/dev/null Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 2 hours ago, Alaska Darin said: It stops when politicians stop benefiting from it. LBJ was a prophet. so what you're saying it will never stop 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boater Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 1 hour ago, row_33 said: 1 hour ago, Dr. Who said: You're tendentiously or erroneously failing to remark equivocity in language. Piety in the proper sense implies recognition of the inherent value and dignity of the other. The fact that religious zealots have committed all sorts of attrocious acts has nothing to do with how authentic piety would militate against any such action. Ascribing evil particularly to religious folks would also be injust and probably a culpable blanket statement as you don't appear to be brutishly stupid. my education and professional accomplishments probably dwarf yours, so please be careful in tossing around words that you might not grasp exactly... Cat fight. Back to the thread.. here's an image of Kate Smith's statue being covered that is sure upset some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 On 4/19/2019 at 12:45 PM, Gugny said: There have been some renditions of this song that have moved me nearly to tears. Renditions of Why ***** Were Born has nearly brought you to tears? Why you racists bastard!!!! ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 12 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: Renditions of Why ***** Were Born has nearly brought you to tears? Why you racists bastard!!!! ? Indian giver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 Just now, Gugny said: Indian giver. I found another one this morning during my Easter Green Egg hunt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, Gugny said: Indian giver. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 3 hours ago, Alaska Darin said: It stops when politicians stop benefiting from it. LBJ was a prophet. I was watching Johnson biographer Robert Caro on Face The Nation this morning. Caro described an incident in 1963, shortly after LBJ assumed the Presidency, in which advisors were telling him not to waste time snd capital on civil rights and the stalled Civil Rights Act. ”It’s a lost cause,” they said. “You’ll piss off southern democrats and republicans, who are all against it, and they’ll just filibuster the bill anyway.” Johnson replied, “Well, what the hell’s the Presidency for?”. He seized the moment, appealed to the American people, and railroaded the legislation thru Congress. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 may well be Johnson’s greatest achievement. . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 10 minutes ago, The Senator said: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 may well be Johnson’s greatest achievement. an achievement overshadowed by the unnecessary deaths of 58,000 American service members 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 Just now, /dev/null said: an achievement overshadowed by the unnecessary deaths of 58,000 American service members Absolutely. I honestly believe Kennedy’s commitment to withdraw all troops from Viietnam by 1965 got him killed. Johnson gave the military industrial complex what they wanted, and needlessly sent thousands of young Americans to die. Eisenhower warned against this in his 1961 farewell address... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoTier Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 On 4/19/2019 at 11:51 AM, Dr. Who said: It's unpopular to argue the point, but sensibilities are historically situated. What is eggregious for folks today was not contextualized in the same manner in the past. Retrospectively, its easy to characterize everyone in the past as bigoted, unenlightened kthe nuckledraggers. I don't think that is just, but the current frenzy to destroy (implicitly also to signal one's "moral purity" so as to deflect the danger of the mob coming for you) really is the hallmark of totalitarian societies. In any event, its likely not everyone intended racially pejorative meaning where it seems obvious today. But folks will come after you with pitchforks and fire for suggesting it or at least try to make it so you can't hold a job or speak in public, that's the way we've been moving for decades now and it's accelerating in the age of social media. It's not at all "unpopular" to recognize that people in the past held views that are not acceptable today. What's "unpopular" is defending and/or excusing unacceptable views today by appeals to the existence of such attitudes or actions in the past. What's even more "unpopular" is holding those views today. If you hold views that are unacceptable to the society in which you live -- and publicly champion them -- especially on social media -- because your reverence for the past blinds you to the injustices done in the name of such views -- that's your problem not society's. Society, which is not a government and cannot be described as "totalitarian", does not have to accord "equal time" to morally reprehensible ideas nor coddle individuals who hold them. On 4/19/2019 at 2:11 PM, Mr Info said: It seems prudent to investigate past transgressions when related to public presentation of said person’s music, art, etc. Kate knew the lyrics to that song were racist. Perhaps if she were around she might apologize or mention that her manager/producer strongarmed her to sing it or she would lose her contract or something similar. If it offends people, then remove it. Some people now feel emboldened to mention a perceived offense where they may have remained silent years ago. It is the world we currently live in and I do not feel it is that hard to understand or comply with. It appears that a lot of people generally object to change. Smith’s GBA started at NYY 7th inning stretches after 9/11 so it has not been a tradition that long. Can another ‘tradition’ begin or just do something different...maybe more fun or ‘basebally’ during every 7th inning stretch? Just because GBA stops at NYY 7th inning stretches does not mean we forget 9/11. Thank you for an excellent post. Traditionally, baseball teams played "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" during the seventh inning stretch. Now, the supposed "traditionalists" are whining about a team no longer playing a "johnny come lately" ditty that has absolutely nothing to do with baseball. On 4/19/2019 at 3:45 PM, Gugny said: As Levi points out, it was, indeed satire. It was also sung by a black man. It was a MUCH different time. Does that make it right? Nah. But should such irrational (in my opinion) decisions be made based upon learning of it? I certainly don't think so. There have been some renditions of this song that have moved me nearly to tears. Specifically some of the live performances (which I saw on TV) during Yankees games. I think the Yankees ... and ESPECIALLY Phily, are overreacting. Out of fear. And that's sad to me. Why do you think the decision is "irrational"? Do you think that continuing to use a word or phrase or play a song that you know is offensive to some of your audience is good business practice? I'd say no. Is it ethical or justifiable? I would think you have to say no unless you think that some people don't count as much as others simply because of the color of their skin or their gender or their religious views, etc. On 4/19/2019 at 5:00 PM, Misterbluesky said: It's only a matter of time before our anthem is stripped of us.... Our homeland pride is disappearing before our eyes,Gunner...you joined in '87..I left in '82...those "blood brother" days are tough to come by these days... I was a "rubber stamp"....that group has thinned. Burn my flag ,on my property ,in my backyard....and I will find a way to put you into hospitalization. ***** the new america. Who's "homeland" are we talking about here? Blacks are Americans as much as you are. So are women, gays, Jews, etc. 3 hours ago, Dr. Who said: Well, that's the toxic progressive view of the American founding. You're welcome to it. Let me guess, you're one of those white, conservative intellectuals who blames everybody but yourself because you can't compete with all the "undeserving" untermensch like blacks, Latinos, gays, women, immigrants, etc. despite your intellectual, racial, and sexual superiority. 3 hours ago, Dr. Who said: Of course, many abolitionists and those who promoted the civil rights movement were motivated by religious beliefs about the spiritual equality of all people. MLK was a Christian minister. The notion that religion is intrinsically intolerant and a pernicious force is demonstrably false. Twentieth century is full of genocides inspired by secular, atheist pursuits of utopia. The dialogic tradition one sees in Aquinas is one of respectful encounter and attempts to mutually discover truth (as exhibited in Summa Contra Gentiles, for instance). The intolerance dominant in contemporary western societies is almost always secular and liberal towards those they silence by making blanket statements about bigotry and racism as a means to shut opposing views up. But believe what you like. No desire to impose any views upon you at all. Happy Easter. Christians in the Middle Ages were exceptionally pious -- and that didn't prevent them from butchering Jews, Moslems, and even other Christians. Pious Protestants and Catholics regularly butchered each other in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. Pious Spanish Catholics came to the Americas where they killed Native Americans who wouldn't conbvert to Christianity and enslaved the rest -- and when los indios died out because they were worked to death, they imported African slaves. Those icons of piety -- the Puritans who came to Massachusetts Bay to create a more godly society -- burned women as witches based on the hysterical accusations of some silly girls. The KKK wrapped itself in robes of "protecting Christianity" from the threat of Jews and Papists, especially in the 1920s. Those pious preachers Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson claimed that the 9/11 attacks were God's punishment for not embracing their own reactionary social agenda. I could go on ... 2 hours ago, row_33 said: a pious person would never think of, let alone carry out, murdering another human being LOL. See above. 1 hour ago, Dr. Who said: You're tendentiously or erroneously failing to remark equivocity in language. Piety in the proper sense implies recognition of the inherent value and dignity of the other. The fact that religious zealots have committed all sorts of attrocious acts has nothing to do with how authentic piety would militate against any such action. Ascribing evil particularly to religious folks would also be injust and probably a culpable blanket statement as you don't appear to be brutishly stupid. How, exactly, does one determine "authentic piety" from pseudo piety? How can someone who accepts morally reprehensibly actions by individuals or governments or organizations be considered pious? 1 hour ago, Dr. Who said: Well, okay. I have a PhD and am a published author, but if you think my grasp of language is insufficient, point out where I have abused language the way diatribes against religion often do. Well, since you invited me to play grammar nazi, check out your post above and the bolded words. The word is "atrocious" ... and while "injust" is an actual word in the English language, it hasn't been used since the early 1700s. Maybe your employment issues would be solved if you stopped trying to demonstrate your superiority by using $50 words when 50 centers would do ... and I'm somewhat qualified to critique you on intellectual achievement because I have a PhD in 19th century American social history with minors in Latin American history and African history. I also have a BS in geology with a concentration in business computing (computer science wasn't a major when I was in college) either time -- and I never had a problem finding or holding a job because I was smart enough to not allow my private views to influence my work or pretend I was intellectually superior to everybody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoTier Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 1 hour ago, The Senator said: I was watching Johnson biographer Robert Caro on Face The Nation this morning. Caro described an incident in 1963, shortly after LBJ assumed the Presidency, in which advisors were telling him not to waste time snd capital on civil rights and the stalled Civil Rights Act. ”It’s a lost cause,” they said. “You’ll piss off southern democrats and republicans, who are all against it, and they’ll just filibuster the bill anyway.” Johnson replied, “Well, what the hell’s the Presidency for?”. He seized the moment, appealed to the American people, and railroaded the legislation thru Congress. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 may well be Johnson’s greatest achievement. . If Johnson hadn't gotten caught up in the Vietnam War, he would be viewed very differently today. Medicare was also created during the Johnson Administration (1965). LBJ is an example of a leader who "did the right thing" despite being born, raised, and reaching adulthood in a society that mostly produced unapologetic racists or those who tacitly supported them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Who Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 26 minutes ago, SoTier said: Maybe your employment issues would be solved if you stopped trying to demonstrate your superiority by using $50 words when 50 centers would do ... and I'm somewhat qualified to critique you on intellectual achievement because I have a PhD in 19th century American social history with minors in Latin American history and African history. I also have a BS in geology with a concentration in business computing (computer science wasn't a major when I was in college) either time -- and I never had a problem finding or holding a job because I was smart enough to not allow my private views to influence my work or pretend I was intellectually superior to everybody else. You're very free with ad hominem attacks and surmising based on scant evidence. I wasn't the one who argued from authority. I responded to a fella who instead of answering what I said decided his accomplishments in life likely dwarfed my own and implied I didn't know how to use language. If you don't like my vocabulary, don't read my posts. Aggressive bullying is generally a hallmark of contemporary progressives. You are true to your tribal type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 (edited) 25 minutes ago, SoTier said: If Johnson hadn't gotten caught up in the Vietnam War, he would be viewed very differently today. Medicare was also created during the Johnson Administration (1965). LBJ is an example of a leader who "did the right thing" despite being born, raised, and reaching adulthood in a society that mostly produced unapologetic racists or those who tacitly supported them. All very true. And if Nixon hadn’t got caught up in Watergate, he’d be viewed as the President who reigned in inflation, ended the war in Vietnam, brought home the POWs, ended the draft, established diplomatic relations with China, commenced Strategic Arms Limitation Talks with the Soviet Union in 1969 leading to SALT I in 1972, and instigated massive increases in medicaid, medicare, and social security. Funny how one little break- in and cover-up can ruin an entire Presidency. ? . Edited April 21, 2019 by The Senator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, SoTier said: Why do you think the decision is "irrational"? Do you think that continuing to use a word or phrase or play a song that you know is offensive to some of your audience is good business practice? I'd say no. Is it ethical or justifiable? I would think you have to say no unless you think that some people don't count as much as others simply because of the color of their skin or their gender or their religious views, etc. It's irrational because the word is not in "God Bless America." Furthermore, the song in question (which is not played in any stadium, anywhere) was SATIRE. When that song was sung, it was, "lighten up, Francis," 40 years before, "lighten up, Francis," was a thing! If anything offensive was, indeed, in "God Bless America," I'd be all for not playing it. But there is nothing offensive about the song. And to discontinue playing that song simply because a woman was loosely associated with AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SONG, to me, is ludicrous. Edited April 21, 2019 by Gugny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted April 21, 2019 Author Share Posted April 21, 2019 8 hours ago, SoTier said: When will the whining by white men about being outraged that American courts and institutions consider blacks to legitimate grievances end? Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Keukasmallies said: Huh? Translation: I pretend we still live in the Dark Ages to justify devoting my life to making wild accusations of perceived racism around every corner. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted April 22, 2019 Author Share Posted April 22, 2019 10 hours ago, KD in CA said: Translation: I pretend we still live in the Dark Ages to justify devoting my life to making wild accusations of perceived racism around every corner. Gotcha, count me in ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoTier Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 14 hours ago, Dr. Who said: You're very free with ad hominem attacks and surmising based on scant evidence. I wasn't the one who argued from authority. I responded to a fella who instead of answering what I said decided his accomplishments in life likely dwarfed my own and implied I didn't know how to use language. If you don't like my vocabulary, don't read my posts. Aggressive bullying is generally a hallmark of contemporary progressives. You are true to your tribal type. I'm sorry that I misinterpreted " ... folks will come after you with pitchforks and fire for suggesting it [holding unpopular opinions] or at least try to make it so you can't hold a job or speak in public, that's the way we've been moving for decades now and it's accelerating in the age of social media" as being based on personal experience rather than simply being a general defense of hypothetical defenders of reprehensible ideas whose public comments could hypothetically get them fired. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 On 4/19/2019 at 1:20 PM, dpberr said: When does it stop? Unpopular opinion: When there's moral hazard to being recreationally outraged. Right now, the media puts a face to the "bad guy" but often those outraged remain nameless, free to take the shots whenever, wherever they like without any consequence to themsevles personally. It's fun to be outraged. You're always in the pole position and you can easily use the "See, they are really bad guys. How dare you question my outrage!" card when somebody tries to punch back. That worked for the nazis. The ###### roller coaster needs to learn how to work their brain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts