Joe Miner Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 Posting videos I see from facebook takes a lot of effort. I need a nap now. Isn't it almost time for Canadians to hibernate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 I've asked this question before you participated in these discussions What's worse, outward racism of white supremacists who are on the fringe of society or the soft racism of low expectations that's espoused by most liberals and is the expected norm of polite society? I'd say in an immediate sense that an individual act the outward racism is worse. Given that there are 1,000,000,000,000 times more tiny little ignorant acts of soft racism, it has had a much worse overall impact on our society and has often led to some of the outward acts as well. It is also much harder to eliminate. The KKK morons can be identified and shamed/ignored/laughed at. Thinking of every person as an individual sure would help but the lazy mind will not allow for that much thought. It is easier/lazier to put people into groups. Many individual people have lazy minds. That is what we should heap scorn upon. If you think about something and are honest in your thoughts and you disagree, to whatever degree, that's ok. If you lazily put people into boxes while throwing around accusations about others without so much as a thought, that sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 I actually thought you took it off LA'z post from yesterday http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/187980-kaepernick-and-the-national-anthem/?p=4113554 Got to be quick here No, I missed that. Changed job recently so I haven't been lurking as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 No, I missed that. Changed job recently so I haven't been lurking as much. Good. Quebec could use a bit more productivity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 I've asked this question before you participated in these discussions What's worse, outward racism of white supremacists who are on the fringe of society or the soft racism of low expectations that's espoused by most liberals and is the expected norm of polite society? It's a good question. I think the white supremacists are more dangerous. The well-intentioned idiots are just idiots. The white supremacists are active and potentially violent. I understand the point about the dangers of soft racism, but don't see it as pervasive as some do. That video was edited to make a point. Not all young people are that stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 It's a good question. I think the white supremacists are more dangerous. The well-intentioned idiots are just idiots. The white supremacists are active and potentially violent. I understand the point about the dangers of soft racism, but don't see it as pervasive as some do. That video was edited to make a point. Not all young people are that stupid. You mean the same way the daily show selectively edits interviews with conservatives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 It's a good question. I think the white supremacists are more dangerous. The well-intentioned idiots are just idiots. The white supremacists are active and potentially violent. I understand the point about the dangers of soft racism, but don't see it as pervasive as some do. That video was edited to make a point. Not all young people are that stupid. As much as the video was edited to make a point, you also have to remember that that point represents the explicit Democratic policy of "It's too hard for minorities to get ID." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 You mean the same way the daily show selectively edits interviews with conservatives? Yes, of course. Everyone has to take these things into account. In politics, it should be understood that things are being spun constantly. But, if something is funny, I'm gonna admit it's funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 As much as the video was edited to make a point, you also have to remember that that point represents the explicit Democratic policy of "It's too hard for minorities to get ID." Correct Look no further than the Kaep thread and all the fear mongering about the voter ID laws Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 (edited) As much as the video was edited to make a point, you also have to remember that that point represents the explicit Democratic policy of "It's too hard for minorities to get ID." Granted. My take on this (and again, I don't consider this issue to be very significant) is that having ID to vote is a perfectly reasonable expectation. There is long-standing tradition of it not being required in some places. To change that, you have to say this new requirement will go into effect at some point (2 years? 4 years?) in the future. This point has been politicized. While the left is ridiculous to resist the requirement, the right has tried to play it to their advantage as well. The argument that voter fraud is a big problem has been blown out of proportion. If voter fraud is the issue, then the point of emphasis should be on making the voter rolls as accurate as possible. Edited November 4, 2016 by Cugalabanza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 Granted. My take on this (and again, I don't consider this issue to be very significant) is that having ID to vote is a perfectly reasonable expectation. There is long-standing tradition of it not being required in some places. To change that, you have to say this new requirement will go into effect at some point (2 years? 4 years?) in the future. This point has been politicized. While the left is ridiculous to resist the requirement, the right has tried to play it to their advantage as well. The argument that voter fraud is a big problem has been blown out of proportion. If voter fraud is the issue, then the point of emphasis should be on making the voter rolls as accurate as possible. No doubt. Everyone tries to play everything to their advantage, and is usually thoroughly hypocritical in doing so. The Republicans want to "prevent voter fraud" that isn't as prevalent as they like to believe and isn't terribly impactful when present (as races tend to not be that close). The Democrats believe the holy sanctity of the right to vote shouldn't be infringed...without a glimmer of recognition of the concept that voter ID protects the holy sanctity of the right to vote (since it protects against any abuse of the holy sanctity of the right.) The Democrats hypocrisy amuses me more, only because I'm personally much more tickled by philosophical hypocrisy than practical. But they're all hypocrites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdutton Posted November 4, 2016 Author Share Posted November 4, 2016 Granted. My take on this (and again, I don't consider this issue to be very significant) is that having ID to vote is a perfectly reasonable expectation. There is long-standing tradition of it not being required in some places. To change that, you have to say this new requirement will go into effect at some point (2 years? 4 years?) in the future. This point has been politicized. While the left is ridiculous to resist the requirement, the right has tried to play it to their advantage as well. The argument that voter fraud is a big problem has been blown out of proportion. If voter fraud is the issue, then the point of emphasis should be on making the voter rolls as accurate as possible. How about this. ID must be presented at the polling place. If a voter does not have ID but the name and address given matches the existing voter roll and that name and address has not been marked as having voted yet, then allow the voter to complete a provisional ballot which will only count once the voter has returned to the polling place once valid id is presented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 It's a good question. I think the white supremacists are more dangerous. The well-intentioned idiots are just idiots. The white supremacists are active and potentially violent. I understand the point about the dangers of soft racism, but don't see it as pervasive as some do. That video was edited to make a point. Not all young people are that stupid. Open racists are marginalized by a society who rejects their ideals and philosophies, and as they are pushed to the fringes they become irrelevant. An isolated incident of violence, while tragic, isn't a societal danger because it impacts so few people. Soft racism of low expectations is far more dangerous to minority groups and society as a whole because it has broad and far reaching impacts across the entire population, and has a high probability of becoming systemic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 ...I'm personally much more tickled by philosophical hypocrisy than practical. But they're all hypocrites. That's a really interesting distinction. I guess I'm partial to the practical hypocrisy. It's kind of like slapstick. I know it's more lowbrow humor, but it gets me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 Granted. My take on this (and again, I don't consider this issue to be very significant) is that having ID to vote is a perfectly reasonable expectation. There is long-standing tradition of it not being required in some places. To change that, you have to say this new requirement will go into effect at some point (2 years? 4 years?) in the future. This point has been politicized. While the left is ridiculous to resist the requirement, the right has tried to play it to their advantage as well. The argument that voter fraud is a big problem has been blown out of proportion. If voter fraud is the issue, then the point of emphasis should be on making the voter rolls as accurate as possible. Voter fraud is a problem to the tune of millions of people across the country but the left promotes it with such policies as wanting to give voting right to illegal immigrants. The right has wanted to make voter ID a law and has for years and in such a way that there would be more than an adequate notice period. The left pushes back. Meanwhile, lefty local governments require an ID to get a fishing license in many areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 Open racists are marginalized by a society who rejects their ideals and philosophies, and as they are pushed to the fringes they become irrelevant. An isolated incident of violence, while tragic, isn't a societal danger because it impacts so few people. Soft racism of low expectations is far more dangerous to minority groups and society as a whole because it has broad and far reaching impacts across the entire population, and has a high probability of becoming systemic. High probability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 High probability? I like to leave open the .000000000000000000001 % chance that it won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 My father used to say when the government gives a person a check for welfare or whatever, what they're telling the person is ,"you poor son-of-a-B word, you're just too stupid to make it on your own so I'm going to have to help." If someone really needs help we should help them. Just make sure it isn't used as a way to keep them down IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 My father used to say when the government gives a person a check for welfare or whatever, what they're telling the person is ,"you poor son-of-a-B word, you're just too stupid to make it on your own so I'm going to have to help." If someone really needs help we should help them. Just make sure it isn't used as a way to keep them down IMHO. Put time limits on such benefits and behavior will change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts