debunked, whereas the latter can never be disproven, making its findings inherently unscientific. If America was a hot bed of racism one would think there would be countless examples and empirical evidence to support the theory, yet we never get that. We get scarce helpings of anecdotal evidence, most of which is unverifiable or ambiguous, along with patronizing rhetoric that attempts to shame skeptics who refuse to believe a narrative that is at odds with all the evidence we have seen. It's hard to grasp the theory of overwhelming "systemic racism" in a country where the greatest threat to ones livelihood is being perceived as having any negative perceptions regarding any minority group. It is also hard to fathom when the disparities that we are told are a product of this "systemic racism" do not seem to affect other minorities or black people who immigrate here from other countries. It is hard to buy into the theory when you've seen countless accusations of racism, and the majority of those you can confirm one way or the other prove either baseless or demonstrably false. It's even harder when the same people that tell you this is an epidemic lie to you about everything else under the sun. It's hard to accept that black people live under the constant strain of racism when so many black people claim to rarely if ever experience this kind of racism. It's even harder to accept a theory you're not allowed to question. We're told white people can't have an opinion, unless of course they share the view that we're told is the that of black folks. Of course, if I mention a black man with an opposing view I am expressing white fragility, which is racist, because he doesn't speak for all black people - only the one's you agree with do. So in essence, only those expressing the "systemic racist" theory of America are allowed to opine. All other voices need to silence themselves or be silenced.

Kids at Jimmy John's get cancelled. No indication of racism, but we'll call it racist anyway, because progress.

As I mentioned before, I pointed out the specific problems with that "study" after reading it. You made a conclusory allegation about a study I doubt you've read. If you have a legitimate criticism I won't dismiss it out of hand as you have. I'll read it and if it's baseless I will acknowledge that. But you've done nothing to debunk it or to establish that a significant number of actual Indians are offended by this name. Additionally, "peer reviewed" does not mean reliable. In fact, several junk papers have passed through the peer review process and been published as legitimate science. There is a lot of material on this but I cited NYT so you couldn't dismiss it as right-wing bias. Your final sentence is the most telling. Anyone who disagrees with you or asks you to support your argument feels that their "identity is threatened." Despite your obsession with racism, it's behind your comprehension that someone might see long-term dangers in pushing racial hypersensitivity to create strife where none exists. I saw this coming years ago and was routinely mocked by people such as yourself for being paranoid, yet here we are in the midst of a Maoist cultural revolution where no one may speak against the movement without fear of being doxed, fired, bullied, and/or banned. The fact that so many of you find this healthy and acceptable is far more disturbing to me than a football team's mascot. Personally, I don't care if the NFL changes every name of every team or shuts down altogether. It's a hobby, it's not that serious. What concerns me is the fact that one can't make a rational, measured, and reasonable argument in opposition without being demonized and having motives imputed to them. I'm not worried about myself either. I'm old enough to navigate this world until I check out without too much concern. But there are generations of people coming behind me who deserve to have all the same rights and privileges that you espouse for all people, that are being stripped away from them in some perverse sense of racial retributive justice. This claim is always met with dismissive sarcasm where the one claiming victim status (or one vicariously assuming victim status on behalf of another) mocks the accused oppressor for claiming victim status. Now I'm not claiming to be oppressed, but I'm kind of tired of being called an oppressor. Personally, I have insulated myself so that it would be very difficult to cancel me, but I've seen it happen to others. One of countless such examples is a woman who had her business destroyed by a raging group of activists who pressured companies to cut her off because she posted a meme that said "racism is a pigment of your imagination." You may disagree with that statement, but it's not racist, and definitely does not give cause for her personal and financial destruction. I think she has a better claim to victim status than one who has to look beyond his own lifetime for such status. Where does it go from here? If I hold a black man to the same standard to which I hold a white man, that is now racist. In saner times it was racist to criticize someone for being a minority, now it's racist to criticize someone who is a minority. This isn't progress. This is destructive to society at large. It does not help minorities. It does not help anyone other than those who thrive on the misery of others. So as I said before, this runs a lot deeper than a mascot. I'm not even a Redskins fan and I don't care for Dan the Fan. They can move the team to Canada and call them the Walruses for all I care. What I have a problem with is the rationale behind it and the bigger movement that is bringing this pressure in the first place. If a grass roots movement of Indians (and I don't mean on a broad scale, not a small minority of Indians) determined they found it dehumanizing I would be more understanding, but this is fueled not by them but by white people with a social agenda, and the Indian population is just a proxy. I can't support that.

I always bring facts to the debate and I can always support them. I tagged you when I posted the source of the last piece you asked for. Had to do it in PPP because the thread was closed, and it was from the pew research center. This is an updated version that shows (among other things) that even as recently as 2019 only 52% of black people thought that race had hindered their ability to get ahead. 46% said it either had no effect or (17%) actually helped them. For the current issue you can see this gallup poll, or do a quick search to find others. I suppose your theory is that in the first decade of this century that people generally thought race relations were worse than they are today. Unfortunately, the evidence doesn't support that either. Your screen shot is the entire "woke" movement in a nutshell. "Just believe what the TV says, do not ask for evidence, and reject all non-confirming evidence. Anyone who doesn't accept the narrative is to be dismissed out of hand. Discussion is not required, because we feel that we are right." As I said previously, when one of the major battles on the forefront is whether its racist to have an Indian as the mascot for a football team, we've run out of real issues to debate. I pointed out specifically what was wrong with the poll you cited. You have said nothing other than a conclusory allegation that the other was flawed.

Seems like there's a lot of projection in this post. You are right that the name of a team is just the tip of the iceberg. Once that's gone you'll move on to the next target. And there will always be a next target. If the "change" you seek is essentially eliminating a football rivalry between cowboys and indians, and you think that's pressing enough to garner this level of attention, especially when most of those who are supposedly aggrieved don't care, it really illustrates the extent to which the problems we face on this front are incredibly minor. Back in the 50s and 60s people didn't have to search for things to be offended by. They didn't have to put statements under a microscope to interpret them as racist. We've come so far that people whose passion is fighting"racial injustice" have to work overtime to find new and creative ways to be offended. This isn't progress and it doesn't move us away from racism. It creates racism among all races, often where none existed in the first place, all in the name of "change."

Yeah, it's junk science. They even admit they don't have a representative national sample. The survey includes only 31% men, and 83% of those surveyed have no meaningful connection to a reservation. What constitutes their inclusion isn't clear. Perhaps Elizabeth Warren was one of those surveyed. What is clear is that those conducting this "study" had their conclusion from the outset and designed their study to achieve that outcome. Even with that, and watering down levels of offensiveness, they could still only get 49% to say they were even a little offended, which is crazy when you consider the level of manipulation and the eagerness with which Americans look for ways to be offended these days. This is nothing more than an excuse for woke whities to justify their busy body activism.