No European is decent.
Or do you mean "descent"?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
MTV targets white males
- Thread starter MD
- Start date
Or do you mean "descent"?
That's the one lol.
At times like this, I'm relieved to be an angry yellow male.
After trump winning I want to be pro feminists cause his winning is evidence of a problem to me. Where as before I was more skeptical there was a problem.NPR was going on about us today.
It seems that the cause of Trump winning is white males, those angry ones.
And our anger is linked to increased violence against all sorts of protected groups they say.
(Although NPR doesn't mention that many of these 'victims' eventually admitted lying about the assault.)
Apparently, what characterizes white males (non-Democrats) is "anger".
First Nation aboriginal Americans are "noble".
Black folk are "endangered", but have a "rich culture".
Women (of all races) are "powerful".
Asians are "hard working".
And Canuckistanians are "nice".
But we're only "angry".....or "privileged"....or sometimes "deporable".
In discussions today & before, I've found that a great many women voted for Trump.
Some are even angry at the prospect of the Clintons' entitlement to the White House.
But it's odd that NPR & other liberal news media continually make it only about
being white, male & angry.
Why?
It's a way to delegitimize our us & our reasons for voting for Trump & against Hillary.
Our voting differently from them is wrong....an unforgivable personal failure on our part.
Yet millions of women who voted for him are ignored.....it wouldn't be PC to blame them.
This is clearly racism & sexism fueled propaganda...desperately trying to blame someone
other than Hillary for what is simply her personal failure to inspire voters.
Now, after that wall of text, I have a picture.....
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Same.
I too will watch him, but with a broader civil liberties agenda.
tytlyf
Not Religious
Now, after that wall of text, I have a picture.....
Pure propaganda. I noticed the usual CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS line.....let's not forget Benghazi, email server, foreign donations, clinton foundation, bimbo eruptions, etc.
But you don't care, you believe it all. I wouldn't get information from limitgov.org. Fake news is a problem.
Oh, I love their co-conspirators. www.obamazone.org, lmao
Gotta scare em first....even though it's 3 years old.
Last edited:
That's not propaganda.
It's "propuphillary"!
Oeste
Well-Known Member
What people do you believe “wonder”? Are you referring to people that voted for Trump? Shouldn’t they already know?
How? The pubs targeted this large voting block also. If I’m not mistaken, most political parties do.
Aaah…So if Hillary had stated that Trump couldn’t get a fair shake in court because his judge was Mexican, she might have won this voting block also?
Or perhaps she should have peered into the crowd and asked: “Where’s my Mexican?” like Trump did with the sole Afro-American standing in the crowd?
Also, could you explain why it’s wise for Dems to stay clear of “identity” politics when it worked so well for Trump? Should Dems have been quicker to express disappointment when they failed to earn David Duke’s endorsement?
Your analysis is seriously flawed. The Dems lost the national election when they failed to target certain counties, not voting blocs. These counties voted for the candidate they thought would target money into their pocketbooks, not words into their “identity”. Trump promised to get their factories rolling just like Obama did. Hillary did not.
If it was simply a matter of “voting blocs” then the Dems tactics were sound, witnessed by a 2 and a half million plus voting count. I think it’s pretty clear Trump won despite his stupid bigotries and misogynic rhetoric and not because of them. I think some people claiming new “identity politics” are forgetting that the same counties that voted Trump this year voted Obama 4 years before.
As Clinton and Carville stated before, “It’s the economy, stupid”. I agree.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
Most certainly! The effects of racism in American society are well known, including increased poverty, crime and violence.
I understood perfectly what Fantome meant by “a lot of people”. As far as “identifying” them there is no need to…they identify themselves. ;-)
Spin? Murder is still illegal in this country Acim. It’s the law, not “spin”.
Idea? What country are you from Acim? It can’t be the USA, otherwise I’m sure you would have at least a passing familiarity with the following judicial decisions:
1. Dred Scott v. Sandford
2. Pace v. Alabama
3. Plessy v. Ferguson
4. Lum v. Rice
5. Hirabayashi v. United States
These decisions were not just “spin” or “ideas”, Mr. Acim. They were actual, implemented, racist court decisions that have affect America from the date of decision up until our present time.
Well, as I stated before, these folks have a habit of self-identifying themselves so I really see no need to do that for them.
Are you serious? You cannot be “fully compliant” if an officer is racist. Even complying with an officer’s request will be deemed “non-compliant” because the racist construes each action through a lens of fear, bigotry, or hatred. This one appears to be a mixture of the first two:
This one, I just don’t know. In fact, the officer apparently has no idea why he shot him either:
What we do know is that the town immediately placed this twice decorated “Officer of the Month”, SWAT team member on paid
Yes, some became upset when they heard the officer would receive extra paid leave for “doing his job”. After all, these are tax dollars. But the thing to remember is that paid leave is not an “award” police get for shooting someone – in most communities it’s simply “standard practice”.
I think the folks in East L.A. should be able to “act the fool” without fears of being shot just like the folks in Mayberry. If the officer is “harsh and ready with hand on gun” simply for the crime of acting foolish, said officer should be retrained or removed. I never knew that “context of scene” matters. It sounds suspiciously like your advocating two separate justice systems…one for Mayberry and another for Los Angeles.
If the police office thinks that a black person is in unlawful compliance with the law simply for walking down the street with “swaggered demeanor” then yes, we should blame the inherently racist criminal justice that makes it a crime for black people to walk with a “swaggered demeanor”.
But instead of calling this “swaggered demeanor”, shouldn’t we refer to this by its more common name, “uppity”?
Uppity (swaggered demeanor) blacks have been lynched throughout American history for their failure to show “proper deference” to the white, controlling community at large. They were caught, dragged, and lynched without a trial, and sometimes the whole community would chip in on the whole illegal act:
Those who advocated for blacks were called “agitators” back then. I think they’re called “social justice warriors” now. And no, there’s no need to “identify” who the racists, agitators, victims, liberals or conservatives are. Like the posters on this forum, and the people in the photo, they tend to self-identify.
I have no idea what point you were trying to make with this Acim, so I’ll leave you to explain it.
As to how some “non-police” tried to handle the situation, take a look at the video. These scenes have been playing out in the streets of America for centuries. The only thing different is that there was no video to record them.
“Street cred” is simply respect and acceptability. Citizens walking the streets of Mayberry should be accorded as much “street cred” as are citizens walking L.A. If an officer thinks he has to bash heads in order to establish “street cred” with fellow officers or citizens, he/she should be removed from the streets of L.A. just as quickly as if they were working the streets of Mayberry. Do you agree?
We pay officers to patrol our streets, enforce our laws, and fight crime. But if we're going to deliver this based on “context of scene” and “swaggered demeanor” all I can say is that you envision an American justice system radically different from mine.
I hope that explains it and hope you get to enjoy your chuckle.
So, are you confirming the idea that some black people are racist toward other black people?
In what way do they identify themselves? I ask, cause again, I am currently not in contact with anyone that identifies themselves with the claim that black lives do not matter.
Definitely spin. Just look at how you started this response. If I say there are some black people murdering other black people, with the possibility that they are people we may identify as thinking (some) black lives do not matter, you'd spin this as apparently not murder, but the effects of crime and poverty in a (racist) American society. So, not murder plain and simple, but mitigating factors that would downplay the act of murder and pin it on something else. I'm thinking that you're thinking that technically this wouldn't be murder, and I would see that as spin.
Likewise, if a police officer shoots and armed black male where, based on the overall community, there is dispute as to whether or not the black male was approaching the officer, while the officer claims he instructed the black male to stop and drop, that you'd spin this as murder, not an act of self defense by the officer. At any rate, in many of these cases, the judicial system has determined it was not legally murder but was killing in self defense, hence the spin (by you).
Yep, given what you wrote that follows, I stand by the word "idea."
This kind of rhetoric would work for anything.
Leprechauns exist.
How do we know this?
Because there are a lot of them, and because they self identify as such.
Really? Can you show me one?
I see no reason to do that since they have a habit of self-identifying themselves.
But there would be no way to identify this officer as racist until after the idea is put into action. Do you know of another way? In the example of the video, I don't see the shooting as justified, but also haven't walked a mile in the officer's shoes. I don't automatically see it as racist, but understand the spin would be that it can't be seen any other way.
Neither do I. Hard to see from what the video shows, and what it doesn't show. Again, seems like unjustified shooting, and also hard to get sense of racism at work here.
I'm not advocating it, I'm saying it already exists, based on context, not strictly on location. Acting foolish was meant to reference being armed and brandishing weapon in show of force for street cred, not for something else that you're vaguely representing. In the hypothetical Mayberry, I think you're unlikely to see something like that ever occur. In East L.A., I could see it being a weekly event, if not more often, and that officers are not likely to overreact in most cases. In the one where they do react, it could certainly appear like an overreaction. I grant that, and pretty sure most of society would grant that it appeared this way.
And I disagree. I think most people are likely to engage in full compliance and realize that even full compliance can be dangerous, but rationalize it as their best chance for exiting the scene alive/not hurt.
I like swaggered demeanor better. I've been in that position, being the person with swaggered demeanor. When I did (unarmed), I saw the confronting officers immediately grab for their guns in which case I immediately changed my tone. Internally, I was fuming, but realized if I continued to act out, I would be seen as viable danger to them. But given the context thing I referenced earlier, they also backed down a bit. Didn't go easy on me per se, but I didn't get shot at either.
Wow, I never realized this had ever occurred in American history. Thanks for cluing me in. I'm sure with enough spin, it is highly relevant to today's law enforcement. Comparing apples to apples, right?
Do the liberals ever self identify their inherent prejudices, in your view? Do the fellow blacks self identify their inherent prejudices toward other black people, in your view? In my view, they do, but it takes some discernment to call it out. I've noticed when it is called out, it is spun differently than if self identified conservative engages in virtually the same exact behavior/wording.
I do not agree. Street cred is not universal, and not something that naivete can grasp. Naivete could get lucky, but it could get hurt if acting naive. In Mayberry, anyone could likely go to barber/beauty shop, leave the windows of their car down and come out to a car where nothing has changed, because all people passing by had no reason to touch the vehicle that was not theirs. In another area, where street cred matters, windows down would be an invitation to some people passing by to at least check out if there is anything just begging to be taken from inside the vehicle. Street cred may ask certain individuals, coming up the ranks, to steal that vehicle, bring it to a base so it can be stripped down and parts can be sold on an underground market. To ensure the owner of that vehicle is a non-factor, a point person could wait for when that person exits the local business and let them know how stupid it was to leave their car unattended and make them feel lucky for getting out of the neighborhood with just having their car taken away. It would be best, for them, if they didn't report this, and to realize local law enforcement won't be able to do anything anyway. If an officer happens to pull up while the car owner is talking to local, the local might seek to control the situation, letting the officer know they were just talking, letting the owner (and officer) know he's in charge of the situation. How this plays out in all possible scenarios, hard to say, but street cred, to me is the opposite of what a naive person has in certain neighborhoods in America.
So, say you, who are not naive witnessed the whole thing, and there is no police officer around. How do you handle it? Do you do nothing, realizing the person was naive to ride into the area and leave their windows down? Do you approach the individuals involved in (obvious) crime and confront them? If yes, please explain what that looks like. If not, is it because there is sense of intimidation at work perceived by you from them?
I would note that nowhere in this final reply to the last quote did I mention race, nor do I think he needs to come up, but it certainly could be a perceived factor (for all involved, though for the naive person perhaps less so).
Oeste
Well-Known Member
Of course, some blacks have been racist towards other blacks, but this racism was encouraged, propagated, and orchestrated by racist societies. In the former apartheid society of white South Africa, “light” skinned blacks were accorded certain privileges not available to “dark” skinned blacks. It was repugnant, but I’m sure there were light skinned blacks who took advantage of these artificial distinctions.
The same was true in America. Distinctions arose among American blacks depending on skin tone. The difference is that in apartheid S.A. there were rigid, legal, racial distinctions amongst blacks and Indians whereas in America distinctions amongst blacks was largely cultural. White Americans tended to throw Afro-Americans into one large pot, although distinctions were sometimes made on Southern plantations. So while light skinned blacks could serve in the master’s house, a white, black, mulatto, and Indian drinking fountain system never developed. It was white and colored only. American Indians were considered non-white, so they had to drink at the colored fountain too.
These attitudes did not disappear with the freeing of slaves. Attitudes centuries in the making can take just as long to disperse.
They self-identify.
I am not in personal contact with anyone who claims “black lives do not matter” either. When Dylan Roof walked into the Emanuel African Methodist Church in Charlestown, prayed with the black parishioners and then pulled out his gun and shot them as they sat in the pews, not once did he shout or claim “black lives do not matter” but he sure as hell acted like it. In other words, he self-identified.
I see the above as nothing more than a conversation we never had that you developed in your mind.
I would say this is a continuation of an imagined conversation we’re not having, so it's a spin on words we've never had. Yes, I understand what you're trying to say Acim, but my response is "I'm not saying that".
It's much like someone chanting “Coloreds should have nice drinking fountains!" and someone hearing “Only Coloreds should have nice drinking fountains” even though no one in the crowd said “Only”. They then respond with "Everyone should have nice drinking fountains!", and simply go back to their everyday activities which is exactly what "separate but equal" was designed to do!
What point is there in a discussion if we're going to typecast each other into neat little boxes and construct entire conversations for each other, replete with ideology?
It's late, just after midnight where I am and I'll continue this in another post...
Right back at you.
Who is this someone? Or is this another conversation in your mind that we are not having. Kinda like the MTV thing.
Agreed.
To me, the 'problem' is prejudice and allowing it to exist. I see no way around it, and have either never or very infrequently not seen it in a fellow human. In this type of discussion, it has to be allowed for certain points to be said, aloud. Like when you said, "white americans tended to throw Afro-Americans into one large pot" - that would be prejudicial commentary, that if not allowed makes for "what is the point of the discussion?" What the MTV vid was trying to address was racism via prejudism, thinking it poignant and okay to ruffle feathers. Didn't work out so well.
I also find it very rare that a person rises (or lowers) to the actual level of racist. Calling all such prejudicial commentary racism/racist has devalued the meaning of actual racism.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
Glad you agree.
It's exactly who I stated it was....someone. Why do you feel the need to identify this person when any person that shouts it would immediately identify himself?
Did I say it was you?
Is English your first language? If not, it' no biggy, I just won't be so particular with how you phrase things.
But the difference is that I used "someone" whereas you told me exactly what I would say when I never said it. Here it is for you again:
The problem Mr. Acim is that you didn't say how "liberals" might spin this, you didn't say how "conservatives" might spin this, you didn't say how "whites" or "blacks" might spin this, you specifically told me how "I" would "spin" this! You put words in my mouth I never spoke, and rather than let me identify my own position, you decided to do it for me and label it "spin". Then you did it again!:
Not once have I put words in your mouth Acim. I've been very careful to let you articulate and identify your own position. Why can't you afford me the same courtesy?
I was comparing South African apartheid with Jim Crow South. Did you not read what I wrote? I specifically stated that in South Africa you had a legal separation of blacks based on skin tone whereas in the Jim Crow south whites dumped blacks into one large pot called "colored".
This was not "prejudicial commentary" Mr. Acim, it was a simple reiteration of fact. Do you understand the difference?
Again, there could be a language barrier here, and perhaps this is impeding you from understanding me and me from understanding you. If there is, just let me know. Like I said, it's no biggy and we can move on more to the thoughts behind your commentary rather than simply the words.
Then apparently you've never seen a mother lower herself into a seat only to rise again because a white person has boarded the bus.
The meaning doesn't get devalued Mr. Acim, but people? I can assure you, they do.