*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[BananaStand]

i thought it was clear that kaepernick had one of the worst seasons of any quarterback before nobody picked him back up. i dont follow it much anymore

Not even close. He played in 12 games in 2016 and had a passer rating of 90.7. That puts him 26th among all quarterbacks that year (there are 32 total teams). Also, that ranking is kinda bogus. #3 on the list is Chase Daniel who only threw one pass all year. It was a completion, so his QB rating is really high because his completion percentage is 100%. If I throw out all the QB's who started less than half the season in 2016, then Kaepernick ranks somewhere in the high-teens. Very much middle-of-the-road.

So if each team has carries 2 or 3 quarterbacks, then there are probably 70-90 in the whole league, and Kaepernick ranks in the top 20. It really shouldn't be in doubt whether or not he's good enough to play. He clearly has the ability to be average.

But if you're average, it means there are a ton of other guys out there just like you. Any other QB is more or less just as good as you are. So if a team can get an average QB without all the activism and nonsense, they will. And they should. But when other activists parse the narrative to their liking, all the public hears is "QB jobless cuz of activism". And the response is "but free speech tho!"

Kaepernick seems to think he deserves a job because he's just as good as anyone else out there. But because of the headaches that he brings (which he created himself) he now has to demonstrate some kind of advanced talent. He has to make his value worth the additional headaches. And he hasn't done that. So when an NFL owner has to choose between Kaepernick and the noise he brings, or some other forgettable average knucklehead who can deliver the same on-field performance, then they choose the average knucklehead. So CK remains unemployed.

i dont follow it much anymore

I thought we were the same person! What have I been watching!!??

[boost]

Now the owners are realizing there's value in preventing the fallout from leaving a quarterback jobless in a way that can easily be, and will be read as punishment for the player choosing to speak up about a social issue.

The league really screwed this up, and their actions show that they realize it now. They should have made sure CK kept a job, so long as the attention was on, yet come out strong with superficial patriotism and even stronger with statements on the value of the first amendment. "We wish he wouldn't take a knee, but we are glad we live in a country where our brave sons and daughters have fought to give him that right."

Boom, NFL is a hero to all.

[BananaStand]

Now the owners are realizing there's value in preventing the fallout from leaving a quarterback jobless in a way that can easily be, and will be read as punishment for the player choosing to speak up about a social issue.

I realize there is still some debate about this. But the 'reading' of the situation should be obvious. CK would have a job if we wasn't an activist. His unemployment is a direct result of his decision to mix his personal beliefs with his professional responsibilities.

HE made that decision. HE committed those acts. And now he is a victim because his actions have consequences?? That is some serious snowflake bullshit.

What blows my mind, is that there are people that think that this is somehow morally objectionable. Try it at your job. Stand up in the cafeteria, raise your fist, and say "black power". Maybe leave some anti-abortion pamphlets in the break room. Show your support for cops by hanging one of those blue-stripe flags in your cubicle. I promise you that your boss wont' like it, and will put a stop to it in order to prevent a disruptive distraction in the workplace.

Why do NFL owners not have the same right? I admit its anecdotal evidence, but the Steelers loss demonstrated to me that this is a distraction. It results in a lack of focus. And that hurts the on-field product. Shouldn't the team be allowed to manage its personnel in a way that best benefits its stakeholders?

The league really screwed this up, and their actions show that they realize it now

When you say "the league" are you talking about the NFL itself, the corporate entity that oversees the management of the sport? Or is the "league" referring to a general collective all 32 teams?

They should have made sure CK kept a job,

Who should have?

so long as the attention was on, yet come out strong with superficial patriotism and even stronger with statements on the value of the first amendment. "We wish he wouldn't take a knee, but we are glad we live in a country where our brave sons and daughters have fought to give him that right."

Boom, NFL is a hero to all.

Ummmm.....hello? That's what they did the entire time CK was in the league doing this stuff. This has been going on for over a year. The big dust up this week is because Trump opened his mouth about it.

This is actually getting funny now. All I heard the last five days was massive outrage at Trump. When he says "fire the people who don't agree with my beliefs" it's called Orwellian and unconstitutional. Boost's latest post however just argues the inverse. Teams should be forced to HIRE someone just to demonstrate political sympathy? How's that not Orwellian or unconstitutional?

CK's actions offended the vast vast vast majority of the team's paying customers. And you're saying it's an injustice that he's jobless??

[BananaStand]

If you need yet another illustration of the hypocrisy on the left....

On one hand the left says.......
"Colin Kaepernick shouldn't lose his job for exercising his first amendment rights! UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!"

On the other hand the left says....
"A woman exercising her second amendment rights at work?? Nah, we hate guns. Fuck the constitution. Corporate rules apply here. Good luck with your Gofundme page bitch"

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/26...y-suspect.html



Imagine this scenario...
Imagine CK is a white guy who heavily sympathizes with pro-life causes. And instead of taking a knee during the anthem to protest America's treatment of minorities, he instead holds his arms and sways as if he is cradling a baby.

What do you think the media narrative would be then? What would be the NFL's reaction then?

[OngBonga]

His unemployment is a direct result of his decision to mix his personal beliefs with his professional responsibilities. HE made that decision. HE committed those acts. And now he is a victim because his actions have consequences?? That is some serious snowflake bullshit.

Yep.

If you're going to act unprofessionally in this manner, then either your cause needs to have an awful lot of public support (a very clear majority), or you need to be fucking world class so no team dares drop you.

I wouldn't employ him, not unless he was clearly the best player in his position I could realistically sign.

[wufwugy]

Trump preparing executive order to allow across state lines sale of health insurance.

Fucking yes. To fix healthcare, this is needed. Big time. Granted, the EO probably won't work technically but it could lead to real action by states and Congress. The EO helps box scum politicians in so that they have to do the right thing instead of what they normally do.

[wufwugy]

Barry's brother makes thought-provoking points.

[wufwugy]

Can't Critique The Malik!

[wufwugy]

[boost]

Ummm.. BananaStand, you read a whole lot into my post that absolutely was not there.

I guess I wasn't completely clear, but this being a poker forum, I thought the fact that I was critiquing their play, not their morals would be picked up on. I'm fairly agnostic on whether CK deserved to lose his job over this, whether or not he did lose his job over this (I don't follow football closely, and I'm not sure who to believe regarding his skills), whether it's morally objectionable to fire a player for this sort of protest, etc.

What I do know is that it appears they did fire him for it, and there are now a whole host of players taking a knee, who are almost certainly less valuable to their given teams than CK was, and who are not going to be fired over it. What gives?Whether they had the moral high ground in firing him-- whether he was being disrespectful or whether he was using his position to respectfully highlight a social issue that he finds important, the 49'ers appear to have made an example of him, and the other teams at least tacitly supported this move when they refused to open their club to CK. And the move backfired. Football is mired in a more divisive atmosphere now. Their apparent bluff was called, and now they're paying up.

Again, I'm fairly agnostic about the morality on all sides here-- but I think there's some strange doublethink going on in your post. As I understand it, you think that it is not morally objectionable for an employer to fire staff for not participating in patriotic pageantry. Therefore it follows, there is no issue with an employer forcing staff, by threat of termination, to perform overt patriotic gestures.

I don't want to misrepresent the facts on the ground, nor do I want to misrepresent your position here-- so please let me know where I made a leap.

[BananaStand]

I don't want to misrepresent the facts on the ground, nor do I want to misrepresent your position here-- so please let me know where I made a leap.

Your use of the word "fired" makes your whole post into an egregious misrepresentation of facts on the ground.

Colin Kaepernick HAD a contract with the 49ers for the 2016 and 2017 seasons, with 2017 being what's called a "player-option". That means that CK can decide at the start of the year whether or not he wants to play under that contract for that year.

In other words, if CK wanted to play this year, all he had to do was say "yes please"

CK exercised his player option, and opted out of his contract believing he could hit the open market and make more money from another team.

He grossly over-estimated his own value.

[BananaStand]

Again, I'm fairly agnostic about the morality on all sides here-- but I think there's some strange doublethink going on in your post.

Disagree

As I understand it, you think that it is not morally objectionable for an employer to fire staff for not participating in patriotic pageantry.

Some loaded language there, but yes. I think it's totally fine if an employer chooses to enforce consequences if one of its employees chooses to do something that offends the overwhelming majority of its paying customers. There are lots of jobs out there with rules and people who get fired for breaking those rules. Show up on time, wear steel toed boots, and for fucks sake..DON'T PISS OFF THE CUSTOMERS!

Therefore it follows, there is no issue with an employer forcing staff, by threat of termination, to perform overt patriotic gestures

Right

So where's the doublethink? Yes, a team can make its own rules about the anthem and it can punish players for not following the rules. I'm not even sure why that's ambiguous My comment regarding your post was in relation to this passage here:

The league really screwed this up, and their actions show that they realize it now. They should have made sure CK kept a job,

What you said here is that another entity, the league, should intervene and force a team to put CK on its roster. Yet the players are saying that it's not right for another entity, the president, to intervene and call for teams to fire players. That's double think

Again, boost, it seems your entire argument hinges on the idea that CK was somehow 'punished' by a team for his actions. He wasn't. He chose to become a free agent and test his value on the open market. And when he found that the market didn't want him, his average level of play, his inability to perform in a pro-style offense, and the media headaches that he brings with him.......then folks cried "racist conspiracy!"

[BananaStand]

Did you know that Dr Seuss books are racist now?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...as-racist.html

But only if a white person is reading them

[Savy]

Did you know that Dr Seuss books are racist now?

Teh funny thing is they only got recognition because someone important said so. They are basically utter shit. So it isn't that they are racist (which they may be) it's just they are shit.

[wufwugy]

[BananaStand]

Dr. Suess update....

LIBRARY BITCH BUSTED!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/29...at-in-hat.html



I really hope we start to see more of these hypocrisies exposed.

[wufwugy]

Cultural gaslighting is crazy stuff.

[BananaStand]

If you wear shoes....you're a racist.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/06...niversity.html

[OngBonga]

If you wear shoes....you're a racist.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/06...niversity.html

Um not really. I think it's closer to... if you hang a shoelace that looks like a noose from a black person's door, it might be inccorectly perceived as racist.

This is a non-story that shouldn't even make the local papers, let alone make it across the Atlantic for my digestion.

[wufwugy]

Looks like indictments into the Clinton cartel may come sooner than I expected. The Democrat-media complex is finally catching on to what the whispers from Trump insiders have been saying for months: that Mueller has been investigating the cartel under the guise of investigating the fabricated Trump stuff. Now that some things have come to light about the Clinton cartel and Mueller looking into them, the Democrat-media complex has swiftly turned on a dime regarding Mueller, from loving him to calling for his resignation.

[CoccoBill]

Looks like indictments into the Clinton cartel may come sooner than I expected. The Democrat-media complex is finally catching on to what the whispers from Trump insiders have been saying for months: that Mueller has been investigating the cartel under the guise of investigating the fabricated Trump stuff. Now that some things have come to light about the Clinton cartel and Mueller looking into them, the Democrat-media complex has swiftly turned on a dime regarding Mueller, from loving him to calling for his resignation.

Case study on how orange spectacles may impair vision.

[wufwugy]

Case study on how orange spectacles may impair vision.

(1) Yep. I have to frequently bed down my enthusiasm that justice might prevail.

(2) Even so, so far we are on track: http://archive.is/SasEd

[boost]

Looks like indictments into the Clinton cartel may come sooner than I expected. The Democrat-media complex is finally catching on to what the whispers from Trump insiders have been saying for months: that Mueller has been investigating the cartel under the guise of investigating the fabricated Trump stuff. Now that some things have come to light about the Clinton cartel and Mueller looking into them, the Democrat-media complex has swiftly turned on a dime regarding Mueller, from loving him to calling for his resignation.

Sup bro?

[wufwugy]

Sup bro?

What specifically?

[boost]

What specifically?

That was like a year ago. Where's the Clinton indictments? I thought Mueller was low key gunnin for the "Clinton Cartel" and indictments were right around the corner. Dems wanted Mueller to resign(who? when? source?) What happened, bro?

[a500lbgorilla]

Wuf, I'll bet Mueller is hot on the heels of Manafort well over Clinton for claim over your avatar.

You game?

[wufwugy]

I also think the announced indictment could be Manafort. Also could be Comey or a Podesta. Also could be nothing. There are solid reasons to believe any of these.

I don't know what's going on. The "official story" does not make sense. It isn't going to be the case that the day after Trump interviews a man for FBI position, Trump's AG hires him to go after Trump.

[wufwugy]

It should be noted that indicting Manafort would not necessarily mean that Mueller is going after Trump. Manafort's relevant ties to this are not with Trump.

[BananaStand]

I kinda took my finger off the pulse for a while, but checked back in when I saw this stuff on Manafort.

Help me catch up now, and tell me if I have this right...

1) Manafort is going down for laundering money he made as a pro-Putin political consultant in Ukraine, and thus far is not charged with any crime related to the Trump campaign.

2) A low low low low low level staffer in the Trump campaign (Popadopolous) may have had some low low low low low level Russian contacts who claimed to have "dirt" on Hillary. They were offering this dirt in order to leverage a meeting with Trump. Trump declined. He never made any contacts, he never went to a meeting, and he certainly didn't accept any Russian-sourced dirt on the opposition

3) At the same time, the Hillary campaign went out and actually PAID for Russian-sourced dirt on the opposition.

4) Donna Brazille confirms what we all pretty much know by now, and that is that Hillary colluded with the DNC to box-out Bernie.

5) And the democrats still think that Trump is not legitimately in office....cuz Russia and cuz collusion.

Do I have that about right?

If anyone thinks that Trump doesn't skate to a re-election win in 2020, then I want you to share whatever you're smoking with me.

[CoccoBill]

1) That's my understanding.
2) If you take out at least most of the "lows", yeah. Obviously his part in the campaign is now downplayed and he's being distanced from Trump.
3) If by "actually PAID for Russian-sourced" you mean paid a brit to investigate, and by "dirt" you mean evidence of foul play during the campaign, yes.
4) Apparently Hillary bailed the DNC from their financial debt and the allegation is that she expected the nomination as payment. All of this was known already at the time and criticized by Bernie's supporters, nothing really new from Brazile. Also the timeline of the events is a bit muddy, most of this likely happened after her nomination was a done deal anyway.
5) Yeah. Let's just wait for Mueller to finish his job.

[BananaStand]

1) That's my understanding.

2) If you take out at least most of the "lows", yeah. Obviously his part in the campaign is now downplayed and he's being distanced from Trump.

Well, how not-low could he really have been? He graduated college in 2009 and he still had "Model UN" listed as an accomplishment on his resume.

3) If by "actually PAID for Russian-sourced" you mean paid a brit to investigate,

I feel like you're leaving out a lot of details here....

and by "dirt" you mean evidence of foul play during the campaign, yes.

What foul play? By whom? And no that's not what I meant by "dirt". I was referring to russian-sourced garbage about Trump being a pee-freak.

4) Apparently Hillary bailed the DNC from their financial debt and the allegation is that she expected the nomination as payment. All of this was known already at the time and criticized by Bernie's supporters, nothing really new from Brazile. Also the timeline of the events is a bit muddy, most of this likely happened after her nomination was a done deal anyway.

So.....just because the purpose of the collusion was to bring about a result that was likely to happen anyway, then the collusion is ok? Is that what you're saying?

5) Yeah. Let's just wait for Mueller to finish his job.

I don't think Mueller is there to finish a job. I think he's there to create one. And thus far, he hasn't been able to. The holy grail of this investigation, for the dems at least, is to indict Trump for colluding with a foreign government to influence an election. Specifically, they have to tie the Podesta hack directly to Trump. We've waited over a year now, through an age of unprecedented government leaks, and not a shred of information to that effect has surfaced.

Question: What will it take for the dems to say "well shit, I guess he won fair and square"

As long as that questions remains unanswered...Mueller's job is never finished

[wufwugy]

You can tell what the media-Democrat conglomerate believes Mueller is doing based on how they react. The script has changed significantly. I don't know what Trump's employee Mueller will ultimately overturn, but the media-Democrat conglomerate is acting scared.

[BananaStand]

Looks like someone is calling attention to the deplorable hypocrisy of Trump tweet's asking for the death penalty for the NYC truck-rampage terrorist. After all, Trump wasn't calling for the death penalty when a white american man killed 5 dozen people in Las Vegas.

That's obvious undeniable racism right? How can Trump demand the execution of muslim who killed 8, but not the execution of a white man who killed 58?

I wonder if it matters to the democrats if the white man is already dead? Doesn't seem so. Apparently they think Trump should be calling for his execution anyway.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...s-shooter.html

[Poopadoop]

It's hard to argue from hypotheticals, but I'm guessing that if the Vegas shooter were alive and still white, Trump still wouldn't be ranting about giving him the death penalty. Just a guess.

Overall though, certainly hard to pin Trump to any racist leanings. Oh wait, actually it is really easy as long as you don't run out of fingers to count the times on.

[BananaStand]

It's hard to argue from hypotheticals, but I'm guessing that if the Vegas shooter were alive and still white, Trump still wouldn't be ranting about giving him the death penalty. Just a guess.

Utter nonsense.

Overall though, certainly hard to pin Trump to any racist leanings. Oh wait, actually it is really easy as long as you don't run out of fingers to count the times on.

That depends on what your definition of "racist leanings" is.

Are we sticking to the traditional, fact-based, dictionary definition of racism? Or are we using the current 2017 standard where I was called an oppressor because my fair-skinned, blond-haired daughter dressed up as Elsa for Halloween and promoted a stereotypical white standard of beauty?

Huge difference.

[Poopadoop]

The fact that some people are hysterical SJWs doesn't change any of the things Trump has said (or failed to say). We all know what they are.

I also find your anecdote somewhat dubious...

[BananaStand]

I also find your anecdote somewhat dubious...

My kid was Elsa for Halloween. That day I read more than one article online about 'racist' halloween costumes. Elsa was prominently mentioned. Apparently it's a white privilege to be able to dress up as a white person.

[wufwugy]

Overall though, certainly hard to pin Trump to any racist leanings. Oh wait, actually it is really easy as long as you don't run out of fingers to count the times on.

Find one example.

[Poopadoop]

Find one example.

lol, there's like more than a dozen.

Let's start with his reluctance to disavow David Duke's support and go from there.

[wufwugy]

Thank you for bringing that up. Claiming that you don't know a guy (that is considered a racist) or what he is up to so you don't won't opine or disavow is not racism.

Find me an actual example of racism.

Here's the trick, and the reason I am asking you: I already know the answer. You can't find Trump saying a racist thing. This is a media lie that I once believed. I don't like believing lies. I'm sure you don't either.

[Poopadoop]

Thank you for bringing that up. Claiming that you don't know a guy (that is considered a racist) or what he is up to so you don't won't opine or disavow is not racism.

Find me an actual example of racism.

Here's the trick, and the reason I am asking you: I already know the answer. You can't find Trump saying a racist thing. This is a media lie that I once believed. I don't like believing lies. I'm sure you don't either.

You're splitting hairs. Everyone in the US knows who David Duke is unless they live in a cave in the wilderness. It's like saying you don't know who OJ is. Pretending you don't know Duke so you don't have to disavow him is tacitly condoning him and what he stands for.

He's had a similar problem disavowing Nazis and the KKK.

[wufwugy]

The question isn't what he intended to do. It's whether he did something racist. That, and the other things you alluded to, are not racist statements or actions.

I don't know how to read minds. I don't know what he thought. What I can meaningfully comment on is that from a strategic perspective, public disavowals of a particular group (even when it's the Nazis) is often a bad idea. Given that I have seen Trump play a particular strategy where it is very likely that he knows this, it makes sense that he would not opt to disavow any group publicly. I could go more into this strategy if you want (and explain the counterintuitive claim that even disavowing Nazis can easily backfire). Trump didn't do so hot on this when it was public, but it is pretty apparent that he at least knows the game and tries to play according to a strategy that includes not making public disavowals of people/groups when prompted by somebody else.

[Poopadoop]

You're choosing to argue it's all just a part of his 3D chess strategy but it's the same lame argument you use to defend a lot of his bad behavior, i.e., that the end justifies the means, and that he somehow knows what the end will be before he gets there.

But the morality of the situation is clear - if a white supremacist leader endorses you and you don't disavow them immediately then you're tacitly condoning their ethos. If that doesn't make you a racist it certainly makes you just as bad as one.

But if you want a more concrete example, then there's Trump referring to the hispanic beauty contest winner as 'Ms. Housekeeping'.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's the essence of entitlement to think you deserve something that other people don't deserve.

I hope no one is surprised to find out that politicians are entitled.

[wufwugy]

A glaring problem with the claim that these kinds of statements are racist is that not nearly enough information is had that would be required to determine if the accusations are probably racist.

The statements are not in themselves racist. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why somebody would say something that correlates with a race yet is not motivated by the race. Jumping to conclusions and assuming the reason comes from racist intent, well, who does that make the racist?

[MadMojoMonkey]

who does that make the racist?

It doesn't make person A a racist to assume Person B is a racist, unless person A thinks person B is a racist on the basis of person B's race.

Asserting Trump is racist based on the umpteenth seemingly-maybe-probably-at-least-a-bit-racist-but-also-maybe-just-tactless-elitism thing the President has said is not racist.

[wufwugy]

I agree that what people define as racist has gotten very far from what is actually racist.

In addition, I question racism-accusations since they have gotten so out of hand in popular culture that it seems they have molded into its own kind of racism.

[wufwugy]

I don't know if an overabundance of racism-accusations represents racism itself, but sometimes I wonder. To get to that point, a person has to kinda think like "blacks are like this, whites are like this, latinos are like this....", and the moment somebody does something that doesn't confirm to that person's views on race, it's racism. That looks to me like it could be a type of racism in itself.

[wufwugy]

^^That's true.

All popular press (all of it) only reports from one perspective. If you go to pro-Trump circles, you find people who think he is one of the most compassionate people in the country and they can back it up with evidence. It's just not evidence the popular press has ever mentioned.

[wufwugy]

I like how Fake News spent all day yesterday ridiculing Trump for stupidly dumping an ENTIRE BOX of food in the Koi pond, what a stupid loser. And then today corrections were made at the bottom of their articles that nobody reads, because people saw what actually happened: Shinzo Abe dumped his entire box just before Trump did.

It's to the point that if the popular press reports on something, believing the exact opposite will probably result in the truth more often than not.

[wufwugy]

Archive of a total hit piece.

http://archive.is/nNwJR

what actually happened:

https://i.imgur.com/NlByMeP.gifv

[MadMojoMonkey]

To get to that point, a person has to kinda think like "blacks are like this, whites are like this, latinos are like this....",

A person who thinks like that is a racist, wuf. It's the definition of racism to assign character traits to someone based on their race.

This reads like someone struggling to justify harboring racist thoughts as somehow a morally upright position.

and the moment somebody does something that doesn't confirm to that person's views on race, it's racism.

The person holding expectations of someone's behavior or personality on the basis of race is the racist. Whether they notice any inconsistency in their views is a totally different matter.

That looks to me like it could be a type of racism in itself.

You're much smarter than this.

Argumentative idiots who are self-righteous and looking for a target's buttons to push are not always racists. I mean, sure they could be, but not based on them being self-righteous idiots.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Judging someone for the choices they make is the opposite of judging someone you know nothing about, and the reason racism is illegal and hating is not.

[CoccoBill]

At this point it might make sense to clearly define racism. While there undeniably are varying "degrees" of racism, or rather more or less morally questionable stances, it does seem like some are thinking anything south of KKK = not racist. Personally Ithink MMM put it well, racism is a racial bias, treating someone differently just based on their race/ethnicity. These biases might be negative or positive, but they're still racism.

I'd also make a clear distinction between verifiable statistics and treating someone according to them. Let's say statistics clearly indicate (I have no idea if they do) that asian-americans excel in maths compared to some other groups. If that is the case, saying it out loud is a fact, not racism. However, treating an individual based on this statistical fact, whether preferentially or discriminately, is racism.

[BananaStand]

Ithink MMM put it well, racism is a racial bias, treating someone differently just based on their race/ethnicity. These biases might be negative or positive, but they're still racism.

When I'm president, I'm going to make it a law that all doors have to be automatic sliders, like the starship enterprise. I am so god damn fucking sick of holding doors for people, it's not even funny.

Until that happens (Vote Banana in 2032), I'm stuck with this ridiculous system we have in this country. Apparently people believe that opening a door more than once in a span of ten seconds makes babies get AIDS or something. But I'm fighting back....if you're more than 2 seconds away from the door, my policy is "fuck you, your arms work, I've got shit to do"

Except when it's a black person.

I give black people a few extra seconds, because I don't wanna let the door shut and have that person think I'm a racist.

Is that racist?

[Poopadoop]

When I'm president, I'm going to make it a law that all doors have to be automatic sliders, like the starship enterprise. I am so god damn fucking sick of holding doors for people, it's not even funny.

You need to find better things to care about imo.

....if you're more than 2 seconds away from the door, my policy is "fuck you, your arms work, I've got shit to do"

Except when it's a black person.

I give black people a few extra seconds, because I don't wanna let the door shut and have that person think I'm a racist.

Is that racist?

Technically yes, because you're treating people differently based on their race. But I think your motivation is admirable. Also, if someone is so paranoid that they think you're not going out of your way to be polite to them because they're a different colour than you, they are the twat, not you.

[Poopadoop]

Here's another way of looking at it - if a black person doesn't go out of their way to hold a door for you, do you automatically assume they're a racist? If not, then applying the same sensibility to others seems fair. maybe what's unfair is to assume they think you're racist because you don't fall over yourself to be polite.

[CoccoBill]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...racism-w497876

[wufwugy]

Note that the statement is true in a hyperbolic sense. It is not the case that Gene Simmons could grab Mike Pence's wife by the pussy and she would like it. But it is true that if Simmons is at a bar and he's getting the kind of attention a woman who knows and likes Gene Simmons would give in that situation, then yeah he can basically grab her by the pussy and she'd like it. This isn't news to anybody.

[wufwugy]

About 7 paragraphs into the rolling stone article and it already gets many facts wrong and defines racism incorrectly.

I'm reminded of that theorem Michael Crichton came up with. Imagine you're a physicist. Sometimes you'll read some journalist writing about physics in the news and you'll lol at how much stuff he gets wrong. Then you'll turn the page and read another journalist writing about something you aren't an expert in, and you'll think the journalist knows what he's talking about.

[wufwugy]

It always irritated me that Trump backed down from the truthful star/pussy comment. My guess is he was getting so much pressure to "act Christian" or something (from the clowns at National Review or some shit).

All of the deeply Christian women I know whom I've spoken with about it were unconcerned. They said duh everybody knows that what Trump said is true.

[Poopadoop]

All of the deeply Christian women I know whom I've spoken with about it were unconcerned. They said duh everybody knows that what Trump said is true.

There's a lot of women apparently who Trump has misunderstood aren't awed by star power.

Also, you are either making that up about all your women friends or you and I move in entirely different circles.

[wufwugy]

Also, you are either making that up about all your women friends or you and I move in entirely different circles.

I agree, actually. The correlation here is probably political prejudice. There are a significant amount of women who have integrated the Fake News version of what Trump said and think it is wrong.

[wufwugy]

Regarding the topic CoccoBill brings up, how to define racism: I think it would be best to return to what it always meant before race-baiters got ahold of it: scientific racism in the context of politics, i.e., thinking that somebody should have different rights based on his race. It could maybe get into pure scientific racism territory, but it begins to get messy there. For example, there are some legitimate differences between the races. You can reasonably think that a white person would probably burn easier in the sun than a black person.

Institutional racism (like affirmative action) is by far the most serious and very real racism we have to deal with today.

[wufwugy]

It was common knowledge that tons of women throw themselves at superstars. That is, until Fake News got ahold of what a Republican presidential candidate said.

[Poopadoop]

It was common knowledge that tons of women throw themselves at superstars. That is, until Fake News got ahold of what a Republican presidential candidate said.

There's a great big difference between having a woman throw herself at you because you're a star and presuming that she wants to have sex with you because you're a star, regardless of whether she does or not.

[wufwugy]

LOL so I'm listening to a Rogan podcast and, on the topic of Weinstein, Brendan Schaub says "How ugly are all these sexual predators? They're hideous. You can't even see my boy Costa getting accused of sexual assault. He don't need to." Paulo Costa is a super attractive hunk dime-piece FYI.

I can't believe Schaub just condoned sexual assault. Just because a man is super attractive means that he can rape women at will? /Fake News version

[wufwugy]

I wonder if y'all remember, I was a HUGE Trump hater back during the Judge Curiel thing. That was the first experience I had where I saw how the media was just making stuff up, and it was the first time I defended Trump. What he said was true. It is indeed the case that somebody of a particular heritage could have a bias when it comes to assessing the person most widely disliked by people of that heritage. Really, that's all Trump said, and it's true.

[Poopadoop]

I wonder if y'all remember, I was a HUGE Trump hater back during the Judge Curiel thing. That was the first experience I had where I saw how the media was just making stuff up, and it was the first time I defended Trump. What he said was true. It is indeed the case that somebody of a particular heritage could have a bias when it comes to assessing the person most widely disliked by people of that heritage. Really, that's all Trump said, and it's true.

So by your definition, in assuming the judge was racist, Trump himself was being racist. (not that I accept that definition because it's like saying if you assume someone is a serial killer, that makes you a serial killer, but w/e )

[wufwugy]

First off, it isn't race but nationality.

And what I said, not very well, was an attempt to navigate the very legitimate idea that what people think regarding what is racist can be a sign that they themselves are inadvertently engaging in racism. Here's an example, there was a story of a white guy who brought a watermelon to a company party with a lot of black guys. He then got fired for being racist. Regardless of the details of this actual event, in a hypothetically similar event, if his intent is not known and somebody thinks that what he did is wrong because "these poor black guys must have been offended by the party watermelon," that person begins to enter territory of his own racism.

This kind of racism is real yet goes wholly unaddressed by many. It's where we get total nonsense of explicitly racist ideas (like affirmative action) defended as anti-racism. What seems to truly be going on is the "white savior complex" element of racism. "Oh those poor blacks can't achieve success on their own, we wonderful whites need to pass laws that benefit them exclusively....."

[Poopadoop]

First off, it isn't race but nationality.

I already said this is a lame defense. There's no word for nationality-ism, so basically the word racism has been co-opted as being close enough in meaning and sharing the same spirit. IOW, if you're being prejudiced against an ethnic group or a nationality or a group such as the jews, whether or not they constitute a race in the vernacular sense of black, white, red, or yellow is irrelevant. You're still being prejudiced.

If we want to split hairs even further, there's no such thing as different races of humans, we're all homo sapiens. So clearly the word 'racist' is an anomaly of the language.

And what I said, not very well, was an attempt to navigate the very legitimate idea that what people think regarding what is racist can be a sign that they themselves are inadvertently engaging in racism. Here's an example, there was a story of a white guy who brought a watermelon to a company party with a lot of black guys. He then got fired for being racist. Regardless of the details of this actual event, in a hypothetically similar event, if his intent is not known and somebody thinks that what he did is wrong because "these poor black guys must have been offended by the party watermelon," that person begins to enter territory of his own racism.

I take it you made this up, but assume it did happen. The guy wasn't being racist on purpose but he was being insensitive since it ought to have occurred to him how it would look. And no he shouldn't have been fired.

This kind of racism is real yet goes wholly unaddressed by many. It's where we get total nonsense of explicitly racist ideas (like affirmative action) defended as anti-racism. What seems to truly be going on is the "white savior complex" element of racism. "Oh those poor blacks can't achieve success on their own, we wonderful whites need to pass laws that benefit them exclusively....."

I agree affirmative action is simply racism turned backwards. The principle I believe of this kind of action is that it gives a measurable result, whereas just asking people nicely to ignore the applicant's race when hiring presumably doesn't.

But I disagree with your second point that treating the group as needing a leg up implies they're inherently inferior. What it implies is they've been not given the same opportunities as the ruling group.

[wufwugy]

I didn't make it up. I don't know if it was Fake News though, but I am pulling from something I assume is an actual event.

How is it insensitive when we don't know if he even meant it that way. I once had zero fucking clue that there is a stereotype about old black guys and gin. It can happen. And watermelon is delicious. Even if you think in terms of the stereotype of watermelon and black people, how is it insensitive to try to get something you think they'll like? TIL if I go to a married man's house, I'm being insensitive by not trying to bang his wife since I'm assuming the stereotype that most married men aren't cucks. This whole insensitive thing is the microaggression nonsense in more pleasant wrappings. The silliest thing about all this is that if you go up to a white guy in Tennessee with a straw in his mouth and hand him a six-pack of Bud Light and say "you look like a hillbilly and I know hillbillies like Bud Light so here" he'll just say "hot damn thanks fer dat dere beer fella" or whatever the fuck. But if you bring fried chicken to a party full of black guys because every single black guy you've ever heard opine on fried chicken has said they love it, your white ass is being insensitive.

It's like the joke: why can't you be racist against whites? Because whites have a sense of humor.



On your last point, I'm not saying that treating people like they need help is wrong. I'm saying that when the motivation for why to do that is wrong, it's wrong.

[Poopadoop]

How is it insensitive when we don't know if he even meant it that way.

It has nothing to do with him being a jerk on purpose or not. It has to do with the fact everyone knows that stereotype about black people and watermelon and he should have realized he would LOOK like a jerk and at least some of those black people would THINK he did it on purpose. That's why it's insensitive.

If you don't agree it's insensitive you have to at least agree it was thoughtless and not in his own best interests. Still, getting fired for that is a bit much.

Even if you think in terms of the stereotype of watermelon and black people, how is it insensitive to try to get something you think they'll like?

Because you should realize there's a very large chance that's not how it will come across. See point above.

TIL if I go to a married man's house, I'm being insensitive by not trying to bang his wife since I'm assuming the stereotype that most married men aren't cucks.

Reducto ad absurdum.

This whole insensitive thing is the microaggression nonsense in more pleasant wrappings. The silliest thing about all this is that if you go up to a white guy in Tennessee with a straw in his mouth and hand him a six-pack of Bud Light and say "you look like a hillbilly and I know hillbillies like Bud Light so here" he'll just say "hot damn thanks fer dat dere beer fella" or whatever the fuck. But if you bring fried chicken to a party full of black guys because every single black guy you've ever heard opine on fried chicken has said they love it, your white ass is being insensitive.

Haven't tried this with hillbillies, but I'm guessing that if a black person did it, it would not go down well.

I'm saying that when the motivation for why to do that is wrong, it's wrong.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Agreed.

[wufwugy]

Actually no I'm not saying when the motivation is wrong the action is wrong. I'm saying when the motivation is wrong the motivation is wrong.

[wufwugy]

Sounds like an indictment regarding the racist ways people think of these things.