Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
That is an excellent read. It certainly helps explain their hatred of liberals, much less socialists.
Man Murders Nine in Charleston Church
- Thread starter Cheezy the Wiz
- Start date
Senethro
Overlord
Ugh the only time conservatives ever acknowledge the big issue of institutional racism is when they're trying to deflect attention from small symbolic racisms that might be dealt with in the short term.
Its like, they have the intention and political will to maintain the institutional racism for as long as possible and are themselves main reason why those issues won't get solved quickly, so it is just this ridiculous stance to accuse any liberals of not tackling "real" issues.
Its like, they have the intention and political will to maintain the institutional racism for as long as possible and are themselves main reason why those issues won't get solved quickly, so it is just this ridiculous stance to accuse any liberals of not tackling "real" issues.
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,404
Nice use of "quotes" there. To describe an actual real issue as a "real" issue. Meanwhile pretending that a "real" issue is a real one.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Don't you think you would be happier with the Confederate flag avatar again?
How about strutting around the forum in a pair of Daisy Dukes while complaining about being ogled?
Senethro
Overlord
I was using the quotes as a quote there, not as emphasis indicating ironic speech.
Swing and a miss champ.
Senethro
Overlord
Senethro
Overlord
right wing stance 1: Racism ended sometime in the 1960s. Weren't you paying attention to all the mythologized people in history class?
right wing stance 2: ugh why won't liberals tackle real issues, not just flags
Flip as needed.
right wing stance 2: ugh why won't liberals tackle real issues, not just flags
Flip as needed.
aelf
Ashen One
Add one more: You're being judgy. Judge not lest you be judged. By the way, your iPhone was made by slaves too.
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,404
I can change it back if you like, but how does that respond to anything I said? Oh right, it wasn't meant to. Sorry.
Senethro
Overlord
So says the man so utterly desperate to make a quip that he sinks to punctuation trolling. Nice high ground.
I can't think of a time you've actually responded to anything really. Its all empty variations of "I am a straight white male and this is not discrimination."
At least Triewd posts content that (imo) is wrong. It can be engaged with. You just make these statements and repeat them.
I am responding here to try to avoid derailing the other thread. The reason I was a little taken aback by your response is that it seems to so sharply and directly contradict the stance you took on the Confederate flag issue. Specifically, it seemed obvious (to me) that the Confederate flag was a:
but you had no problem ignoring that fact and using it, specifically intending to offend... But then you claim that if something:
Do you see/understand my confusion? Anyway, I had to think about it for a while, because it seemed like such a blatant contradiction that I thought that clearly I must be missing something... So after thinking about it, I thought that maybe the distinction for you might be one of two things:
1. You recognize that the Confederate Flag has been used to degrade, oppress and dehumanise blacks and therefore, you recognize that it is offensive, but you feel strongly that just because something is offensive and has been used degrade, oppress and dehumanise, that doesn't justify removing from the public sphere or seeking to limit its use or display... Those who are offended need to just learn to get over it.
Or;
2. You genuinely don't think (or didn't know) that the Confederate flag has been used to degrade, oppress and dehumanise blacks and therefore, you don't recognize it as being offensive.
Is it one of those? Or something else that I missed? Anyway, that was the source of my confusion... I just didn't want to derail the other thread because an unusually focused, robust discussion is going on over there and I personally find it a little bizzare when the OP derails their own thread.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Sommerswerd, he has already clearly stated that he wrapped himself in that turd flag with the specific intention of offending people by the group full. The fact that it would likely offend other groups as well was of no particular concern to him, because as he has also stated he is not motivated in the least by avoidance of giving offense. Now he's just crying the blues because not everyone who he offended took the high road of not commenting on the stench. He expected everyone else to follow the modern "be polite in the face of rude behavior" theory, but I dropped a turd in his punchbowl.
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,404
Punctuation trolling? When? I don't even know what that IS.
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,404
Pretty much number 1. While I can recognise how and why certain things can be offensive, I just don't think the right to not be offended trumps the right to free expression. Sure, it someone is actually being harassed and bullied or targeted in some other measurable way then that's one thing, but if they're just passively taking offense at something that they can easily avoid and aren't directly suffering as a result of it then to me that falls under the category of something I would expect a mature, adult human to be able to cope with without crying out for sanctions. And I really think it's the state's place to step in. There should be (and already are) laws to deal with aggressive and harassing ACTIONS or situations where something tangibly bad is going on, but I don't think policing should go down to the level of thoughts and feelings and simply expressing opinions, even if they are generally held to be objectionable opinions.
And that would be how I would feel even if the Confederate Flag was exclusively a sign or racial oppression and nothing more. But I really don't believe it is (I don't think you can reasonably deny it is also tied to a sense of identity and even "nationality" if you like) and so I have a further objection against leaping to conclusions and attacking (even if only verbally or metaphorically) anyone who flies the flag, when you have no idea what's behind their choice.
Another issue I had with it is that it entirely smokescreened the real issue. This entire thread became an endless debate about a piece of cloth and a discussion of a war 150 years ago, instead of actual racism in the here and now. I just don't see what good anyone can really think forcing a piece of cloth to be taken down is going to do. I can only see if flaming negative consequences myself.
But the last two paragraphs are really just an aside to your question. The basic answer is that number 1 is essentially my stance. So I don't think there's really anything contradictory in what I said. I can recognise when things are, or can be, offensive. I just think people are rapidly losing the important skill of being able to TAKE offense without going into a hyperbolic meltdown.
OR you can take Tim's fecal-filled nonsense summary of what he thinks I think if you like, but frankly I think he's just coming across as a bit stupid and imperceptive now. In fact it's blinkered and self-righteous attitudes like that which I think are 90% of the problem here.
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,404
Also, who smells of bullsheet now? If you're so convinced that that's my stance then presumably you'll have no problem pulling up a quote of me stating that I put precisely zero weight into that factor? No?
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Only, again, it is not the Confederate flag and it never was. It is the Confederate battle flag. The number of people who owned one rose spectacularly, and was even displayed at Southern state capitols, directly after the attempts to desegregate the South and give blacks civil rights commenced. If they really wanted to honor their supposed identity and traitorous nationalism, the least they should do is to display the proper symbols. After all, the war is supposedly over...
It is clearly the designated symbol of that continuing racism. It is also clear that racism is more pervasive in the South because so many people are still fighting the Civil War even today.
But it is no surprise that it was discussed long after the shooting itself because it is so contentious. Not to mention it didn't "smokescreen" anything.
At least we agree on that. And so much about how your posts are so transparent to everybody but me.
Doesn't this argument go both ways though? Ie that if one argues that the flag there has to be tied to the battles/war (while currently it has lost that connotation for most people, and is tied to the state getting independent in the South), wouldn't the actual war surely make slavery a secondary issue while the actual war rages on?
By which i mean: i am sure that far more 'white' people died during the actual war, than black people, so if one goes by the 'this is just the battle flag, battle-centered' etc, then slavery is in that context not the prominent event, surely?
(noting again that i definitely do not wish to be part of fighting here. It is not my issue at all. I am merely noting some - to my view - logical inconsistencies in the debate, which i suppose are even worse in the media...)
Are you saying that you want your comments to be read, but not responded to? Or just that you don't want your comments disagreed with?
I ask for clarification, because you are wrong (again) but I won't bother explaining, if you are talking the position that you don't want to be disagreed with because "It is not [your] issue"
As you know i don't mind being disagreed with, but i indeed do not aim to appear antagonistic and get to cause animosity. I obviously can accept fully that for you more clearly this issue is far more charged than for myself (i mean - to a degree, and in a different manner- the same is true for me in the greek debt thread(s) ).
So of course you can disagree and post it if you feel like it. I merely want to note that i am not at all posting either out of an agenda to be antagonistic, nor out of some trolling attitude re the very serious issue of slavery or other anti-black sentiments the flag can be tied to, but the point from myself is that maybe it is not 'correct' that the confederate flag is just racist-tied and so is to be shamed and banned.
(ps, you know that i always have a positive view of you, from our discussions in the forum on other matters anyway).
Similar threads
