Re: Just Sad, "Chicago sees deadliest Memorial Day weekend in four years"
Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2020 7:01 am
Sports is our Business
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1966752
Bluewaterheaven wrote:
So are you just posting that video hoping nobody will watch it? Because Trump was never shocked the guy who freed the slaves was a republican... that was never said once in that video. He said he was surprised people don’t bring it up more...
Is Trump a bigot? Probably, at least he plays to that part of the Republican base. But so is Biden.
dice wrote:Bluewaterheaven wrote:
So are you just posting that video hoping nobody will watch it? Because Trump was never shocked the guy who freed the slaves was a republican... that was never said once in that video. He said he was surprised people don’t bring it up more...
that might make sense...if people didn't actually bring it up all the time. in fact, the birther party is often referred to as the "party of lincoln"! he clearly only late in life learned that lincoln was a republican...probably while campaigning for president. and he's been repeating it ever since with the pride of a 2nd grader telling his parents what he learned in school that day. any adult who doesn't know that abraham lincoln was a republican hasn't the most basic political knowledge. just look at the comments below the video:
"i knew lincoln was a republican and i'm from wales"
"this man is pure and utter comedy genius. i wish our president was as funny"
"i highly doubt the president revealed that lincoln was a republican and the recipient was previously unaware"
"someone should tell him the lincoln defeated the confederacy"
"nobody ever heard that lincoln was a republican before i came along." what an ignorant, deluded narcissist
here's one from a fox news interview in which he claimed that he's done more than lincoln did for the black community: "[lincoln] did good, although it's always questionable, you know, in other words, the end result...." at that point the black anchor cut him off: "well, we are free, mr. president, so i think he did pretty well"
he also has claimed that his poll numbers are higher than lincoln's. even though his poll numbers stink...and there were no polls in the 19th century. he has also awkwardly belittled lincoln, saying that he nearly lost the civil war to robert e. lee, while praising lee
"they always said lincoln, nobody got treated worse than lincoln - i believe i am treated worse" - donald trump
and he's done this on any number of subjects. when he learns something, he repeats it in the media as if he's the first person to know:
"nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated" obviously wasn't paying attention in 2009...or in 1993...or in 1974. trump was a grown man during all of those healthcare slogs
"i made juneteenth very famous...nobody had ever heard of it"
"i've felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic"Is Trump a bigot? Probably, at least he plays to that part of the Republican base. But so is Biden.
now that's one of the wildest leaps of equivalency i've ever seen. to the degree that we all have subconscious prejudices...yes, joe biden is a bigot. but aside from some awkward answers to interview questions, he's never said anything that would suggest he thinks that any other race is inferior to his own. in response to a question about how to repair the legacy of slavery (an enormously complicated subject that i don't think trump has ever been asked about):
"well...look, there's institutional segregation in this country. and from the time i got involved, i started dealing with that. redlining, banks...look, you talk about education. i propose that what we take the very poor schools, the title I schools, triple the amount of money we spend.... number two, make sure that we bring in to help the teachers deal with the problems that come from home. we have one school psychologist for every 1,500 kids in america today. it's crazy. the teachers...they have every problem coming to them. make sure that...3, 4 and 5 year olds go to school. not day care, school. we bring social workers into homes of parents to help them deal with how to raise their children. it's not that they don't want to help...they don't know quite what to do...make sure that kids hear words. a kid coming from a very poor school - a very poor background - will hear 4 million worlds fewer spoken by the time they get [to school]"
some pretty reasonable suggestions there - spend more money on poor schools, have more school psychologists available (financially disadvantaged kids are more likely to have psychological issues), start kids in school earlier to level the playing field more given that there is an obvious correlation between family wealth and intellectual stimulation at home...but awkwardly worded enough to spin as racist to those eager to be duped. from ryan grim of the bernie-loving 'the intercept':
Biden’s answer was staggeringly incoherent, obscuring, to his own benefit, what was, underneath, a horrifyingly racist answer.
"The thoroughly racist paternalism came at the end of Biden’s answer, at which point many viewers had likely zoned out. It was not adequately highlighted in post-debate coverage, so it’s worth taking a closer look at.
In response to a question on the legacy of slavery, Biden said: “We bring social workers into homes of parents to help them deal with how to raise their children. It’s not that they don’t want to help, they don’t want — they don’t know quite what to do.”
Author Anand Giridharadas flagged the moment. “Is this not one of the most explicitly racist moments of all time in a Democratic primary debate?” he wondered. “Asked about his past comments denying responsibility, as a white man, for America’s sins, he gives an answer insinuating that black parents don’t know how to raise kids.”
Joe Biden's answer on how to address the legacy of slavery was appalling -- and disqualifying.
It ended in a sermon implying that black parents don't know how to raise their own children.
This cannot go on.#DemDebate pic.twitter.com/WuI4b8n5Yz
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) September 13, 2019
The answer appears to reflect not a campaign talking point, but Biden’s genuine thoughts on the question of race relations in the U.S. He has been criticized for his leading role in developing the policy infrastructure of mass incarceration, while couching it in dehumanizing and paternalistic language that was popular — and popularized by politicians like Biden — in the 1980s. The biases from which those ideas and that rhetoric sprang are still alive, if not necessarily well, in Biden’s mind 40 years later.
Nikole Hannah-Jones, a journalist leading the New York Times Magazine’s “1619 Project” on the legacy of 400 years of slavery and its aftermath in America, said that Biden’s remark was revealing. “He talked about poverty, social workers needing to help families raise their kids and debunked science on vocab deficits,” she said. “He assumed we’d all understand he meant black folks even without saying — as if black is synonymous with poverty/dysfunction.”
yes, there are parents at their wits end with what to do about raising their kids. particularly when there is financial strain and the parent(s) can't spend much time with their children. that's reality. merely acknowledging that harsh reality and proposing how to help is not "paternalistic." it's the very job of a legislator! it is hardly "insinuating that black parents don't know how to raise kids." biden's probably heard these stories on a direct personal level countless times. from all races and even income levels
then the author attempts to link the comments to completely unrelated legislation biden was involved in decades prior
and notice the suggestion that biden's comment about vocabulary deficit has been debunked, yet the article he links to says "thirty million words is probably an exaggeration. maybe the gap is 4 million" BIDEN CITED THE 4 MILLION STATISTIC! HE WASN'T EVEN REFERENCING THE STUDY THAT WAS DEBUNKED!
unfortunately, a lot of people without critical thinking ability and wedded to their political prejudices (all political persuasions) read and parrot this kind of shoddy hit-job journalism. sometimes it then seeps into the mainstream narrative. in this particular case it's far left-wingers being manipulated
Dresden wrote:A long time curator at SF MOMA was forced to resign after he made some comments at a staff meeting. I don't know the full story, but based on what was reported (I read it first in the SF Chronicle), it sounds like an egregious example of cancel culture at it's worst. All he said was, after talking about the efforts for the museum to be more inclusive and get more art from POC, that "don't worry, we will still continue to collect works of art by white men as well". That caused a firestorm, in which he defended his statement by saying that not to collect any more pieces from white male artists would be a kind of "reverse discrimination".
And that was all it took for him to lose a job he's had for almost two decades, despite having a reputation as an outstanding curator. Staff started a petition demanding his resignation. Like I said, maybe there's more to the story, or to his history, but on the face of it, this whole things sounds like a huge over-reaction.
https://www.newsweek.com/sfmoma-curator-gary-garrels-san-francisco-museum-modern-art-reverse-discrimination-racism-1517984
Bluewaterheaven wrote:Dresden wrote:A long time curator at SF MOMA was forced to resign after he made some comments at a staff meeting. I don't know the full story, but based on what was reported (I read it first in the SF Chronicle), it sounds like an egregious example of cancel culture at it's worst. All he said was, after talking about the efforts for the museum to be more inclusive and get more art from POC, that "don't worry, we will still continue to collect works of art by white men as well". That caused a firestorm, in which he defended his statement by saying that not to collect any more pieces from white male artists would be a kind of "reverse discrimination".
And that was all it took for him to lose a job he's had for almost two decades, despite having a reputation as an outstanding curator. Staff started a petition demanding his resignation. Like I said, maybe there's more to the story, or to his history, but on the face of it, this whole things sounds like a huge over-reaction.
https://www.newsweek.com/sfmoma-curator-gary-garrels-san-francisco-museum-modern-art-reverse-discrimination-racism-1517984
Cancel Culture is turning into modern day McCarthyism. Initially, especially in the early phases of the #metoo movement, it was a good way of getting justice for people who were above it all.
Now, it is turning into if you speak wrong, because of the political climate, you will be removed from everything you worked hard for. In some cases it is justified, the ones who are clearly racially or gender motivated and caught on film. But as the mob grows it will affect everyone. I am curious to see how soon people who don't have an opinion, or people who won't take sides are brought into this. That happened during the McCarthy era as well. I am also curious to see if there is anyone who is untouchable in this climate. The military was during that era.
Dresden wrote:Bluewaterheaven wrote:Dresden wrote:A long time curator at SF MOMA was forced to resign after he made some comments at a staff meeting. I don't know the full story, but based on what was reported (I read it first in the SF Chronicle), it sounds like an egregious example of cancel culture at it's worst. All he said was, after talking about the efforts for the museum to be more inclusive and get more art from POC, that "don't worry, we will still continue to collect works of art by white men as well". That caused a firestorm, in which he defended his statement by saying that not to collect any more pieces from white male artists would be a kind of "reverse discrimination".
And that was all it took for him to lose a job he's had for almost two decades, despite having a reputation as an outstanding curator. Staff started a petition demanding his resignation. Like I said, maybe there's more to the story, or to his history, but on the face of it, this whole things sounds like a huge over-reaction.
https://www.newsweek.com/sfmoma-curator-gary-garrels-san-francisco-museum-modern-art-reverse-discrimination-racism-1517984
Cancel Culture is turning into modern day McCarthyism. Initially, especially in the early phases of the #metoo movement, it was a good way of getting justice for people who were above it all.
Now, it is turning into if you speak wrong, because of the political climate, you will be removed from everything you worked hard for. In some cases it is justified, the ones who are clearly racially or gender motivated and caught on film. But as the mob grows it will affect everyone. I am curious to see how soon people who don't have an opinion, or people who won't take sides are brought into this. That happened during the McCarthy era as well. I am also curious to see if there is anyone who is untouchable in this climate. The military was during that era.
I agree, it does smack of McCarthyism, where one group is able to go around ruining other people's lives one the flimsiest of reasons. Whatever happened to the idea of dialog? Why not have a staff meeting, with the board and president of the museum, and discuss what was said, give the curator a chance to explain what he meant, have the upset parties say why it was so offensive to them, have everyone learn something by it, and then go back to work, without having anyone terminated from a job that they had held for 19 years, and apparently were very, very good at it?
2018C3 wrote:I find it hard to accept that if I started a company and decided to use a real or fictional character as a logo for a product I intend to sell, that is now considered racist if I choose to use a character logo that is not my same heritage.
We are now saying White corporations must use White logos and Spanish corporations must use Spanish logos, Black corporations can only use black logo's.
To me this type of thought process is racist all in itself.
My retired dad is a history buff and belongs to a club and takes part in early French / American fur trading re-enactments. They dress up in costume, and put on events. (He himself is not French, but its a period of history that interests him and I have some of that French heritage though my mothers side).
I have gone to a few of these events, and was surprised to see some black participants in the same club dressing up as early French / American fur traders and interested in the same historic era. People should be able to participate in whatever historic cultural events they wish to attend, as long as the intent to spread content and information that is correct.
Europeans have always been involved in the history of other cultures. Much of what we know today comes from a one sided view point. I think people of all cultures should have the same opportunity to educate others on whatever subject of human history interests them.
2018C3 wrote:I find it hard to accept that if I started a company and decided to use a real or fictional character as a logo for a product I intend to sell, that is now considered racist if I choose to use a character logo that is not my same heritage.
We are now saying White corporations must use White logos and Spanish corporations must use Spanish logos, Black corporations can only use black logo's.
To me this type of thought process is racist all in itself.
My retired dad is a history buff and belongs to a club and takes part in early French / American fur trading re-enactments. They dress up in costume, and put on events. (He himself is not French, but its a period of history that interests him and I have some of that French heritage though my mothers side).
I have gone to a few of these events, and was surprised to see some black participants in the same club dressing up as early French / American fur traders and interested in the same historic era. People should be able to participate in whatever historic cultural events they wish to attend, as long as the intent to spread content and information that is correct.
Europeans have always been involved in the history of other cultures. Much of what we know today comes from a one sided view point. I think people of all cultures should have the same opportunity to educate others on whatever subject of human history interests them.
Dresden wrote:2018C3 wrote:I find it hard to accept that if I started a company and decided to use a real or fictional character as a logo for a product I intend to sell, that is now considered racist if I choose to use a character logo that is not my same heritage.
We are now saying White corporations must use White logos and Spanish corporations must use Spanish logos, Black corporations can only use black logo's.
To me this type of thought process is racist all in itself.
My retired dad is a history buff and belongs to a club and takes part in early French / American fur trading re-enactments. They dress up in costume, and put on events. (He himself is not French, but its a period of history that interests him and I have some of that French heritage though my mothers side).
I have gone to a few of these events, and was surprised to see some black participants in the same club dressing up as early French / American fur traders and interested in the same historic era. People should be able to participate in whatever historic cultural events they wish to attend, as long as the intent to spread content and information that is correct.
Europeans have always been involved in the history of other cultures. Much of what we know today comes from a one sided view point. I think people of all cultures should have the same opportunity to educate others on whatever subject of human history interests them.
I bet your dad enjoyed watching the Netflix show "Frontier", which is about that era. It's fascinating the intercultural dynamics between French, English, American, and Native people in that period.
dice wrote:cowardly scum donald trump deploying cowardly POS masked thugs to anonymously/illegally kidnap american citizens and stuff them into unmarked cars. third world dictator stuff:
another non-violent protester shot in the head by the scumsuckers and hospitalized w/ fractured skull:
donald trump deserves everything bad that happens to him for the rest of his life
2018C3 wrote:dice wrote:cowardly scum donald trump deploying cowardly POS masked thugs to anonymously/illegally kidnap american citizens and stuff them into unmarked cars. third world dictator stuff:
another non-violent protester shot in the head by the scumsuckers and hospitalized w/ fractured skull:
donald trump deserves everything bad that happens to him for the rest of his life
___________________________________________________________________
Seriously get a grip on reality. I respect your opinion, but absolute chaos in this area has been going on for almost a month now. Local businesses have been destroyed, and property owners are in fear.
The local government has not done a thing to protect its citizens. If this was happening in my community I would welcome the help if my local government failed to protect me.
Everyone has the right to protest, but once aggressive actions are taken against law enforcement, property's are damaged, public areas experience graffiti, people get murdered, and traffic gets blocked.
All this takes things way to far.
Even in my suburban town, business owners boarded up in preparation to the protests. The argument could be made that the protest and riots are being caused by different groups, and I could buy that. But when you have a street full of peaceful protesters, those same protesters should be protecting the businesses in there best interest if they wish to be seen as making a positive movement.