Deranged Rhino Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 (edited) Even though it's a loaded question, and I disagree entirely with your choice of qualifiers, I'll answer. But only for myself, I'm not speaking for anyone but myself. It's a deeply personal issue for me and a re-occurring theme in my life. Not to get too philosophical, but Joseph Campbell talks a lot about inner demons and patterns that we all face, and will continue to face, until we confront them. Not sure I buy that entirely, but with this issue in my own life I see its merits. And I've seen enough first hand, personal damage caused by it to believe it's just a myth or that we now magically live in a post-racial America. It's my experience that we do not, and I have the scars to prove it -- emotional and physical. Pretending we do live in this mythical post-racial world is every bit as damaging as it is to inflate every verbal slight to mob-inciting decibels... again, in my opinion. Until it affects your life directly it's easy to brush off. I don't know if I'm following you entirely, but I take it that you or someone close to you (maybe more than 1) was somehow negatively affected by someone with a racist motive, and as a result you've made this your signature issue to help you cope. And just so we're clear, I don't claim we're in a post-racial America; I claim we can't get anywhere near a post-racial America because people like you (no offense, I'm sure you're well intentioned) are obsessed with, and hypersensitive regarding, anything indicative of racism. To me it's a matter of proportionality, and the level of outrage seems grossly disproportionate to the problem. I don't see a return to slavery, segregation, or anything close to that occurring if we fail to respond to every potentially racist comment (by anyone not black) like it's a national tragedy. And I understand to an extent the asymmetry between tolerating the racism of blacks as opposed to whites (Or white Hispanics) due to the history there, but it's gotten a bit ridiculous. If we're to be an enlightened society that doesn't base treatment on race that has to apply across the board, otherwise it's lacking any principle. But going back to the original question, are you disproportionately sensitive to this issue because of something that affected you personally, or is there more to This issue that makes your level of concern objectively rational? Edited May 2, 2014 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 (edited) there's a reasonable intermediate position between not responding to racist remarks and being obsessed with racism. greggy doesn't appear obsessed to me. some of the posters here have not responded and some have been apologists for a racist remark which is another polar extreme position. on this board, ignoring the statement would appear to be the middle ground. at huff po, that would be far from the middle. and in a mythical but imaginable cross sectional america (you know, with faces of many colors like at the dem national convention and not the repug one) i believe it would be far from the middle as well. so i'd think it wise to keep your opinion on my or anyone elses opinion in that context. a big problem that i have with this episode is that the powers that be in right wing media chose to elevate this moron to cult hero status. when he says something this inflammtory, they defend him rather than condemn him. it's obvious to everyone but his jaded relatively few sympathizers that the man is overtly racist. same for sterling. they are both clearly on the wrong side of the issue but some will never admit that. then again, there are those (quite a few actually) that still believe the north was on the wrong side in the civil war. Edited May 2, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 (edited) there's a reasonable intermediate position between not responding to racist remarks and being obsessed with racism. greggy doesn't appear obsessed to me. some of the posters here have not responded and some have been apologists for a racist remark which is another polar extreme position. on this board, ignoring the statement would appear to be the middle ground. at huff po, that would be far from the middle. and in a mythical but imaginable cross sectional america (you know, with faces of many colors like at the dem national convention and not the repug one) i believe it would be far from the middle as well. so i'd think it wise to keep your opinion on my or anyone elses opinion in that context. a big problem that i have with this episode is that the powers that be in right wing media chose to elevate this moron to cult hero status. when he says something this inflammtory, they defend him rather than condemn him. it's obvious to everyone but his jaded relatively few sympathizers that the man is overtly racist. same for sterling. they are both clearly on the wrong side of the issue but some will never admit that. then again, there are those (quite a few actually) that still believe the north was on the wrong side in the civil war. There is a reasonable intermediate position, but lately our society has assumed a mindlessly rabid mob mentality whenever something like this happens, and many defend that not only as acceptable, but desirable, or even admirable. Worse, the outrage is selectively applied based on the race of those involved, thus making the outrage itself inherently racist. Just as a comment that could rightfully be called an idiotic comparison by this Bundy character is being characterized as a call for the reinstatement of slavery. Or how a 60 year old woman (who was a big Obama supporter no less) has to be widely boycotted and destroyed when it comes out that she'd used the dreaded "N-word" in years past; her tears, apologies, and pleas for forgiveness ignored, even scoffed at by the callous mob. Or the national outrage and widespread calls and support for the most severe "punishment" for an 80 year old man for having a politically incorrect personal opinion, when the so-called offense was more deserving of public condemnation by the league (and maybe some "sensitivity training" ). Basically, what I'm saying is that culturally we respond to situations that call for a "hey ass hole..." response with a baseball bat and a Molotov cocktail, and a few around here think that's just fine. I'd like to know why. Edited May 2, 2014 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 There is a reasonable intermediate position, but lately our society has assumed a mindlessly rabid mob mentality whenever something like this happens, and many defend that not only as acceptable, but desirable, or even admirable. Worse, the outrage is selectively applied based on the race of those involved, thus making the outrage itself inherently racist. Just as a comment that could rightfully be called an idiotic comparison by this Bundy character is being characterized as a call for the reinstatement of slavery. Or how a 60 year old woman (who was a big Obama supporter no less) has to be widely boycotted and destroyed when it comes out that she'd used the dreaded "N-word" in years past; her tears, apologies, and pleas for forgiveness ignored, even scoffed at by the callous mob. Or the national outrage and widespread calls and support for the most severe "punishment" for an 80 year old man for having a politically incorrect personal opinion, when the so-called offense was more deserving of public condemnation by the league (and maybe some "sensitivity training" ). Basically, what I'm saying is that culturally we respond to situations that call for a "hey ass hole..." response with a baseball bat and a Molotov cocktail, and a few around here think that's just fine. I'd like to know why. Well said. You have to be an Alec Baldwin to get away with bigoted statements here. This tells me it's a left/right kind of thing. The left is always looking for ways to condemn conservatives, whether it's "throwing grandma over the cliff" or painting us as racists and bigots, because some old guy laments the plight of the black family and phrases it inarticulately. Sterling is an idiot and although he deserves harsh reaction, what Silver has proposed is a little much. After all, Sterling couldn't be that bad, he was about to receive his second humanitarian award from the NAACP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Basically, what I'm saying is that culturally we respond to situations that call for a "hey ass hole..." response with a baseball bat and a Molotov cocktail, and a few around here think that's just fine. I'd like to know why. Because being a victim is noble and heroic. Therefore, being a bigger victim is more noble and more heroic. Therefore, it's better to respond with a Molotov cocktail, since it make you more heroic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Because being a victim is noble and heroic. Therefore, being a bigger victim is more noble and more heroic. Therefore, it's better to respond with a Molotov cocktail, since it make you more heroic. Didn't this whole thing start with Cliven Bundy being a victim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 I don't know if I'm following you entirely, but I take it that you or someone close to you (maybe more than 1) was somehow negatively affected by someone with a racist motive, and as a result you've made this your signature issue to help you cope. One day, we'll have beers and I'll fill in the full picture for you. I've faced my share of violence, death and hatred because of this issue -- and I'm in my 30s, I'm not speaking of some bygone era. I am arguing that I have not made this my signature issue (and I don't believe it even is my signature issue), but rather it's my life that has made it a signature issue. That's what I was getting at with Campbell, one of his contentions is essentially we don't choose our demons, they choose us. It's how we deal with them that defines our lives as they will continue to crop up again and again until we face them. Again, I know that's a bit philosophical. And just so we're clear, I don't claim we're in a post-racial America; I understand that and never meant to imply that you believed that. I was speaking more in a general sense. I claim we can't get anywhere near a post-racial America because people like you (no offense, I'm sure you're well intentioned) are obsessed with, and hypersensitive regarding, anything indicative of racism. And this is where we disagree, though not as much as you might assume. I agree that over sensationalizing miniscule examples of racism does far more harm than good. But pretending that the only obstacle to reaching a post-racial world is an oversensitivity is as ridiculous as those who claim every racist joke/comment/thought/opinion comes from a place of hatred or ignorance. It sounds an awful lot like you're making an excuse -- which just enables the ones who do act with hate in their hearts and minds to continue operating as is. Not saying that's what you're doing, but it sure sounds that way to the casual reader. What Cliven Bundy said or thinks about African Americans is irrelevant and frankly, hilarious to me. He can say whatever he wants, it means nothing to me. The only reason I jumped on this in this thread was to illuminate a larger point. When this story first broke, 3rd asked "what does this matter" and I told him he'd find out over the course of the next news cycle. And look what happened, we've spent pages talking about everything but Bundy's "signature issue". That's not Bundy's fault, or the media's, it's the fault of his supporters who chose him to champion their cause. They should have known better, because once the race card is dropped (or any social equivalent), no one will talk about anything else. So, if this issue is as important to the folks who seem so outraged about the MSM "turning on" Bundy, they should learn from this. In today's world you have to pick champions who are bulletproof rather than doing what 3rd did in this case -- which was to back a man (and argue on his behalf) despite knowing absolutely nothing about what he actually said OR the story itself apparently. (Seriously, 3rd, you're still asking for someone else to put quotes in context for you when there have already been numerous links provided... step your game up.) To me it's a matter of proportionality, and the level of outrage seems grossly disproportionate to the problem. I don't see a return to slavery, segregation, or anything close to that occurring if we fail to respond to every potentially racist comment (by anyone not black) like it's a national tragedy. There are wars you have to fight and ones you don't. Bundy isn't a battle worth waging but Sterling is. Why? Because of the influence, power, and potential harm each man can do; and in Sterling's case, has done. And I understand to an extent the asymmetry between tolerating the racism of blacks as opposed to whites (Or white Hispanics) due to the history there, but it's gotten a bit ridiculous. If we're to be an enlightened society that doesn't base treatment on race that has to apply across the board, otherwise it's lacking any principle. No one serious would argue that racism of any kind should be tolerated, certainly not me. But just because certain people don't agree doesn't mean you should throw the entire issue out the window or trivialize every case. That's as foolish as allowing a double standard. But going back to the original question, are you disproportionately sensitive to this issue because of something that affected you personally, or is there more to This issue that makes your level of concern objectively rational? Again, I completely disagree with your qualifiers and chosen adjectives. You're dismissing my views prior to asking me to provide them so forgive me if I decline to answer an absurdly worded question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Didn't this whole thing start with Cliven Bundy being a victim? Enter The Tea Party. The Teaist, the ultimate American victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 Didn't this whole thing start with Cliven Bundy being a victim? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 No. Correct. It started with him taking a stand, regardless of whether you agree with him or not. Victims allow themselves to be over-run, either by force or by reluctant consent. Bundy has done the opposite of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 One day, we'll have beers and I'll fill in the full picture for you. I've faced my share of violence, death and hatred because of this issue -- and I'm in my 30s, I'm not speaking of some bygone era. I am arguing that I have not made this my signature issue (and I don't believe it even is my signature issue), but rather it's my life that has made it a signature issue. That's what I was getting at with Campbell, one of his contentions is essentially we don't choose our demons, they choose us. It's how we deal with them that defines our lives as they will continue to crop up again and again until we face them. Again, I know that's a bit philosophical. I understand that and never meant to imply that you believed that. I was speaking more in a general sense. And this is where we disagree, though not as much as you might assume. I agree that over sensationalizing miniscule examples of racism does far more harm than good. But pretending that the only obstacle to reaching a post-racial world is an oversensitivity is as ridiculous as those who claim every racist joke/comment/thought/opinion comes from a place of hatred or ignorance. It sounds an awful lot like you're making an excuse -- which just enables the ones who do act with hate in their hearts and minds to continue operating as is. Not saying that's what you're doing, but it sure sounds that way to the casual reader. What Cliven Bundy said or thinks about African Americans is irrelevant and frankly, hilarious to me. He can say whatever he wants, it means nothing to me. The only reason I jumped on this in this thread was to illuminate a larger point. When this story first broke, 3rd asked "what does this matter" and I told him he'd find out over the course of the next news cycle. And look what happened, we've spent pages talking about everything but Bundy's "signature issue". That's not Bundy's fault, or the media's, it's the fault of his supporters who chose him to champion their cause. They should have known better, because once the race card is dropped (or any social equivalent), no one will talk about anything else. So, if this issue is as important to the folks who seem so outraged about the MSM "turning on" Bundy, they should learn from this. In today's world you have to pick champions who are bulletproof rather than doing what 3rd did in this case -- which was to back a man (and argue on his behalf) despite knowing absolutely nothing about what he actually said OR the story itself apparently. (Seriously, 3rd, you're still asking for someone else to put quotes in context for you when there have already been numerous links provided... step your game up.) There are wars you have to fight and ones you don't. Bundy isn't a battle worth waging but Sterling is. Why? Because of the influence, power, and potential harm each man can do; and in Sterling's case, has done. No one serious would argue that racism of any kind should be tolerated, certainly not me. But just because certain people don't agree doesn't mean you should throw the entire issue out the window or trivialize every case. That's as foolish as allowing a double standard. Again, I completely disagree with your qualifiers and chosen adjectives. You're dismissing my views prior to asking me to provide them so forgive me if I decline to answer an absurdly worded question. You know Greg, I asked you to put quotes in context because people were misquoting Bundy. All I got was a response that I was totally ignorant of the facts and therefore should not comment anymore. At one point in time I asked you to show me where Bundy said that the federal government doesn't exist after you claimed that, and mentioned that it was ironic because he was sitting on a horse with the American flag. I Googled it and found one article whose headline claimed that, but did not mention it in the article. All along my claim has been that Bundy may not be a racist and we shouldn't rush to judgement. I think Tasker has a point when he mentioned "soft slavery" of federal dependence and can very well see that Bundy, in an inarticulate way, was trying to express that. Do I know that for sure? Of course not. I guess the difference between us is that I have no desire to join the lynch mob while you think they have their place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 (edited) You know Greg, I asked you to put quotes in context because people were misquoting Bundy. All I got was a response that I was totally ignorant of the facts and therefore should not comment anymore. At one point in time I asked you to show me where Bundy said that the federal government doesn't exist after you claimed that, and mentioned that it was ironic because he was sitting on a horse with the American flag. I Googled it and found one article whose headline claimed that, but did not mention it in the article. All along my claim has been that Bundy may not be a racist and we shouldn't rush to judgement. I think Tasker has a point when he mentioned "soft slavery" of federal dependence and can very well see that Bundy, in an inarticulate way, was trying to express that. Do I know that for sure? Of course not. I guess the difference between us is that I have no desire to join the lynch mob while you think they have their place. Not sure why you have to look so hard to find it considering I've linked both a print article and video of his comments in the thread already... Which is why it's so difficult to communicate with you at times. You make things way more complicated than they actually are. Work smarter, not harder! I also love how despite my last couple posts you are still missing the point completely. Not as much as OC did with the Hugh Jackman picture I posted, but enough to be funny. Edited May 3, 2014 by GreggyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 No. Where do they sell those glasses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) You Bundy guys still feel the vibe after two of his supporting protestors killed 2 police officers and a bystander out west? Edited June 10, 2014 by baskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 You Bundy guys still feel the vibe after two of his supporting proteststors killed 2 police officers and a bystander out west? You are about as disingenuous as it gets. You know damn well that the husband and wife team were previously thrown off the Bundy ranch because of their radical views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 You Bundy guys still feel the vibe after two of his supporting proteststors killed 2 police officers and a bystander out west? I heard a guy who murdered his wife and kids did volunteer work for Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 You Bundy guys still feel the vibe after two of his supporting proteststors killed 2 police officers and a bystander out west? LOL........................what a hoot ! Let's see. 1) misrepresent what posters on the board said. 2) what happened at Bundy Ranch and why 3) what and who the Las Vegas killers were.. It's the Hat Trick ! ! Congrats Baskin............................................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 You are about as disingenuous as it gets. You know damn well that the husband and wife team were previously thrown off the Bundy ranch because of their radical views. Is there any proof they were really thrown off, or is that just the cover story? I mean the Bundys did say they were going to use women and children as human shields and who the heck were those snipers? Were they asked to leave also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 LOL........................what a hoot ! Let's see. 1) misrepresent what posters on the board said. 2) what happened at Bundy Ranch and why 3) what and who the Las Vegas killers were.. It's the Hat Trick ! ! Congrats Baskin............................................ That would be a yes huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts