The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: WingNot on May 29, 2018, 05:41:55 pm
-
LOL. Hypocrisy at it's finest. Sykes is a huge rassist. CYA
Wanda Sykes says she’s parting ways with the “Roseanne†revival after star Roseanne Barr made a racially-charged joke about Valerie Jarrett on Twitter Tuesday.
“I will not be returning to @RoseanneOnABC,†the consulting producer on the ABC comedy tweeted, not long after Barr wrote on the social media platform that if the Muslim Brotherhood and the “Planet of the Apes†“had a baby,†it would be Jarrett.
Jarrett, who is African American with no ties to the Sunni Muslim organization, was a longtime senior advisor to the Obama White House, and was constantly the subject of criticism by the right-wing.
https://www.thewrap.com/wanda-sykes-says-will-not-returning-roseanne-planet-apes-valerie-jarrett-tweet/ (https://www.thewrap.com/wanda-sykes-says-will-not-returning-roseanne-planet-apes-valerie-jarrett-tweet/)
-
ABC cancels show
ABC says it’s cancelling “Roseanne†following an “abhorrent†tweet from the show’s star.
ABC Entertainment President Channing Dungey announced Tuesday: “Roseanne's Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show.â€
The decision came hours after star Roseanne Barr drew sharp condemnation for a tweet on former Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, whom she compared to a child of "The Planet of the Apes" and the Muslim Brotherhood.
http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/389725-abc-cancels-roseanne (http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/389725-abc-cancels-roseanne)
-
ABC cancels show
http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/389725-abc-cancels-roseanne (http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/389725-abc-cancels-roseanne)
It was just a matter of time.
I bet Netflix will pick it up! /s
-
ABC says it’s cancelling “Roseanne†following an “abhorrent†tweet from the show’s star.
ABC Entertainment President Channing Dungey announced Tuesday: “Roseanne's Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show.â€
The decision came hours after star Roseanne Barr drew sharp condemnation for a tweet on former Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, whom she compared to a child of "The Planet of the Apes" and the Muslim Brotherhood.
http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/389725-abc-cancels-roseanne (http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/389725-abc-cancels-roseanne)
-
Roseanne Barr is like that racist aunt that you keep “forgetting†to invite to Thanksgiving dinner, but who shows up anyway and manages to top herself every time. No matter how often the sitcom star is checked by people on Twitter, she continues to tweet racist conspiracy theories and write them off as “free speech†and “jokes.â€
This weekend, Roseanne took it too far, though (although let’s be real, she has consistently been taking it too far.) She tweeted that former Obama White House advisor Valerie Jarrett was what you would get if the Muslim Brotherhood and the Planet of the Apes film had a baby. Jarrett is from Iran and is African American–the intent of the disgusting tweet is clear. ....
http://www.vh1.com/news/359971/roseanne-barr-leaves-twitter-racist-tweets/ (http://www.vh1.com/news/359971/roseanne-barr-leaves-twitter-racist-tweets/)
-
‘Roseanne’ Canceled by ABC After Roseanne Barr’s ‘Repugnant’ Comments, Network President Says
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/roseanne-canceled-abc-roseanne-barr-repugnant-comments-network-174759145.html (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/roseanne-canceled-abc-roseanne-barr-repugnant-comments-network-174759145.html)
-
ABC announced on Tuesday that it would cancel the sitcom "Roseanne" following the star's "abhorrent" comments about former Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett.
"Roseanne's Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show," Channing Dungey, president of ABC Entertainment, said in a statement Tuesday....
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/29/abc-cancels-roseanne-barrs-sitcom-after-her-tweet-about-black-obama-aide-valerie-jarrett.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/29/abc-cancels-roseanne-barrs-sitcom-after-her-tweet-about-black-obama-aide-valerie-jarrett.html)
-
Oh well. Anotherone bites the dust.
-
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FamousShallowCricket-size_restricted.gif)
-
The true Obama legacy.
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lD2IZW3c1XE/hqdefault.jpg)
-
‘Roseanne’ Canceled by ABC After Roseanne Barr’s ‘Repugnant’ Comments, Network President Says
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/roseanne-canceled-abc-roseanne-barr-repugnant-comments-network-174759145.html (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/roseanne-canceled-abc-roseanne-barr-repugnant-comments-network-174759145.html)
People people people! Only if you are Joy Reid can you expect to make comments like that and keep your show! Some pigs are more equal!
-
People people people! Only if you are Joy Reid can you expect to make comments like that and keep your show! Some pigs are more equal!
Or that black rassist women from ESPN. But they eventually fired her...
-
Well, too bad the WB or UPN network isn’t still around.
-
What a shame! She 'tweets' some truth and immediately her show is dumped! Yet it's ok if Hollywood speaks out against Trump at one of their award shows or SNL or another talk show mocks or speaks out against the Trumps! Liberal double standard at its best.
-
What a shame! She 'tweets' some truth and immediately her show is dumped! Yet it's ok if Hollywood speaks out against Trump at one of their award shows or SNL or another talk show mocks or speaks out against the Trumps! Liberal double standard at its best.
She 'tweets some truth'? As in calling an African American an ape?
Sheesh.. we are getting infested with freeper thought.
I warned everyone not to tie your cart to this horse. She has always been a nasty racist, truther, disgustoid. Just because she claims to like someone you like doesn't change her spots.
-
She 'tweets some truth'? As in calling an African American an ape?
Sheesh.. we are getting infested with freeper thought.
I warned everyone not to tie your cart to this horse. She has always been a nasty racist, truther, disgustoid. Just because she claims to like someone you like doesn't change her spots.
Take your warning, and shove it.
-
At least we don't have to worry about her running for President now.
-
At least we don't have to worry about her running for President now.
Where'd you get that crazy idea?!
<looks at White House>
-
"Jarrett is from Iran and is African American..."
If she was born in Iran, how can she be an "African American?"
-
"Jarrett is from Iran and is African American..."
If she was born in Iran, how can she be an "African American?"
Because she's a Person of Color. All Persons of Color are African American when it's politically expedient, and when you can use it to get free drinks during happy hour in Portland bars.
-
Where'd you get that crazy idea?!
<looks at White House>
@Suppressed
Because she used the ape comparison. Even white liberals cannot use that comparison.
-
Because she's a Person of Color. All Persons of Color are African American when it's politically expedient, and when you can use it to get free drinks during happy hour in Portland bars.
Where does Sammy Sosa fit in? He is Dominican and puce.
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/Ur7WTzmCPJlLgfBdLumjgw--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD00NTI7dz00MDA-/https://pmchollywoodlife.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/sammy-sosa-lighter-skin.jpg.cf.jpg)
-
It is racist to compare anyone to an ape.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XXeTUIKQgww/UishgMzVRHI/AAAAAAABFO0/CnIQxRuqZ1U/s1600/Bush+chimp.JPG)
(Unless that person happens to be a Republican)
-
It was just a matter of time.
I bet Netflix will pick it up! /s
Fox might pick it up. I hate sitcoms but this Roseanne revival was actually pretty good. ABC has very few good shows.
-
It is racist to compare anyone to an ape.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XXeTUIKQgww/UishgMzVRHI/AAAAAAABFO0/CnIQxRuqZ1U/s1600/Bush+chimp.JPG)
(Unless that person happens to be a Republican)
Not true.....
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/QJlk4iak1IswObhSu0xK4A--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD0yNzE7dz00MDE-/https://i.chzbgr.com/original/1627973888/hC52BFCA6/.cf.jpg)
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lD2IZW3c1XE/hqdefault.jpg)
This ticks me off big time. The entertainment industry ... at least most of it ... does not care about losing money or alienating conservatives. They are on a mission from God or Obama.
CNN loses viewers by the boatload. Jimmy Kimmel is only watched by his relatives. They don't care. I think this will bring huge protests.
-
ABC says it’s cancelling “Roseanne†following an “abhorrent†tweet from the show’s star.
ABC Entertainment President Channing Dungey announced Tuesday: “Roseanne's Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show.â€
The decision came hours after star Roseanne Barr drew sharp condemnation for a tweet on former Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, whom she compared to a child of "The Planet of the Apes" and the Muslim Brotherhood.
http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/389725-abc-cancels-roseanne (http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/389725-abc-cancels-roseanne)
Not too wise of Roseanne, but a very apt description of Jarrett.
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/FJXkjkyS0llLO/200.gif)
-
This ticks me off big time. The entertainment industry ... at least most of it ... does not care about losing money or alienating conservatives. They are on a mission from God or Obama.
CNN loses viewers by the boatload. Jimmy Kimmel is only watched by his relatives. They don't care. I think this will bring huge protests.
Rosanne never was a Conservative. Her character was a Hollywood parody of what they think Conservatives are (unwashed, dirt poor, racists). She herself, has always been a nasty racist.
She tried to run for president in 2012, as a socialist.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/10/roseanne-barr-dishes-on-why-shes-running-for-president/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/10/roseanne-barr-dishes-on-why-shes-running-for-president/)
She just hopped on the MAGA train as a publicity stunt. (unless she actually think that fits her socialist leanings).
Roseanne Barr dishes on why she's running for president
Actress and comedian Roseanne Barr, who's running for president as the nominee for the Peace and Freedom Party, said Thursday she's making a White House bid in order to push "socialist solutions."
"I was asked to carry the water and carry a message during this election and to make socialist solutions part of the narrative, because they're being left out and they work," she said on CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight.".....
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/10/roseanne-barr-dishes-on-why-shes-running-for-president/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/10/roseanne-barr-dishes-on-why-shes-running-for-president/)
-
As a reminder--
Rosanne is a self-proclaimed socialist .
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/10/roseanne-barr-dishes-on-why-shes-running-for-president/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/10/roseanne-barr-dishes-on-why-shes-running-for-president/)
-
Not to worry. cBS is bringing back Murphy Brown to fill in for the loss of this show.
-
As a reminder--
Rosanne is a self-proclaimed socialist .
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/10/roseanne-barr-dishes-on-why-shes-running-for-president/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/10/roseanne-barr-dishes-on-why-shes-running-for-president/)
A racial socialist. Doesn’t that make her a nationalistic socialist? Or, more concisely, .....
-
Never will understand why celebrities, corporations, and politicians play around on Twitter. There must be well over 10 thousand famous people who have either ruined their careers or at least caused themselves deep harm by saying something stupid on Twitter.
And that doesn't even compare to how many millions of private citizens have wound up fired, divorced, or sued, by saying stupid crap on Twitter and other public sites. It's crazy. It is like playing Russian roulette.
I don't understand it because I've never been attracted to things like Twitter and Facebook. Not a boycott or anything about principle, I just don't have a need to out myself like that. And as it turns out, Thank Goodness for being weird.
-
Lately, so much of what is happening in the world makes me want to break out the jumbo tub of popcorn and start chowing down...
:2popcorn:
-
Hmm, looks like she quit one Tweet too late. :shrug:
-
A racial socialist. Doesn’t that make her a nationalistic socialist? Or, more concisely, .....
It seems like that would make a concise term if put together in some form.... hmmmm...
-
People people people! Only if you are Joy Reid can you expect to make comments like that and keep your show! Some pigs are more equal!
It's not like ABC didn't know what they were getting with her. Remember the pic of her making "NAZI Cookies"?
IMHO two things are at play here...1) the reboot of her show was more to make fun of Conservatives and Trump supporters more than it was backing them and 2) at some point she'll say she made the comment about Jarrett because she was channeling what Conservatives think about her anyway.
It was all done to bash Conservatives.
-
As in calling an African American an ape?
Does that really warrant being blacklisted from all media outlets, though?
There was another case of a local comedian whose name was "Airborne" Eddy Dobosiewicz. He hosted a midnight movie show up here in Western New York and was a feature correspondent for another TV station in the market for about 20 years or so. Well, back in 2015, Eddy made a comment about the Baltimore riots and how the rioters were rampaging like, well, apes. Within hours, he was fired from both of his TV roles, and he has yet to be hired back. Roseanne likely faces the same fate.
Do such statements really warrant such extreme punishment? Even Colin Kaepernick could have his job back if he apologized, and I'd argue that his ongoing hostility toward the anthem is far more offensive to more people. Roseanne likely never will get that chance, not that we know that a provocateur like her ever would.
-
Does that really warrant being blacklisted from all media outlets, though?....
A private business has the right to set behavior standards of their employees who represent the business. You know, like requiring performers to stand when the anthem is played or sign a moral code when working at a religious based school.
Just because some have different standards doesn't negate what another one does. It is the right of a private business, any private business.
-
It was all done to bash Conservatives.
Well maybe. There was a wild rumor about a bait-n-switch scheme. Theoretically they were going get Trump supporters watching by being ~more or less~ conservative, and then do a turn about and slowly start quoting all the Liberal talking points about how Trump is a Nazi, Trump is a moron, and on like that.
If there is going to be a pro-Trump, or at least a Trump neutral, show on television, I'd certainly prefer not having to depend on Roseanne to be the face of it. So, maybe it is good it happened now?
-
"Jarrett is from Iran and is African American..."
If she was born in Iran, how can she be an "African American?"
Apparently her parents were black Americans.
I have an inkling suspicion that had it not been Valerie Jarrett, she wouldn't have been axed so quickly, and that a few Obama administration figures still hold an extreme level of influence in the media.
-
A private business has the right to set behavior standards of their employees who represent the business. You know, like requiring performers to stand when the anthem is played or sign a moral code when working at a religious based school.
Just because some have different standards doesn't negate what another one does. It is the right of a private business, any private business.
Yes, but if they collude to do so, that's violating antitrust law.
-
Yes, but if they collude to do so, that's violating antitrust law.
Collusion? Good luck proving that.
-
Yes, but if they collude to do so, that's violating antitrust law.
It depends on the collusion. For example, in the NFL, even though each franchise is individually owned, the entire organization has the right to set standards for franchisees.
In other businesses, collusion would involve setting agreed upon prices, or agreeing or not to sell certain products (as an example).
I'm not really sure how either of those apply in this case as we are dealing with a decision by one network.
-
Does anyone else think the coverage of this story is excessive? It's 23 minutes into Shep's show and he's still covering it.
-
Does anyone else think the coverage of this story is excessive? It's 2:23 into Shep's show and he's still covering it.
As soon as they remember she is a socialist who ran for office under both a socialist party and the Green party, they'll shut up.
-
Anyone with any brains in this country should know it's not okay to equate black people with apes or monkeys. There were years and years of tropes using this to justify slavery, dehumanize people, and on and on. This is a specific racist theme.
-
A racial socialist. Doesn’t that make her a nationalistic socialist? Or, more concisely, .....
I'm getting some ideas from her 2009 photo shoot.
https://forward.com/fast-forward/397835/remember-when-roseanne-dressed-as-hitler-for-heeb/
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZXieTZX4AEz9Y_.jpg)
-
I'm getting some ideas from her 2009 photo shoot.
https://forward.com/fast-forward/397835/remember-when-roseanne-dressed-as-hitler-for-heeb/
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZXieTZX4AEz9Y_.jpg)
Close enough.
-
Does anyone else think the coverage of this story is excessive? It's 2:23 into Shep's show and he's still covering it.
Give Shemp a break. He had a rough weekend and his ass is sore.
-
But there were humans on The Planet of the Apes. They just couldn't talk...
-
Does anyone else think the coverage of this story is excessive? It's 2:23 into Shep's show and he's still covering it.
It's Shemp...the girl can't help it.
-
Yes, but if they collude to do so, that's violating antitrust law.
I don't think companies agreeing to abide by generally agreed on societal standards of decency, falls under the heading of "collusion". Roseanne Barr almost certainly violated her morals clause.
-
Anyone with any brains in this country should know it's not okay to equate black people with apes or monkeys. There were years and years of tropes using this to justify slavery, dehumanize people, and on and on. This is a specific racist theme.
...that hasn't been used as a racist theme in several decades, although stuff like this might encourage "alt-right" types to try and bring it back.
-
I'd certainly prefer not having to depend on Roseanne to be the face of it. So, maybe it is good it happened now?
I didn't watch the show. Had no desire to hear Rosanne's nasally bitchy voice...but you're right better it happened now and I'd rather depend on someone like Tim Allen for a show with a Conservative bent than the Connor family.
-
I didn't watch the show. Had no desire to hear Rosanne's nasally bitchy voice...but you're right better it happened now and I'd rather depend on someone like Tim Allen for a show with a Conservative bent than the Connor family.
@txradioguy
IMO the whole purpose of her doing the show was to make fun of Conservatives and Trump. A lot can be accomplished through humor to normalize behaviors and ideas which cannot be done through debate.
Take Mash as another example. That show had many very leftist agenda items that they introduced and and started towards normalization through the use of humor.
-
...that hasn't been used as a racist theme in several decades, although stuff like this might encourage "alt-right" types to try and bring it back.
Really?
Take a trip over to FR or look at memes Stormers constantly make. That trope has never taken a break.
-
...that hasn't been used as a racist theme in several decades in public by anyone who isn't an idiot, although stuff like this might encourage "alt-right" types to try and bring it back.
Meant to add, they haven't called Jewish people "Heebs" or commented on their hooked noses for a while now either. That doesn't mean it's okay to start again.
https://giphy.com/gifs/no-the-league-zsg9Adj13Dh2E
****slapping 22222frying pan Way. Too. Soon. If. Ever.
-
@txradioguy
IMO the whole purpose of her doing the show was to make fun of Conservatives and Trump. A lot can be accomplished through humor to normalize behaviors and ideas which cannot be done through debate.
Take Mash as another example. That show had many very leftist agenda items that they introduced and and started towards normalization through the use of humor.
@driftdiver agree on all the above. I think that's exactly what Barr was doing with the reboot of her show. Especially since she was the lone Trump supporter in her house...that was done to try and give the impression that Conservatives and/or Trump supporters are vastly outnumbered even within their own families.
And the cast of MASH freely admitted they disguised a protest of the Vietnam War inside a show about a Korean War hospital.
-
@driftdiver agree on all the above. I think that's exactly what Barr was doing with the reboot of her show. Especially since she was the lone Trump supporter in her house...that was done to try and give the impression that Conservatives and/or Trump supporters are vastly outnumbered even within their own families.
And the cast of MASH freely admitted they disguised a protest of the Vietnam War inside a show about a Korean War hospital.
@txradioguy
Not just the Vietnam war. Homosexuality was a frequent topic, transgender, promiscuity, adultery, demeaning religion, the military, people not from the north east, communism and socialism. The list hits pretty much every leftist agenda item.
-
Clay Travis Verified account @ClayTravis
2h2 hours ago
So @KeithOlbermann can call @realDonaldTrump a Nazi, psychopathic white supremacist, which are indisputably dumb things to Tweet, & get hired by @espn and @therealroseanne gets fired for her indisputably dumb Tweets. Almost like there’s a double standard at play here.
____________________
Jim Hoft Verified account @gatewaypundit
ABC Cancels Roseanne for Tweet But Jimmy Kimmel Still Has a Show after Young Women Fondle His Crotch http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/05/abc-cancels-roseanne-for-tweet-but-jimmy-kimmel-still-has-a-show-after-he-has-women-fondle-his-crotch/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/05/abc-cancels-roseanne-for-tweet-but-jimmy-kimmel-still-has-a-show-after-he-has-women-fondle-his-crotch/)
_________________
Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 Verified account @JackPosobiec
30m30 minutes ago
I'm so old I remember when Bill Maher claimed President Trump's "mother had sex with an orangutan" and kept his job … via @gatewaypundit
And Joy Reid accuses Trump of running a child sex ring, but still collects a check from CNN. What a world, where only some of the stupid people pay a price for their stupidity!
-
"Jarrett is from Iran and is African American..."
If she was born in Iran, how can she be an "African American?"
Her communist related parents were working in Iran when she was born.
-
At least she is consistent in her insults.... In 2013, she called Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice “a man with big swinging ape balls.â€
-
Wanda Sykes quits the show shortly before the network cancels the show
Virtue Signal FAIL!
-
I hold no brief for Barr, but many liberals routinely call conservatives nazis or fascists. George Bush II was called The Smirking Chimp as in a lib website by that name.
We'll see what hypocrites libs are when some their own call Trump nasty names.
-
I hold no brief for Barr, but many liberals routinely call conservatives nazis or fascists. George Bush II was called The Smirking Chimp as in a lib website by that name.
We'll see what hypocrites libs are when some their own call Trump nasty names.
We already know what hypocrites they are by Alec Baldwin's parody of Trump and the continuing attack on Sarah Sanders.
If Rosanne had attacked one of them or test Cruz or Rand Paul and not Jarrett she'd still have a show and a talent agent and she be praised and congratulated on Social Media.
-
@AbaraXas
Thank you. I've been saying all along the show's reboot and her supposed rebirth as a pro-Trump conservative was one big farce. It goes along with Trump's reality tv presidency. Fake.
-
Everyone knows I call 'em like I see 'em with Trump. I give him accolades when deserved and insults when he acts like an idiot.
With that ....... I want to go strongly go on record of saying this Rosanne Barr event is the ultimate of hypocricy.. What she tweeted is far less (using ABC's language) "Repugnant" than what is trotted out there nightly between 10:30 - midnight against Trump on what loosely may be called the spawn of Johnny Carson's legacy.
The big 3's (ABC,NBC,CBS) effort to drive the country left has gone far past Norman Lear's subliminal approach. They have taken the war to a much higher level. An alternate network is needed now.
-
Rosanne never was a Conservative. Her character was a Hollywood parody of what they think Conservatives are (unwashed, dirt poor, racists). She herself, has always been a nasty racist.
She tried to run for president in 2012, as a socialist.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/10/roseanne-barr-dishes-on-why-shes-running-for-president/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/10/roseanne-barr-dishes-on-why-shes-running-for-president/)
She just hopped on the MAGA train as a publicity stunt. (unless she actually think that fits her socialist leanings).
Her actual politics aside for a moment... and yes, anyone who has been following her for the past few years know the only way to accurately describe her belief system inasmuch as such a system even exists is that she is a kook...
Roseanne was one of the highest-rated sitcoms to air in many years. Much of that came from conservatives in middle America, and ABC, home of such shows as Modern Family, is known for nixing shows that are popular with that demographic (see Last Man Standing). Not since the ill-fated Bridget Loves Bernie has such a strong performer in the Nielsens been canned, and that was only because there were threats made against the network. You don't can a show doing that well unless something is seriously damaging (and her stupid comments in the past didn't stop the show from getting picked up) or the network wanted to get rid of the show all along but needed a reason to do so.
This will be spun as a shot against middle America, and it might well have been one. Or it might be a publicity stunt to see how many people call for it to be brought back.
-
Who cares. Modern TV comedy is garbage & Roseanne was gonna flip sooner or later anyway.
-
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/33985717_10213889929459936_4666122001599954944_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=6c33d8f6e1a15a8538f189d0b49cba5b&oe=5BBF79FD)
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/33813112_10156044896760546_5542418290602672128_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=85533f49bd4ea1eb219c9f229124889d&oe=5BB8DDB8)
Roseanne or Mahar? Who's the honest comedienne here? :whistle:
-
Ugh. Now anyone who points out the double standard of leftists - Olbermann, Kimmel, Joy Reid, you name it - getting away unpunished for comments at least as distasteful as Roseann's is being accused of defending her (viz., Twitter). I never watched her old show and had no interest in the new one. I never liked her, period. But I'll be accused of supporting what she said if I dare say the reaction is hypocritical. **nononono*
-
@Suppressed
Because she used the ape comparison. Even white liberals cannot use that comparison.
Yep. Can't be badmouyhing Cheetah. I think she owes all those apes an apology.
-
Kyle Morris @RealKyleMorris
3h3 hours ago
While what she posted was wrong, I wonder if Roseanne Barr would still be employed if she had said her account was hacked.
That same tactic worked out well for Joy Reid after posting anti-Muslim and homophobic tweets. 🤔
-
Has Michael Richards weighed in yet?
-
I've always thought there was something odd about VJ's upper lip, like it was solid. Now that someone mentioned it, kind of like the ones in the PotA movies. Maybe it's part of her ethnic background, maybe it's botox gone bad, maybe something happened to her, or maybe it's just the way she was born.
I think it's something of a leap to automatically assume it's racism just because there have been racist comparisons between blacks and apes.
-
Roseanne Barr was the darling of the left when she mocked the National Anthem at a baseball game. But say one nice thing about Trump, and the long knives are out.
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.3829617.1519057874!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/roseanne-barr-national-anthem.jpg)
-
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FamousShallowCricket-size_restricted.gif)
@guitar4jesus
Of course it escalated quickly. She didn't say anything negative about White Debbils or Republicans of any skin tone or religious beliefs.
-
She 'tweets some truth'? As in calling an African American an ape?
Ever been to the "hood"? Apes are more civilized than many of the young black males AND females. You may not like it,but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
I warned everyone not to tie your cart to this horse. She has always been a nasty racist, truther, disgustoid. Just because she claims to like someone you like doesn't change her spots.
It would have been quicker to have just said she is mentally disturbed. She appeared to be mentally disturbed the first time I saw and heard her speak. She seems to have no "volume control" over her mouth. If something pops into her head,she just says it.
And surprising no one at all,it's getting worse as she gets older.
Not that we will ever have to hear her any more. This one sunk her boat. She is never getting hired again by the entertainment industry. She's done.
-
"Jarrett is from Iran and is African American..."
If she was born in Iran, how can she be an "African American?"
@massadvj
IF she has African blood in her it sure doesn't show. What are the chances of her claiming to be black years ago to get preferences,like that dingbat Black Studies white woman out on the left coast?
-
If she was born in Iran, how can she be an "African American?"
She is mixed, her grandfather was a pretty famous African American.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Robinson_Taylor
@massadvj @sneakypete
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/FJXkjkyS0llLO/200.gif)
@Wingnut
Why did the tune "I'm just a Gigolo" pop into my mind the instant I saw that image?
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFV1biHrOBU#)
-
Never will understand why celebrities, corporations, and politicians play around on Twitter. There must be well over 10 thousand famous people who have either ruined their careers or at least caused themselves deep harm by saying something stupid on Twitter.
@240B
Uhhh,in her case,it's because she is crazy. Rats used in drug company research labs have better judgement than her.
Want to place the blame where it lies,blame the ABC Yahoos that hired her KNOWING she is freaking nuts,and thinking they could keep her under control. Fish gotta swim,birds gotta fly,and Roseanne Barr has to bark at the moon.
-
It's not like ABC didn't know what they were getting with her. Remember the pic of her making "NAZI Cookies"?
IMHO two things are at play here...1) the reboot of her show was more to make fun of Conservatives and Trump supporters more than it was backing them
@txradioguy
BINGO! It is well-known that she hates Republicans as well as actual conservatives,and they were betting she would focus all her wrath on them and help get a Dim back in the WH.
-
Does that really warrant being blacklisted from all media outlets, though?
There was another case of a local comedian whose name was "Airborne" Eddy Dobosiewicz. He hosted a midnight movie show up here in Western New York and was a feature correspondent for another TV station in the market for about 20 years or so. Well, back in 2015, Eddy made a comment about the Baltimore riots and how the rioters were rampaging like, well, apes. Within hours, he was fired from both of his TV roles, and he has yet to be hired back. Roseanne likely faces the same fate.
Do such statements really warrant such extreme punishment? Even Colin Kaepernick could have his job back if he apologized, and I'd argue that his ongoing hostility toward the anthem is far more offensive to more people. Roseanne likely never will get that chance, not that we know that a provocateur like her ever would.
@jmyrlefuller
A better example is how the left and the entertainment biz especially went after comedian Norm McDonald after he went on The View and complained about the Clinton's getting away with murder. Wasn't even anything racial about that,and his top rated sitcom was instantly cancelled. They didn't even show the one already in the can and ready to air. Must have been over 10 years ago,and now Norm is finally back on tv,but as s neutered hollow example of the man he was.
-
She is mixed, her grandfather was a pretty famous African American.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Robinson_Taylor
@massadvj @sneakypete
You might look her up on Conservapedia for a completely different set of facts relating to ValJar. Shocking different.
-
A private business has the right to set behavior standards of their employees who represent the business. You know, like requiring performers to stand when the anthem is played or sign a moral code when working at a religious based school.
Just because some have different standards doesn't negate what another one does. It is the right of a private business, any private business.
@AbaraXas
So,if,for example,a baker running his own business decided he didn't want to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual marriage,he should have that legal right
-
Meant to add, they haven't called Jewish people "Heebs" or commented on their hooked noses for a while now either. That doesn't mean it's okay to start again.
https://giphy.com/gifs/no-the-league-zsg9Adj13Dh2E
****slapping 22222frying pan Way. Too. Soon. If. Ever.
@LauraTXNM
Correct me if I am wrong,but isn't "Heebs" slang for Hebrews,which is actually what Jews were,and don't most ethnic Jews have hooked noses? What's wrong with having a hooked nose? Beats the HELL out of not having a nose at all.
Any other of life's realities we are supposed to just ignore in your PC world?
-
Has Michael Richards weighed in yet?
@edpc
Probably not. He's busy parking cars somewhere now,and can't lose the hours.
-
@LauraTXNM
Correct me if I am wrong,but isn't "Heebs" slang for Hebrews,which is actually what Jews were,and don't most ethnic Jews have hooked noses? What's wrong with having a hooked nose? Beats the HELL out of not having a nose at all.
Any other of life's realities we are supposed to just ignore in your PC world?
Is that a real question? Using caricatures of Jews has been a part of active antisemitism for centuries. You're not aware of the history?
-
Few things are guaranteed in life. But one of them is that Roseanne Barr's own worst enemy is and always has been her own big mouth. Or tweeter, as the case may be.
I suppose I can understand how the dearth of conservatives in Hollywood might make conservatives feel compelled to just support whomever they can get, but anyone with a shred of respect or intelligence should think twice before defending a racist tweet from an unhinged conspiracy theorist. Principles should always come before party — and an opposition to racism should always be among your principles.---Katherine Timpf, in National Review.
Good riddance to a populist socialist conspiracy mongering Green Trumpist gasbag.
-
Everyone knows I call 'em like I see 'em with Trump. I give him accolades when deserved and insults when he acts like an idiot.
With that ....... I want to go strongly go on record of saying this Rosanne Barr event is the ultimate of hypocricy.. What she tweeted is far less (using ABC's language) "Repugnant" than what is trotted out there nightly between 10:30 - midnight against Trump on what loosely may be called the spawn of Johnny Carson's legacy.
The big 3's (ABC,NBC,CBS) effort to drive the country left has gone far past Norman Lear's subliminal approach. They have taken the war to a much higher level. An alternate network is needed now.
:amen: 888high58888
-
You might look her up on Conservapedia for a completely different set of facts relating to ValJar. Shocking different.
Ok, perhaps I am missing something, Conservapedia and this DailyKos article (article I found while doing an image search) all seem to suggest she has nothing but African American parentage. Something is amiss, I have heard of whitewashing, but it seems the opposite occurs with Valerie, they seem to only focus on the black heritage. There is some mix (Arab or white) in there somewhere unless something is amiss (my eyes).
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2008/11/11/658175/- (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2008/11/11/658175/-)
BTW... for the record. I said Rosanne was trash, always had been trash and her show was trash. Some didn't care to hear it.
-
Can we all agree that Valarie Jarrett is a piece of garbage, a grifter and an all around dirt bag.
-
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/33985717_10213889929459936_4666122001599954944_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=6c33d8f6e1a15a8538f189d0b49cba5b&oe=5BBF79FD)
(http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/33813112_10156044896760546_5542418290602672128_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=85533f49bd4ea1eb219c9f229124889d&oe=5BB8DDB8)
Roseanne or Mahar? Who's the honest comedienne here? :whistle:
It is interesting to note the major disparity in instant justice applied by the entertainment media when someone critical of the Left or one of their darlings makes an off-color comment versus what Hollywierd Leftists get to spew about White, Conservative, Christian, Republicans and presidents with impunity with little more than slaps on the wrist.
The Caste system is coming along nicely in this country.
-
Can we all agree that Valarie Jarrett is a piece of garbage, a grifter and an all around dirt bag.
Nope ;).
-
Roseanne Barr back on Twitter after 'leaving,' blames 'Ambien tweeting' after ABC cancels hit show
"Don't feel sorry for me, guys!!" Barr also tweeted, before discouraging people from boycotting ABC. "I just want to apologize to the hundreds of people,and wonderful writers (all liberal) and talented actors who lost their jobs on my show due to my stupid tweet. I will be on Joe Rogan's podcast friday."
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/05/30/roseanne-barr-back-on-twitter-after-leaving-apologizes-to-cast-crew-after-abc-cancels-hit-show.html (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/05/30/roseanne-barr-back-on-twitter-after-leaving-apologizes-to-cast-crew-after-abc-cancels-hit-show.html)
-
"I will be on Joe Rogan's podcast friday."
That should be interesting...
-
That should be interesting...
It can get worse...
ALEX JONES ASKS ROSEANNE BARR TO COME ON 'INFOWARS' AFTER ABC CANCELS SHOW
Hi @therealroseanne, it’s time for you to strike back against these THOUGHT POLICE and really shake them up! You’ve been on the show before and it’s time for you to come back on! #Roseanne
http://www.newsweek.com/roseanne-canceled-abc-conservatives-twitter-948187 (http://www.newsweek.com/roseanne-canceled-abc-conservatives-twitter-948187)
-
It can get worse...
ALEX JONES ASKS ROSEANNE BARR TO COME ON 'INFOWARS' AFTER ABC CANCELS SHOW
Hi @therealroseanne, it’s time for you to strike back against these THOUGHT POLICE and really shake them up! You’ve been on the show before and it’s time for you to come back on! #Roseanne
http://www.newsweek.com/roseanne-canceled-abc-conservatives-twitter-948187 (http://www.newsweek.com/roseanne-canceled-abc-conservatives-twitter-948187)
Good grief! **nononono*
-
I posted and I believe it is in the sports, entertainment section the story of how about 2 months ago, a talk show host from I believe the St. Louis area tweeted how "tomorrow I'll stick a hot poker up....." someone's derriere... see story: http://www.newsweek.com/who-jamie-allman-conservative-radio-host-resigns-after-threatening-parkland-878472 (http://www.newsweek.com/who-jamie-allman-conservative-radio-host-resigns-after-threatening-parkland-878472) and he ended up stepping down or being fired.
That was a lesson for everyone. Some parallels.
I know, sometimes, there is a temptation to say something off-color, tell some sundry joke and so on. Everyone needs to learn that lesson, at least, if one is in the public eye.
So, I'm just reading, she said she had a bit of Ambien.
-
Fox News
By Gregg Re
9 hours ago
Less than 14 hours after following up a racist tweet by writing, "I apologize. I am now leaving Twitter," Roseanne Barr was back on the social media platform late Tuesday.
In a series of late-night tweets, Barr appeared to blame the prescription sleeping pill Ambien for the racist tweet that led to her show's cancellation Tuesday. She also repeatedly criticized ABC for what she implied is the network's hypocrisy.
guys I did something unforgiveable so do not defend me. It was 2 in the morning and I was ambien tweeting-it was memorial day too-i went 2 far & do not want it defended-it was egregious Indefensible. I made a mistake I wish I hadn't but...don't defend it please. ty
— Roseanne Barr (@therealroseanne) May 30, 2018
"guys I did something unforgiveable so do not defend me," she wrote in one post Tuesday night. "It was 2 in the morning and I was ambien tweeting-it was memorial day too-i went 2 far & do not want it defended-it was egregious Indefensible. I made a mistake I wish I hadn't but...don't defend it please. ty."
(more)
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/05/30/roseanne-barr-back-on-twitter-after-leaving-apologizes-to-cast-crew-after-abc-cancels-hit-show.html
-
Blaming Ambien for her stupid tweet? Trump must be taking that stuff by the handful.
-
Ugh. Now anyone who points out the double standard of leftists - Olbermann, Kimmel, Joy Reid, you name it - getting away unpunished for comments at least as distasteful as Roseann's is being accused of defending her (viz., Twitter). I never watched her old show and had no interest in the new one. I never liked her, period. But I'll be accused of supporting what she said if I dare say the reaction is hypocritical. **nononono*
Yes, but the race component trumps (no pun intended) everything. (Usually liberal) comedians of all colors can get away with calling the president or other pols the worst possible names.
But when a black person is involved, the equation changes. Then nobody is supposed to be allowed to call a black person names, especially names that connote simian characteristics.
Unless, of course, it's a Republican. George Bush was called the smirking chimp. Even Condoleeza Rice was depicted in a servile, slave-type manner with no repercussions that I know of towards the people calling her that.
Trump was called a "c*ck holster" for Putin by Colbert. That was an obvious homosexual-type slur. Colbert still has his job.
The hypocrisy reeks to the edges of the stratosphere and beyond.
-
Well, I give her credit for coming up with a more creative intoxicant than just saying "I was drunk."
-
Blaming Ambien for her stupid tweet? Trump must be taking that stuff by the handful.
WTF does Donald Trump have to do with this topic? Get an effing life. *****rollingeyes*****
-
Well, I give her credit for coming up with a more creative intoxicant than just saying "I was drunk."
I'm guessing both. However, for what ever it is worth, Ambien is pretty famous for causing sleepwalking and very strange behavior. Whether it is true or not, she did pick the correct drug to name.
-
Blaming Ambien for her stupid tweet? Trump must be taking that stuff by the handful.
@Restored
So you're taking ambien as well?
-
Yes, but the race component trumps (no pun intended) everything. (Usually liberal) comedians of all colors can get away with calling the president or other pols the worst possible names.
But when a black person is involved, the equation changes. Then nobody is supposed to be allowed to call a black person names, especially names that connote simian characteristics.
Unless, of course, it's a Republican. George Bush was called the smirking chimp. Even Condoleeza Rice was depicted in a servile, slave-type manner with no repercussions that I know of towards the people calling her that.
Trump was called a "c*ck holster" for Putin by Colbert. That was an obvious homosexual-type slur. Colbert still has his job.
The hypocrisy reeks to the edges of the stratosphere and beyond.
That may be it, Tom. She's gotten away with saying some really awful things and she didn't understand that as long as they were directed at Republicans or conservatives, it was fine. When she said something about a progressive - nope, that's where the line gets drawn.
-
The fact that Olbermann got hired and Kathy griffin still finds work shows the double standard is palpable.
-
The fact that Olbermann got hired and Kathy griffin still finds work shows the double standard is palpable.
I guess next they'll bring on Al "Not So" Sharpton to comment on what Barr said. **nononono*
-
I guess next they'll bring on Al "Not So" Sharpton to comment on what Barr said. **nononono*
One of the most nauseating examples of liberal hypocrisy is when they haul this pos out to shriek into a microphone about racism. This is the dirtbag who called Greeks "homos" and who was responsible for several race riots where innocent people were killed. Liberals still haven't figured out why they're despised when they still have jerks like Sharpton as their spokesmen.
-
Is that a real question? Using caricatures of Jews has been a part of active antisemitism for centuries. You're not aware of the history?
@Sanguine
Of course it is a real question. Do Hebrews tend to have hooked noses,or not,and WHAT is wrong with having a hooked nose?
And you can bite my ass for implying I am in any way responsible for the history of anti-semitism by merely stating "what is as obvious as the nose on your face". If you choose to be offended,that's on you,not me.
-
BTW... for the record. I said Rosanne was trash, always had been trash and her show was trash. Some didn't care to hear it.
@Sighlass
That's not really fair to her. It would be fair if she understood what she was doing and saying,but she doesn't. She is insane and has no judgment at all.
No,that does NOT mean she is a nice person,but she is "barking at the moon" mad.
-
Can we all agree that Valarie Jarrett is a piece of garbage, a grifter and an all around dirt bag.
@Frank Cannon
She is also a dirt-bag enabler of epic proportions.
-
It can get worse...
@edpc
It WILL get worse. What else can you expect when you give a lunatic access to a microphone? She is going to grab the mic and get all excited about how many people are listening to her,and it's only going to go downhill for her after that. The show that gives her the mic and that show's sponsors are going to make mega bucks from all the publicity,though.
And it really won't hurt Barr. Her career is over anyway,so she might as well exit the stage after having a good time.
-
Yes, but the race component trumps (no pun intended) everything. (Usually liberal) comedians of all colors can get away with calling the president or other pols the worst possible names.
But when a black person is involved, the equation changes. Then nobody is supposed to be allowed to call a black person names, especially names that connote simian characteristics.
Unless, of course, it's a Republican. George Bush was called the smirking chimp. Even Condoleeza Rice was depicted in a servile, slave-type manner with no repercussions that I know of towards the people calling her that.
Trump was called a "c*ck holster" for Putin by Colbert. That was an obvious homosexual-type slur. Colbert still has his job.
The hypocrisy reeks to the edges of the stratosphere and beyond.
So let me get this straight. While white kids are being told they are descended from apes, all across the country and the world, if you imply a similar heritage for a black person, you are a racist?
-
@Sanguine
Of course it is a real question. Do Hebrews tend to have hooked noses,or not,and WHAT is wrong with having a hooked nose?
And you can bite my ass for implying I am in any way responsible for the history of anti-semitism by merely stating "what is as obvious as the nose on your face". If you choose to be offended,that's on you,not me.
No, Pete, Jews do not have hooked noses in general. A few do, but that's probably more a consequence of Roman occupation than anything else.
And, no, I don't think, nor did I say that you were in any way responsible for historical anti-semitism. You may have the inclination, but you're not old enough or influential enough to have done so.
If you're too damned blind or prideful to admit to the history of antisemitism, that's your problem. But, do it somewhere else.
-
She 'tweets some truth'? As in calling an African American an ape?
Sheesh.. we are getting infested with freeper thought.
No kidding. That place was very quick with the ape/monkey/jungle comparisons whenever someone black did something bad. Offensive as hell.
-
No kidding. That place was very quick with the ape/monkey/jungle comparisons whenever someone black did something bad. Offensive as hell.
Blame Darwin.
-
So let me get this straight. While white kids are being told they are descended from apes, all across the country and the world, if you imply a similar heritage for a black person, you are a racist?
C'mon Joe....
There is a pretty long history of racists referring to black people as monkeys or apes, and implying they are further back along the evolutionary chain than are white people. Feigning ignorance about that reality doesn't really contribute to anything.
-
Roseanne Barr back on Twitter after 'leaving,' blames 'Ambien tweeting' after ABC cancels hit show
"Don't feel sorry for me, guys!!" Barr also tweeted, before discouraging people from boycotting ABC. "I just want to apologize to the hundreds of people,and wonderful writers (all liberal) and talented actors who lost their jobs on my show due to my stupid tweet. I will be on Joe Rogan's podcast friday."
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/05/30/roseanne-barr-back-on-twitter-after-leaving-apologizes-to-cast-crew-after-abc-cancels-hit-show.html (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/05/30/roseanne-barr-back-on-twitter-after-leaving-apologizes-to-cast-crew-after-abc-cancels-hit-show.html)
That's a surprisingly appropriate tweet.
-
I guess next they'll bring on Al "Not So" Sharpton to comment on what Barr said. **nononono*
@txradioguy
What happened to Sharpie,anyhow? He just seemed to suddenly disappear.
-
That's a surprisingly appropriate tweet.
You might want to hold off on that until we hear what she says in her interview. She could say anything. :laugh:
-
Everyone knows I call 'em like I see 'em with Trump. I give him accolades when deserved and insults when he acts like an idiot.
With that ....... I want to go strongly go on record of saying this Rosanne Barr event is the ultimate of hypocricy.. What she tweeted is far less (using ABC's language) "Repugnant" than what is trotted out there nightly between 10:30 - midnight against Trump on what loosely may be called the spawn of Johnny Carson's legacy.
The big 3's (ABC,NBC,CBS) effort to drive the country left has gone far past Norman Lear's subliminal approach. They have taken the war to a much higher level. An alternate network is needed now.
It's a ton of hypocrisy. But I think the correct road isn't to defend Roseanne -- it's to go after the leftist dirtbags who have said worse and gotten away with it.
-
"Don't feel sorry for me, guys!!" Barr also tweeted, before discouraging people from boycotting ABC. "I just want to apologize to the hundreds of people,and wonderful writers (all liberal) and talented actors who lost their jobs on my show due to my stupid tweet. I will be on Joe Rogan's podcast friday."
Got to commend her for this. She took responsibility for what she did and acknowldeged how her actions hurt others. Humility goes a very long way with me. Contrast this with Joy Reid's reaction.
-
Ok, perhaps I am missing something, Conservapedia and this DailyKos article (article I found while doing an image search) all seem to suggest she has nothing but African American parentage. Something is amiss, I have heard of whitewashing, but it seems the opposite occurs with Valerie, they seem to only focus on the black heritage. There is some mix (Arab or white) in there somewhere unless something is amiss (my eyes).
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2008/11/11/658175/- (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2008/11/11/658175/-)
BTW... for the record. I said Rosanne was trash, always had been trash and her show was trash. Some didn't care to hear it.
@Sighlass
Dey wuz ah cracka or two hide-in in de woodpiles.
-
C'mon Joe....
There is a pretty long history of racists referring to black people as monkeys or apes, and implying they are further back along the evolutionary chain than are white people. Feigning ignorance about that reality doesn't really contribute to anything.
I think you got my point, but in case you didn't, I am pointing out the ridiculousness of the whole thing. Obviously, one group has evolved a much thinner skin. No one even mentioned architectural features or lush plant growth. Now, go look at the artist's conceptions of early man and tell me who is what.
http://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/faces-ancient-hominids-brought-life-remarkable-detail-001465 (http://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/faces-ancient-hominids-brought-life-remarkable-detail-001465)
Just saying. Either you believe all that stuff, or you don't. Your call.
-
You might want to hold off on that until we hear what she says in her interview. She could say anything. :laugh:
That was my first thought, as well.
-
Never will understand why celebrities, corporations, and politicians play around on Twitter. There must be well over 10 thousand famous people who have either ruined their careers or at least caused themselves deep harm by saying something stupid on Twitter.
And that doesn't even compare to how many millions of private citizens have wound up fired, divorced, or sued, by saying stupid crap on Twitter and other public sites. It's crazy. It is like playing Russian roulette.
I don't understand it because I've never been attracted to things like Twitter and Facebook. Not a boycott or anything about principle, I just don't have a need to out myself like that. And as it turns out, Thank Goodness for being weird.
Immediately lost her top rated hit show, also her syndicated shows were taken off air. Probably the most expensive tweet in history.
-
Celebrities cannot stand to not be in the spotlight.
Maybe her show will be picked up on Netflix?
-
So let me get this straight. While white kids are being told they are descended from apes, all across the country and the world, if you imply a similar heritage for a black person, you are a racist?
Your's is a sardonic reply, but actually you do have a good point. In fact, a number of people like refer to humans as simply another branch of apes.
There was a person named Desmond Morris who decades ago wrote a book called "The Naked Ape" (which I didn't read) of which I gathered claimed that humans are not much evolved beyond chimps and gorillas.
And there are people who claim that black people are not Homo Sapiens but a different species.
I am not one to claim (like many liberals) that all the peoples of the world are exactly the same in all mental and physical characteristics except for skin color. But we are all one species.
Of course, the monkey-ape comparison is especially sensitive concerning black people suggesting that they are subhuman. So anybody touching that third rail of commentary is likely to get electrocuted.....like what happened to Barr.
-
How many times did liberals call Bush an ape?
-
How many times did liberals call Bush an ape?
As we all know crime and punishment for calling people with differing political affiliations bad things only works one way...when liberals are called names by conservatives. And Barr isn't even a conservative. She's more just an off the wall wacko with a smorgasbord of screwball opinions on a variety of subjects.
If you get on various lib forums, the bad things Bush and Trump are called are what many liberals think of all Republicans or conservatives. And on some black websites you can find opinions to the effect that ALL white people are nasty, racist subhumans who deserve what they get. Nothing much if anything happens to those people.
Once again we can bring up the liberal hypocrisy aspect, but we'll get nowhere. Because they're never or rarely ashamed of anything they accuse conservatives of being.
-
Your's is a sardonic reply, but actually you do have a good point. In fact, a number of people like refer to humans as simply another branch of apes.
There was a person named Desmond Morris who decades ago wrote a book called "The Naked Ape" (which I didn't read) of which I gathered claimed that humans are not much evolved beyond chimps and gorillas.
And there are people who claim that black people are not Homo Sapiens but a different species.
I am not one to claim (like many liberals) that all the peoples of the world are exactly the same in all mental and physical characteristics except for skin color. But we are all one species.
Of course, the monkey-ape comparison is especially sensitive concerning black people suggesting that they are subhuman. So anybody touching that third rail of commentary is likely to get electrocuted.....like what happened to Barr.
I did read the book, years ago, and I don't remember much about it.
Yes, Homo Sapiens Sapiens are one species, and the differences between us are less than the differences between us and any of the other great apes. While our DNA is very similar to chimps in particular, we are still far removed from them, both in time, culture and DNA. So, to compare one segment of our species to apes doesn't make sense and can be seen as insulting to that segment. Or, to the apes if you dislike humans as so many on the left seem to.
But those facts don't really matter that much - it's that making the comparison to apes and monkeys has historically been an integral part of racially denigrating a segment of society. And, of course, it's not only black people. I remember one English cartoon about the Irish that depicted them as slavering apes.
-
How many times did liberals call Bush an ape?
You mean "Chimpy Bush McHitler"? Daily.
-
Once again we can bring up the liberal hypocrisy aspect, but we'll get nowhere. Because they're never or rarely ashamed of anything they accuse conservatives of being.
You got that right.
(http://www.ntk.net/2002/02/08/dohinnis.jpg)
-
I did read the book, years ago, and I don't remember much about it.
Yes, Homo Sapiens Sapiens are one species, and the differences between us are less than the differences between us and any of the other great apes. While our DNA is very similar to chimps in particular, we are still far removed from them, both in time, culture and DNA. So, to compare one segment of our species to apes doesn't make sense and can be seen as insulting to that segment. Or, to the apes if you dislike humans as so many on the left seem to.
But those facts don't really matter that much - it's that making the comparison to apes and monkeys has historically been an integral part of racially denigrating a segment of society. And, of course, it's not only black people. I remember one English cartoon about the Irish that depicted them as slavering apes.
Evolutionary comparisons (Darwinism) were really handy and readily embraced by colonial powers looking to justify the shabby treatment, enslavement, or exploitation of indigenous people.
Calling an enemy (like people who resist being exploited or enslaved) "animals" and otherwise de-humanizing them has likely gone on since the advent of warfare. By the ordinary logic, because they (whoever, not picking any group here, but talking in general) are considered less evolutionarily developed, the 'subhuman'/animal comparisons follow, with subjugation and a host of horrors. Either we view all people as people (mutually) or we don't.
If humans are evolved, well, it stands to reason that some will be more evolved (advanced) than others. We readily attribute such to other genera, that it would apply to humans should logically follow.
If we are all God's creation, we stand on equal footing with the varied individual attributes, talents, and abilities He gave us.
So, blame Darwin....
-
I did read the book, years ago, and I don't remember much about it.
Yes, Homo Sapiens Sapiens are one species, and the differences between us are less than the differences between us and any of the other great apes. While our DNA is very similar to chimps in particular, we are still far removed from them, both in time, culture and DNA. So, to compare one segment of our species to apes doesn't make sense and can be seen as insulting to that segment. Or, to the apes if you dislike humans as so many on the left seem to.
But those facts don't really matter that much - it's that making the comparison to apes and monkeys has historically been an integral part of racially denigrating a segment of society. And, of course, it's not only black people. I remember one English cartoon about the Irish that depicted them as slavering apes.
Yes, I saw those cartoons. The thing with me is that even though I'm part Irish (maybe ten percent), I laugh when people underestimate me. It makes it easier for me to sneak up on them.
And to be sure, I've heard comments from English people I've known who made comments that suggested they viewed the Irish as somewhat lower in intelligence that Anglo-Saxons.
My own experience with kids of mostly Irish descent in my Catholic school upbringing made me believe on average the Irish were pretty intelligent and more so than white children of some other ethnicities.
I guess I wouldn't like it much though, if I was constantly called names suggesting I'm subhuman. That someone in as high a place, celebrity-wise, as Barr was to make such an asinine statement suggests that she has more than few loose marbles rattling around inside her brain.
-
Evolutionary comparisons (Darwinism) were really handy and readily embraced by colonial powers looking to justify the shabby treatment, enslavement, or exploitation of indigenous people.
Calling an enemy (like people who resist being exploited or enslaved) "animals" and otherwise de-humanizing them has likely gone on since the advent of warfare. By the ordinary logic, because they (whoever, not picking any group here, but talking in general) are considered less evolutionarily developed, the 'subhuman'/animal comparisons follow, with subjugation and a host of horrors. Either we view all people as people (mutually) or we don't.
If humans are evolved, well, it stands to reason that some will be more evolved (advanced) than others. We readily attribute such to other genera, that it would apply to humans should logically follow.
If we are all God's creation, we stand on equal footing with the varied individual attributes, talents, and abilities He gave us.
So, blame Darwin....
Why would I blame Darwin? He didn't invent racism. It existed long before he was even a twinkle in his daddy's eye.
The Evo vs. Crevo argument isn't what created racism.
-
Why would I blame Darwin? He didn't invent racism. It existed long before he was even a twinkle in his daddy's eye.
The Evo vs. Crevo argument isn't what created racism.
Darwinism scientifically justified the prejudices which accompanied technological developments.
-
Topics merged
-
Darwinism scientifically justified the prejudices which accompanied technological developments.
Say what?
-
Evolutionary comparisons (Darwinism) were really handy and readily embraced by colonial powers looking to justify the shabby treatment, enslavement, or exploitation of indigenous people.
Calling an enemy (like people who resist being exploited or enslaved) "animals" and otherwise de-humanizing them has likely gone on since the advent of warfare. By the ordinary logic, because they (whoever, not picking any group here, but talking in general) are considered less evolutionarily developed, the 'subhuman'/animal comparisons follow, with subjugation and a host of horrors. Either we view all people as people (mutually) or we don't.
If humans are evolved, well, it stands to reason that some will be more evolved (advanced) than others. We readily attribute such to other genera, that it would apply to humans should logically follow.
If we are all God's creation, we stand on equal footing with the varied individual attributes, talents, and abilities He gave us.
So, blame Darwin....
It doesn’t stand to reason that some would be more evolved. That is a classic anti-evolution fallacy.
-
I guess who immediately came to mind when reading these headlines is Kathy Griffin. She holds up a bloody decapitated head of Trump and some saw that as humorous! She didn't get a free pass because it was so over the top, but she was relatively unscathed. Barr's comments didn't have anything to do with the show, yet they cancel the show completely. Just my opinion here, but I hear of comments made by late night talk show hosts and people on "The View" with racist and politically motivated comments and their shows are still on
-
Now, go look at the artist's conceptions of early man and tell me who is what.
http://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/faces-ancient-hominids-brought-life-remarkable-detail-001465 (http://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/faces-ancient-hominids-brought-life-remarkable-detail-001465)
Exactly what point are you trying to make with that point? Can't you just speak plainly?
-
As we all know crime and punishment for calling people with differing political affiliations bad things only works one way...when liberals are called names by conservatives. And Barr isn't even a conservative. She's more just an off the wall wacko with a smorgasbord of screwball opinions on a variety of subjects.
If you get on various lib forums, the bad things Bush and Trump are called are what many liberals think of all Republicans or conservatives. And on some black websites you can find opinions to the effect that ALL white people are nasty, racist subhumans who deserve what they get. Nothing much if anything happens to those people.
Once again we can bring up the liberal hypocrisy aspect, but we'll get nowhere. Because they're never or rarely ashamed of anything they accuse conservatives of being.
@goatprairie Yes, people on message boards and social media in general say awful things, often about groups of people they don't like. It happens on DU, it happens on the Washington Post; it also happens here, though less often than on FR. Human nature includes making sweeping generalizations about people we see as different from us. It's not left or right, it's human.
It's also human nature to ignore things we don't want to see. Roseanne Barr has been saying nasty stuff for years, and she's gotten flak for it repeatedly. Her targets aren't exclusively right or left. She's been anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, then pro-Israel. She's been pro- and anti-gay at different points. This isn't even the first time she's compared a black person to an ape -- she did it to Susan Rice. About the only thing she's consistent on is being anti-men.
The point is, that she's been called out every time; but people only pay attention to the reactions when they want to. "Liberals" have been fired for saying things that *advertisers* agreed crossed the line. Bill Maher lost his original show after 9/11 for that. He got called out again for calling himself a house n----r and almost lost his new show for that -- if he'd referred to a guest as a house n----r he rlly would have been fired. Wanda Sykes and Michelle Wolf have both gotten criticized for comments. Joy Behar had serious repercussions and had to apologize, and FWIW there's a difference between criticizing all Christians and talking about someone who thinks G-d literally speaks to him.
Roseanne has just recently said many things that were criticized. This time she crossed the line and used a blatant racist stereotype, one that she's been called out for before. If she'd compared VJ to a lizard person, which many people here have noted was a better comparison, she'd have been criticized again but would still have her show. Comedians and celebs make controversial comments all the time and get hate mail for it. But there are some blatant things that are societally agreed on norms and standards. If we wouldn't say it to our mother/boss/in a restaurant or other public place, there's probably a reason why.
I know there are readers here who apparently aren't aware of the history of different racist stereotypes and slurs. Maybe we need a lexicon. But one thing: "white supremacist" is not a slur on all white people.
-
I guess who immediately came to mind when reading these headlines is Kathy Griffin. She holds up a bloody decapitated head of Trump and some saw that as humorous! She didn't get a free pass because it was so over the top, but she was relatively unscathed. Barr's comments didn't have anything to do with the show, yet they cancel the show completely. Just my opinion here, but I hear of comments made by late night talk show hosts and people on "The View" with racist and politically motivated comments and their shows are still on
@libertybele, Do you have any examples of a comment that a late night comedian or View host has said that was racist? I still havent seen one.
-
@goatprairie Yes, people on message boards and social media in general say awful things, often about groups of people they don't like. It happens on DU, it happens on the Washington Post; it also happens here, though less often than on FR. Human nature includes making sweeping generalizations about people we see as different from us. It's not left or right, it's human.
It's also human nature to ignore things we don't want to see. Roseanne Barr has been saying nasty stuff for years, and she's gotten flak for it repeatedly. Her targets aren't exclusively right or left. She's been anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, then pro-Israel. She's been pro- and anti-gay at different points. This isn't even the first time she's compared a black person to an ape -- she did it to Susan Rice. About the only thing she's consistent on is being anti-men.
The point is, that she's been called out every time; but people only pay attention to the reactions when they want to. "Liberals" have been fired for saying things that *advertisers* agreed crossed the line. Bill Maher lost his original show after 9/11 for that. He got called out again for calling himself a house n----r and almost lost his new show for that -- if he'd referred to a guest as a house n----r he rlly would have been fired. Wanda Sykes and Michelle Wolf have both gotten criticized for comments. Joy Behar had serious repercussions and had to apologize, and FWIW there's a difference between criticizing all Christians and talking about someone who thinks G-d literally speaks to him.
Roseanne has just recently said many things that were criticized. This time she crossed the line and used a blatant racist stereotype, one that she's been called out for before. If she'd compared VJ to a lizard person, which many people here have noted was a better comparison, she'd have been criticized again but would still have her show. Comedians and celebs make controversial comments all the time and get hate mail for it. But there are some blatant things that are societally agreed on norms and standards. If we wouldn't say it to our mother/boss/in a restaurant or other public place, there's probably a reason why.
I know there are readers here who apparently aren't aware of the history of different racist stereotypes and slurs. Maybe we need a lexicon. But one thing: "white supremacist" is not a slur on all white people.
Well put.
-
@LauraTXNM
Here's what Julianne Malveaux said about Clarence Thomas:
"You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that’s how I feel. He is an absolutely reprehensible person."
She wasn't a late-night talk show host or anything like that. But she did say this on federally subsidized airwaves, and she was never in any danger of losing her job or having that radio show cancelled.
-
Say what?
The mid 19th century Europeans were heartily exploiting colonial ventures around the world. While movements had either banned slavery or were on their way to doing so worldwide (at least in European influenced cultures) having superior technology justified (along with Darwinism) the concept that Europeans were more evolutionarily advanced humans, and thus exploitation was justified, often in the guise of propelling more primitive people to advance, but commonly in the form of shameless exploitation.
While the ideas that "Gott Mit Uns", and 'taming the savage heathen' are nothing new (what conquering army isn't either asserting its natural superiority or converting the unbelievers?), in the end all loot, pillage, and burn, and subjugate their conquests (Alexander the Great may have been a notable exception).
This forcible exporting of culture, language, and religion (and attempts to subjugate that which existed prior) masks the looting which accompanies it, but behind it all is a feeling of being superior to the natives.
That Darwin walks hand-in-glove with such assertions or assumptions of natural superiority leaves the conquered peoples lower on the 'civilization' pole, less developed, and in second place, evolutionarily, in the minds of those infused with such beliefs during the 'Age of Reason'. Even Natural Histories (Ackermans, 1848, pre-Darwin) expressed the concept of some races being more 'advanced' than others, Darwin provided an evolutionary framework for those prejudices.
I do not embrace any of that, but my beliefs don't influence that which has passed, and it was evident in the colonial movement which spanned the globe, with the subjugation of indigenous peoples everywhere.
-
@LauraTXNM
Here's what Julianne Malveaux said about Clarence Thomas:
She wasn't a late-night talk show host or anything like that. But she did say this on federally subsidized airwaves, and she was never in any danger of losing her job or having that radio show cancelled.
Seriously?? You think that is even remotely as offensive as calling an African-American a monkey?
-
That's very bad from this Malveux, it doesn't matter if she is a person of color herself. That is very hateful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julianne_Malveaux
-
Darwinism scientifically justified the prejudices which accompanied technological developments.
I agree.
Darwin's theory made racism academically acceptable and accepted in higher social circles.
The Progressives of the early 20th century (Woodrow Wilson, for one) were strongly Darwinist and hideously racist.
The fact that racism existed outside of academia is irrelevant. Darwin made it official.
-
The mid 19th century Europeans were heartily exploiting colonial ventures around the world. While movements had either banned slavery or were on their way to doing so worldwide (at least in European influenced cultures) having superior technology justified (along with Darwinism) the concept that Europeans were more evolutionarily advanced humans, and thus exploitation was justified, often in the guise of propelling more primitive people to advance, but commonly in the form of shameless exploitation.
While the ideas that "Gott Mit Uns", and 'taming the savage heathen' are nothing new (what conquering army isn't either asserting its natural superiority or converting the unbelievers?), in the end all loot, pillage, and burn, and subjugate their conquests (Alexander the Great may have been a notable exception).
This forcible exporting of culture, language, and religion (and attempts to subjugate that which existed prior) masks the looting which accompanies it, but behind it all is a feeling of being superior to the natives.
That Darwin walks hand-in-glove with such assertions or assumptions of natural superiority leaves the conquered peoples lower on the 'civilization' pole, less developed, and in second place, evolutionarily, in the minds of those infused with such beliefs during the 'Age of Reason'. Even Natural Histories (Ackermans, 1848, pre-Darwin) expressed the concept of some races being more 'advanced' than others, Darwin provided an evolutionary framework for those prejudices.
I do not embrace any of that, but my beliefs don't influence that which has passed, and it was evident in the colonial movement which spanned the globe, with the subjugation of indigenous peoples everywhere.
:rolleyes:
-
@LauraTXNM
Here's what Julianne Malveaux said about Clarence Thomas:
She wasn't a late-night talk show host or anything like that. But she did say this on federally subsidized airwaves, and she was never in any danger of losing her job or having that radio show cancelled.
@Hoodat Thanks for the example. Julianne Malveaux is black, as it happens, and like Seinfeld said, she gets a pass for being in the same group -- just like Seinfeld's dentist converted to Judaism for the jokes.
No question she is nasty and rude and has gotten in trouble for a bunch of things, including having lost her college job and having been arrested on a plane. The Clarence Thomas comment was considered hateful enough that it is one of the things regularly mentioned about her in public media and Wikipedia.
-
And let's not forget Robert Byrd. Never recall seeing any liberals demanding his resignation.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq2iA7mL1J0#)
-
That's very bad from this Malveux, it doesn't matter if she is a person of color herself. That is very hateful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julianne_Malveaux
Agreed, it's nasty but not racist. And it was mean enough that she's "known" for making that comment.
-
Julianne Malveaux is black, as it happens, and like Seinfeld said, she gets a pass for being in the same group -
That's racist.
-
Seriously?? You think that is even remotely as offensive as calling an African-American a monkey?
Bingo.
-
Seriously?? You think that is even remotely as offensive as calling an African-American a monkey?
@Oceander
Yes, saying you wish someone dead is more offensive then calling them an ape. That wasn't even a difficult question.
-
(Obama’s) a nice person, he’s very articulate this is what’s been used against him, but he couldn’t sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.
-Dan Rather-
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2010/03/08/dan-rather-articulate-obama-couldnt-even-sell-watermelons (https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2010/03/08/dan-rather-articulate-obama-couldnt-even-sell-watermelons)
-
@Oceander
Yes, saying you wish someone dead is more offensive then calling them an ape. That wasn't even a difficult question.
No, actually, it’s not. It’s boorish and spiteful, at most.
-
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.I mean, that’s a storybook, man.â€
-Joe Biden-
-
"A few years ago, (Baraq Obama) would have been getting us coffee."
-Bill Clinton-
-
Keep trying @Hoodat , you still haven’t dredged up anything that is remotely as offensive as Roseanne’s comment was.
-
Blacks are a protected class in America. Learn it, live it, love it.
-
No, actually, it’s not. It’s boorish and spiteful, at most.
@Oceander
Well I hope you eat lots of butter then.
-
Here's Sandra Bernhard wishing Sarah Palin be gang-raped by black men (as if that is somehow worse than being gang-raped by white men).
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0Q4r5OA09g#)
-
The mid 19th century Europeans were heartily exploiting colonial ventures around the world. While movements had either banned slavery or were on their way to doing so worldwide (at least in European influenced cultures) having superior technology justified (along with Darwinism) the concept that Europeans were more evolutionarily advanced humans, and thus exploitation was justified, often in the guise of propelling more primitive people to advance, but commonly in the form of shameless exploitation.
While the ideas that "Gott Mit Uns", and 'taming the savage heathen' are nothing new (what conquering army isn't either asserting its natural superiority or converting the unbelievers?), in the end all loot, pillage, and burn, and subjugate their conquests (Alexander the Great may have been a notable exception).
This forcible exporting of culture, language, and religion (and attempts to subjugate that which existed prior) masks the looting which accompanies it, but behind it all is a feeling of being superior to the natives.
That Darwin walks hand-in-glove with such assertions or assumptions of natural superiority leaves the conquered peoples lower on the 'civilization' pole, less developed, and in second place, evolutionarily, in the minds of those infused with such beliefs during the 'Age of Reason'. Even Natural Histories (Ackermans, 1848, pre-Darwin) expressed the concept of some races being more 'advanced' than others, Darwin provided an evolutionary framework for those prejudices.
I do not embrace any of that, but my beliefs don't influence that which has passed, and it was evident in the colonial movement which spanned the globe, with the subjugation of indigenous peoples everywhere.
But, Joe, European colonialism was a well established fact well before Charles Darwin was even born.
And, Darwin didn't "provide" anything, but observations.
-
Keep trying @Hoodat , you still haven’t dredged up anything that is remotely as offensive as Roseanne’s comment was.
@Oceander
There are a myriad of statements made by leftists which are just as hateful if not more so. But since they are your buddies you'll never agree with it.
-
@Oceander
Well I hope you eat lots of butter then.
Thanks. I tend to eat more I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter than actual butter, though.
BTW, do you think that’s even remotely offensive? It’s silly.
-
@Oceander
There are a myriad of statements made by leftists which are just as hateful if not more so. But since they are your buddies you'll never agree with it.
:facepalm2:
-
Keep trying @Hoodat , you still haven’t dredged up anything that is remotely as offensive as Roseanne’s comment was.
Ah, moral relativism. How quaint. I guess you get to be the arbiter of what crosses the line and what does not. Convenient for you, eh?
And for the record, I am in no way defending Barr. But I do recognize a double-standard when I see it. (See: Joy Reid - PMSNBC)
-
Ah, moral relativism. How quaint. I guess you get to be the arbiter of what crosses the line and what does not. Convenient for you, eh?
And for the record, I am in no way defending Barr. But I do recognize a double-standard when I see it. (See: Joy Reid - PMSNBC)
You wouldn’t see the trees if you walked face-first in to one, because you don’t want to.
-
Trees? I have posted several trees on this thread, yet you argue that they are merely bushes and shrubs immune to the standard being applied to Barr. Hypocrite much?
-
"Let me see one of you adopt one of those ugly black babies."
-Ashutosh Ron Virmani-
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/06/abortion-practitioner-refers-to-killing-ugly-black-babies/ (http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/06/abortion-practitioner-refers-to-killing-ugly-black-babies/)
-
R A C I S T ! ! !
(http://www.primepuzzle.com/leeslightest/bushvschimp.jpg)
-
Trees? I have posted several trees on this thread, yet you argue that they are merely bushes and shrubs immune to the standard being applied to Barr. Hypocrite much?
No, you haven’t. Not one of your posts reaches the same dehumanizing level that Roseanne’s comment hit.
-
You wouldn’t see the trees if you walked face-first in to one, because you don’t want to.
@Oceander
Are you saying you want to walk face first into some wood?
-
R A C I S T ! ! !
(http://www.primepuzzle.com/leeslightest/bushvschimp.jpg)
Not in context. Offensive, yes, but not in the same way that calling African Americans a monkey is offensive.
-
“You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent.â€
-Joe Biden-
-
And let's not forget Robert Byrd. Never recall seeing any liberals demanding his resignation.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq2iA7mL1J0#)
@Hoodat, What did you think of Bill Clinton's comment in that video?
I've always been fascinated by Robert Byrd and George Wallace, because they changed (or didn't) so much. Yes, liberals despise doing Byrd through the 1960s. He began disavowing his views on race and his earlier votes in the 1970s and I think worked not entirely successfully but maybe sincerely to repair some of the damage he'd done.
The Tony Snow interview from 2001 (clipped in the video) is a good example to me of someone who still doesn't fully "get" it but is trying:
"[Race relations] are much, much better than they've ever been in my life-time.... I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us.... I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that. There are white n----rs. I've seen a lot of white n----rs in my time, if you want to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."
Incidentally, the NAACP and other people called him out for the n comment, and he apologized for it as "a phrase that dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today's society.... In my attempt to articulate strongly held feelings, I may have offended people." He got reamed for it and had to apologize.
Honestly, I can imagine my grandfather, and a lot of other older people I've known, making a very similar statement to the one Robert Byrd did. I've read similar sentiments for years, from people both Northern and Southern. BTW, like Atticus Finch, my family didn't use the n word; they called those people "white trash". But that may just have been the luck of the draw for me.
The big question I have is, would Robert Byrd be electable today? No. Neither would Bill Clinton. And if anyone but Donald Trump had made the comments he had, I don't think he would have been elected either.
the NAACP regularly called him out,
-
@Oceander
Are you saying you want to walk face first into some wood?
/snicker
Read much?
-
“You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent.â€
-Joe Biden-
Not dehumanizing. Therefore misses the mark.
-
/snicker
Read much?
@Oceander
All the time, which is why I know when someone is deflecting.
Integrity - its not just for kids any more.
-
Not dehumanizing. Therefore misses the mark.
Your white privilege is blinding you.
-
Immediately lost her top rated hit show, also her syndicated shows were taken off air. Probably the most expensive tweet in history.
@aligncare
You can be sure nobody hates her more than the rest of her cast and crew. Not only are they out of jobs now in the middle of the season where there are no new job openings,but I suspect more than a few of them turned down other jobs to get on what they thought would be a long-running secure job.
If she had just screwed up her own stuff,no big deal,but she probably screwed 50 to 100 people with her brain farts. Maybe more if you want to include the associated craft workers that served the show in one way or another. She,as the "Big Name" of the show had a responsibility towards those people even if she wasn't aware of it or didn't care. I personally hope she never gets hired to anything but menial work like picking up trash or washing dishes for the rest of her life.
Yeah,I know she has a winery and interests in other businesses,but if you don't think the Hollywood left is doing the research to get her booted from them or boycott them into bankruptcy,you shouldn't be allowed to cross the street by yourself. They are not only going to destroy her with blackballing her for jobs and investments,but they are going to look for things to keep her tied up in civil courts facing lawsuits until she is broke and living on SS.
The "intellectual left" like to play at being open-minded,but are some of the most viscous people in the world if you cross them and cost them money.
-
@Oceander
Yes, saying you wish someone dead is more offensive then calling them an ape. That wasn't even a difficult question.
@driftdiver No, it's horrible in a different way. And in this case, her death wish is not because he's black, but because of him as an individual. Saying that many black people have heart disease and you wish they'd all die from it faster -- now that is both hateful and racist. Like Robert Byrd's mother said, you won't go to heaven if you hate anybody. Malveaux was hateful there.
-
How many times did liberals call Bush an ape?
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
Doesn't matter. Boy Jorge is white,and ALL white people are debbils.
-
@driftdiver No, it's horrible in a different way. And in this case, her death wish is not because he's black, but because of him as an individual. Saying that many black people have heart disease and you wish they'd all die from it faster -- now that is both hateful and racist. Like Robert Byrd's mother said, you won't go to heaven if you hate anybody. Malveaux was hateful there.
oh good grief
-
(Obama’s) a nice person, he’s very articulate this is what’s been used against him, but he couldn’t sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.
-Dan Rather-
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2010/03/08/dan-rather-articulate-obama-couldnt-even-sell-watermelons (https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2010/03/08/dan-rather-articulate-obama-couldnt-even-sell-watermelons)
@Hoodat Great example! He tried to explain it and apologize, but he caught a lot of flak. If he'd still been a network anchor, he might have been fired. As it was, everyone from NYMagazine to Essence gave him hell.
-
@Oceander
Are you saying you want to walk face first into some wood?
****drummer
-
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.I mean, that’s a storybook, man.â€
-Joe Biden-
@Hoodat Yep, got holy hell for that. Probably has ruined his chances for the presidency (aside from all the other stuff ;)).
-
"A few years ago, (Baraq Obama) would have been getting us coffee."
-Bill Clinton-
@Hoodat, Is that racist?
-
I wonder if anyone else has noticed: if you put Roseanne Barr's hair atop Valerie Jarrett's head, Valerie Jarrett would look far more like Roseanne Barr than like anyone from Planet of the Apes.
(http://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/screen-shot-2018-05-29-at-10-37-35-am.png?w=780)
That said, ABC bringing back Roseanne Barr equaled riding a sabertooth, and their canning her equals dismounting the sabertooth before she could swallow them alive, as surely she would have done in short enough order even if she wasn't a racist. Being the unhinged nutbag she's been for a long enough time would have been enough to swallow ABC.
-
Wow... Valerie Jarrett doesn't even look black.
-
I did read the book, years ago, and I don't remember much about it.
Yes, Homo Sapiens Sapiens are one species, and the differences between us are less than the differences between us and any of the other great apes. While our DNA is very similar to chimps in particular, we are still far removed from them, both in time, culture and DNA. So, to compare one segment of our species to apes doesn't make sense and can be seen as insulting to that segment. Or, to the apes if you dislike humans as so many on the left seem to.
But those facts don't really matter that much - it's that making the comparison to apes and monkeys has historically been an integral part of racially denigrating a segment of society. And, of course, it's not only black people. I remember one English cartoon about the Irish that depicted them as slavering apes.
And let's not forget the posters depicting Germans as pigs during WW-1. It's so common it's not really anything to get worked up over.
Why not go ahead and "speak" out loud the fact that everyone is dancing around and hoping nobody notices? Many Africans have faces that resemble those of apes physically,and when the white man first went to Africa,the Africans weren't evolved very far past the ape level culturally,either. Hell,in the 1960's the Simba tribe had a medicine man telling the men in his tribe to attack Stanleyville and take it from the white man without fear because he had cast a spell that made the white man's bullets harmless,and these dweebs believed it.
The Simbas were cooking and eating white people in the streets when the French Foreign Legion and the Belgian paratroopers jumped in to restore order,and then they suddenly heard their mamas calling and had to run back home. Facing the FFL and Belgian paratroopers wasn't as much fun as facing housewives and children.
I remember that incident very well because I was one of a couple hundred guys sitting out on the runway at Pope AFB for a couple of days,wearing civilian clothes and waiting to see if we were going to parachute in there ourselves. Once the UN decided to send in the FFL and the Belgians,we were released back to our normal duty.
Think about it,this was 1965,and these people still believed in magic spells that could make them bulletproof.
Here it is in the 21st Century,and in some parts of Africa men with AIDS are raping infants because some witch doctor told them it would cure their AIDS.
Are there blacks that are just as smart and industrious as any other human walking the earth? You bet your butt there are. There are many of them,but there are damn few in Africa,even today.
-
Here's Sandra Bernhard wishing Sarah Palin be gang-raped by black men (as if that is somehow worse than being gang-raped by white men).
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0Q4r5OA09g#)
@Hoodat, Thank you! Yes, she's professionally awful, kind of like Roseanne Barr. But did you notice that comment wasn't in your video? That's because it actually didn't happen, and even so, she lost work because of it.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/02/sandra-bernhard-denies-re_n_131326.html (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/02/sandra-bernhard-denies-re_n_131326.html)
-
Whats really funny is this ruined the first top rate show ABC has had in like 20 years.
-
Whats really funny is this ruined the first top rate show ABC has had in like 20 years.
@driftdiver
Between killing this show and Last Man Standing it's almost like they WANT to be in last place.
ESPN - "we've lost 7 million subscribers and $2billion in revenue in the last 3 years because of our liberal policies"
ABC - "hold my beer..."
-
"Let me see one of you adopt one of those ugly black babies."
-Ashutosh Ron Virmani-
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/06/abortion-practitioner-refers-to-killing-ugly-black-babies/ (http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/06/abortion-practitioner-refers-to-killing-ugly-black-babies/)
Now he's awful. Period.
-
Evolutionary comparisons (Darwinism) were really handy and readily embraced by colonial powers looking to justify the shabby treatment, enslavement, or exploitation of indigenous people.
Calling an enemy (like people who resist being exploited or enslaved) "animals" and otherwise de-humanizing them has likely gone on since the advent of warfare. By the ordinary logic, because they (whoever, not picking any group here, but talking in general) are considered less evolutionarily developed, the 'subhuman'/animal comparisons follow, with subjugation and a host of horrors. Either we view all people as people (mutually) or we don't.
If humans are evolved, well, it stands to reason that some will be more evolved (advanced) than others. We readily attribute such to other genera, that it would apply to humans should logically follow.
If we are all God's creation, we stand on equal footing with the varied individual attributes, talents, and abilities He gave us.
So, blame Darwin....
@Smokin Joe
True. Look at all the flack Rudyard Kipling caught for his poem "The White Man's Burden". He wrote it about the US colonization of the Philippines,but I always heard it was about the white man's colonization of Africa when I was younger. Even back then history was being distorted for political gain.
Take up the White Man’s burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go send your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child
Take up the White Man’s burden
In patience to abide
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple
An hundred times made plain
To seek another’s profit
And work another’s gain
Take up the White Man’s burden—
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard—
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah slowly) to the light:
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
“Our loved Egyptian night?â€
Take up the White Man’s burden-
Have done with childish days-
The lightly proffered laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!
Did he nail the true price of colonization,or not?
-
And let's not forget the posters depicting Germans as pigs during WW-1. It's so common it's not really anything to get worked up over.
Why not go ahead and "speak" out loud the fact that everyone is dancing around and hoping nobody notices? Many Africans have faces that resemble those of apes physically,and when the white man first went to Africa,the Africans weren't evolved very far past the ape level culturally,either. Hell,in the 1960's the Simba tribe had a medicine man telling the men in his tribe to attack Stanleyville and take it from the white man without fear because he had cast a spell that made the white man's bullets harmless,and these dweebs believed it.
The Simbas were cooking and eating white people in the streets when the French Foreign Legion and the Belgian paratroopers jumped in to restore order,and then they suddenly heard their mamas calling and had to run back home. Facing the FFL and Belgian paratroopers wasn't as much fun as facing housewives and children.
I remember that incident very well because I was one of a couple hundred guys sitting out on the runway at Pope AFB for a couple of days,wearing civilian clothes and waiting to see if we were going to parachute in there ourselves. Once the UN decided to send in the FFL and the Belgians,we were released back to our normal duty.
Think about it,this was 1965,and these people still believed in magic spells that could make them bulletproof.
Here it is in the 21st Century,and in some parts of Africa men with AIDS are raping infants because some witch doctor told them it would cure their AIDS.
Are there blacks that are just as smart and industrious as any other human walking the earth? You bet your butt there are. There are many of them,but there are damn few in Africa,even today.
I thought you were trying to justify hook-nose caricatures of Jews. Why did you switch to Africans?
-
@driftdiver
Between killing this show and Last Man Standing it's almost like they WANT to be in last place.
ESPN - "we've lost 7 million subscribers and $2billion in revenue in the last 3 years because of our liberal policies"
ABC - "hold my beer..."
88devil 888high58888
-
R A C I S T ! ! !
(http://www.primepuzzle.com/leeslightest/bushvschimp.jpg)
I had no idea George Bush was black!!!
-
@Oceander
All the time, which is why I know when someone is deflecting.
Integrity - its not just for kids any more.
@driftdiver, Who's deflecting? Do you have an example of a late night host or The View host making a racist comment?
-
Celebrities cannot stand to not be in the spotlight.
Maybe her show will be picked up on Netflix?
The same Netflix that just signed a deal with the Obamas that employed Valerie Jarrett?
:mauslaff:
Yeah, not gonna happen.
-
I agree.
Darwin's theory made racism academically acceptable and accepted in higher social circles.
The Progressives of the early 20th century (Woodrow Wilson, for one) were strongly Darwinist and hideously racist.
The fact that racism existed outside of academia is irrelevant. Darwin made it official.
@musiclady @Oceander
Let's get real,here. You can't blame this on Darwin. That's akin to blaming a witness for a murder. If Darwin and his theories hadn't existed,someone else would have invented them.
Flat out,it is human nature for a certain percentage of ANY population to exploit those around them in order to advance their own personal wealth and power. You don't think the tribal chiefs in Africa were exploiting their own people in order to accumulate more personal wealth and power?
About the only culture I am aware of where this has never happened AFAIK,is with the Eskimos. Then again,what is the advantage to stealing more ice from your neighbors?
EVERY society/ethnicity/tribe does this. They even do it to each other if there are no outsiders available to screw over/enslave/cheat/murder.
The white man is just catching all the heat because he has been the most successful,and the reds,blacks,and browns are jealous.
-
Blacks are a protected class in America. Learn it, live it, love it.
@aligncare
Yup!
-
@Smokin Joe
True. Look at all the flack Rudyard Kipling caught for his poem "The White Man's Burden". He wrote it about the US colonization of the Philippines,but I always heard it was about the white man's colonization of Africa when I was younger. Even back then history was being distorted for political gain.
Did he nail the true price of colonization,or not?
Despite the other over/undertones of Star Trek, I always saw The Prime Directive as a way to avoid the responsibility for having disrupted the normal development of any sentient species. I saw that further as a metaphor for the burden/responsibility of colonizers for the societies they altered here on Earth. Kipling had it right, but honesty is seldom awarded, and most often reviled, even in retrospect.
-
Not in context. Offensive, yes, but not in the same way that calling African Americans a monkey is offensive.
@Oceander
Why? What's so special about African whatevers that we must avoid ever offending one of them at all costs? If your ancestors came from Africa and that offends you,it is YOUR problem,not mine.
You obviously believe it to be an accurate observation or you wouldn't be in such a panic to shut it down. If it's not accurate,it will die a natural death.
-
I wonder if anyone else has noticed: if you put Roseanne Barr's hair atop Valerie Jarrett's head, Valerie Jarrett would look far more like Roseanne Barr than like anyone from Planet of the Apes.
(http://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/screen-shot-2018-05-29-at-10-37-35-am.png?w=780)
@EasyAce
LOL! That had never occurred to me,but it is very true.
Besides,about the only things whiter appearing than VJ are snowballs. I could see it if she were as black as Whoopie Goldberg,but I am guessing that VJ has faced damn little discrimination since she was born,since she looks white and grew up in a wealthy and connected family.
-
@Oceander
Why? What's so special about African whatevers that we must avoid ever offending one of them at all costs? If your ancestors came from Africa and that offends you,it is YOUR problem,not mine.
You obviously believe it to be an accurate observation or you wouldn't be in such a panic to shut it down. If it's not accurate,it will die a natural death.
Why would I bother to answer when you clearly don’t want to understand? Apparently, ostriches aren’t the only ones who stick their heads in the sand.
-
I thought you were trying to justify hook-nose caricatures of Jews. Why did you switch to Africans?
@Sanguine
First of all,I am not trying to justify anything. I'm not responsible for their noses. I just noticed them,I didn't design them.
Secondly,the conversation has shifted. Try to keep up.
-
But, Joe, European colonialism was a well established fact well before Charles Darwin was even born.
And, Darwin didn't "provide" anything, but observations.
Instead of just conquest, Darwin provided the scientific rationale for exploiting those 'lesser' indigenough peoples, who obviously were not as advanced. While you can say "advanced" is solely a technological thing, with Darwin, it became a measure of evolutionary development, with earlier and more basic forms defined as 'primitive' and vice-versa. That which was most advanced was equated with the pinnacle of evolutionary development, that peak still seen in terms like "apex predator". Basically, it put forth the scientific rationale that somehow Europeans were more advanced human forms, reinforcing the mindsets put forth in works like Ackerman's Natural History, which I cited earlier.
It was the scientific reinforcement of existing prejudices which entrenched those prejudices and made them acceptable in polite society, and led to terms such as "gone native" to describe thos3e who departed from their home culture in any sense. Other terms which were perhaps less polite were used as well.
-
@Sanguine
First of all,I am not trying to justify anything. I'm not responsible for their noses. I just noticed them,I didn't design them.
Secondly,the conversation has shifted. Try to keep up.
Ah, I see. When you can't answer the questions and are shown to be wrong, you just change the subject. Got it.
-
No, you haven’t. Not one of your posts reaches the same dehumanizing level that Roseanne’s comment hit.
Roseanne at least attributed half her heritage to someone ostensibly human, others made direct comparisons with Bush and a chimp. Which is more de-humanizing? 50% or 100%?
-
Why would I bother to answer when you clearly don’t want to understand? Apparently, ostriches aren’t the only ones who stick their heads in the sand.
@Oceander
Ok,so you are operating from kneejerk reactions instead of reason.
Would it have killed you to admit that?
-
Instead of just conquest, Darwin provided the scientific rationale for exploiting those 'lesser' indigenough peoples, who obviously were not as advanced. While you can say "advanced" is solely a technological thing, with Darwin, it became a measure of evolutionary development, with earlier and more basic forms defined as 'primitive' and vice-versa. That which was most advanced was equated with the pinnacle of evolutionary development, that peak still seen in terms like "apex predator". Basically, it put forth the scientific rationale that somehow Europeans were more advanced human forms, reinforcing the mindsets put forth in works like Ackerman's Natural History, which I cited earlier.
It was the scientific reinforcement of existing prejudices which entrenched those prejudices and made them acceptable in polite society, and led to terms such as "gone native" to describe thos3e who departed from their home culture in any sense. Other terms which were perhaps less polite were used as well.
OK, if we limit it to those very narrow terms, I can somewhat agree to that, with the caveat that all of that happened before and without Darwin and continued after publication of his book.
-
Ah, I see. When you can't answer the questions and are shown to be wrong, you just change the subject. Got it.
@Sanguine
You obviously have a very rich imagination.
-
@Sanguine
You obviously have a very rich imagination.
Actually I do, however I find no need for it here.
-
@Oceander
Ok,so you are operating from kneejerk reactions instead of reason.
Would it have killed you to admit that?
:bigsilly:
Like I said ....
-
OK, if we limit it to those very narrow terms, I can somewhat agree to that, with the caveat that all of that happened before and without Darwin and continued after publication of his book.
Conquest has been the way of humans since one had something the other wanted that they did not want to part with.
Phrases like: 'Utilizing what those backward savages never would' became scientifically justifiable on another level when those 'backward savages' were considered evolutionarily inferior and thus less than human, therefore not deserving of the Rights and respect humans were. In effect, it laid philosophical/scientific groundwork for considering those targeted populations lesser beings or even as animals.
With science in hand, virtually any act against any "lesser" beings could be justified, from enslavement, to diamond and gold mining/exploitation, to the concentration camps. All that was necessary was to successfully define a group as lesser beings, to dehumanize them, and get people to consider them to be animals or subhumans, OR to claim they were robbing others of their 'rightful place/resources' in the natural order of things. Claiming to 'right that wrong' kept crematoria going for years in Eastern Europe, for just one example.
There is a fine line between the sort of demonization most populations embrace for an enemy in wartime and racism, and sometimes that line disappears when race becomes something easily defined by some social or physical differentiation. Otherwise, the line is between political or language groups, and any 'racial' element is more of a tribal fiction. Essentially: assert 'They are not us', 'They are inferior to us', 'We rightfully deserve their resources, even if we have to kill them for it'. and virtually any war of aggression/conquest can be framed in those terms. Internal dissent seldom stands against such arguments framed with the scientific certainty that those who 'are not us' are 'our inferior', whether your little 'master race' really is or not.
Virtually all else in human conflict is defensive.
-
@Oceander
Why? What's so special about African whatevers that we must avoid ever offending one of them at all costs? If your ancestors came from Africa and that offends you,it is YOUR problem,not mine.
You obviously believe it to be an accurate observation or you wouldn't be in such a panic to shut it down. If it's not accurate,it will die a natural death.
@sneakypete I'm not sure you and I ever finished talking about the racial stereotype question.
There is a general societal idea that it's stupid to make fun of someone because of his race, gender, membership in a group. There are enough reasons to despise a person because of his individual personality ;). Stereotyping is a very blunt and lazy way to put someone down.
Moreover, in the not-so-recent history of the US, people were actively categorized and discriminated against because of their race, right? They were called names, denied jobs, not allowed to get married or buy houses, etc.
A powerful part of that "dehumanizing" was giving groups derogatory names and comparing them to animals. Sure, "Heeb" comes from "Hebrew". But it's not a name Jews chose to call themselves, and it was used as a rude slur, like "spic" or "chink". Those words also might derive from the group's actual names, but they aren't terms of endearment. Neither is making comments about a group's supposed stereotypical physical characteristics, or comparing people to animals.
It's just not kind or civil; it reminds people of horrible things that happened as recently as their grandparents' time. This is one reason education about the Holocaust is so important, trying to prevent the "othering" that began with caricatures and nasty names.
I don't know if this helps you understand where I'm coming from. But I'd be happy to talk to you about this any time ;).
-
@sneakypete I'm not sure you and I ever finished talking about the racial stereotype question.
There is a general societal idea that it's stupid to make fun of someone because of his race, gender, membership in a group. There are enough reasons to despise a person because of his individual personality ;). Stereotyping is a very blunt and lazy way to put someone down.
Moreover, in the not-so-recent history of the US, people were actively categorized and discriminated against because of their race, right? They were called names, denied jobs, not allowed to get married or buy houses, etc.
A powerful part of that "dehumanizing" was giving groups derogatory names and comparing them to animals. Sure, "Heeb" comes from "Hebrew". But it's not a name Jews chose to call themselves, and it was used as a rude slur, like "spic" or "chink". Those words also might derive from the group's actual names, but they aren't terms of endearment. Neither is making comments about a group's supposed stereotypical physical characteristics, or comparing people to animals.
It's just not kind or civil; it reminds people of horrible things that happened as recently as their grandparents' time. This is one reason education about the Holocaust is so important, trying to prevent the "othering" that began with caricatures and nasty names.
I don't know if this helps you understand where I'm coming from. But I'd be happy to talk to you about this any time ;).
@LauraTXNM
Although she happens to support Donald Trump, conservatives absolutely should not feel compelled to defend Roseanne . . . Is someone like her really someone that conservatives should want as a representative of their side, anyway? I suppose I can understand how the dearth of conservatives in Hollywood might make conservatives feel compelled to just support whomever they can get, but anyone with a shred of respect or intelligence should think twice before defending a racist tweet from an unhinged conspiracy theorist. Principles should always come before party — and an opposition to racism should always be among your principles.
---Katherine Timpf, for National Review
-
Yes, @EasyAce ;). Thank you!
-
I, too love Katherine's interpretation of all this current Roseanne crap (usually she's not this perceptive). I sure wish Trump had not originally called or tweeted about her show back in March, it seems juvenile to be wrapped up in that shit, especially when you're POTUS.
-
I had no idea George Bush was black!!!
I had no idea that skin color mattered. Silly me, stuck in a dream of people being judged on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Half a century later, and all liberals can see is skin color.
-
"Let me see one of you adopt one of those ugly black babies."
-Ashutosh Ron Virmani-
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/06/abortion-practitioner-refers-to-killing-ugly-black-babies/ (http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/06/abortion-practitioner-refers-to-killing-ugly-black-babies/)
Now he's awful. Period.
FINALLY! This is what it took for someone on the left to be called out for a deplorable heinous statement degrading race.
Here's a hint: All of those statements were deplorable regardless of the politics, race, etc. of the person saying it. All racism sucks. Period. And no, Julianne Malveaux doesn't get a pass because of the skin pigmentation of her parents. Her statement on hoping a black man dies from what she claims to be stereotypical black behavior is beyond reprehensible.
-
Still no comment on this one. Surely there is someone here who has excused every other liberal racist quote posted so far who is willing to excuse this one as well.
(http://www.ntk.net/2002/02/08/dohinnis.jpg)
(Also still waiting for MSNBC to fire someone over this)
-
@sneakypete I'm not sure you and I ever finished talking about the racial stereotype question.
There is a general societal idea that it's stupid to make fun of someone because of his race, gender, membership in a group. There are enough reasons to despise a person because of his individual personality ;). Stereotyping is a very blunt and lazy way to put someone down.
Moreover, in the not-so-recent history of the US, people were actively categorized and discriminated against because of their race, right? They were called names, denied jobs, not allowed to get married or buy houses, etc.
A powerful part of that "dehumanizing" was giving groups derogatory names and comparing them to animals. Sure, "Heeb" comes from "Hebrew". But it's not a name Jews chose to call themselves, and it was used as a rude slur, like "spic" or "chink". Those words also might derive from the group's actual names, but they aren't terms of endearment. Neither is making comments about a group's supposed stereotypical physical characteristics, or comparing people to animals.
It's just not kind or civil; it reminds people of horrible things that happened as recently as their grandparents' time. This is one reason education about the Holocaust is so important, trying to prevent the "othering" that began with caricatures and nasty names.
I don't know if this helps you understand where I'm coming from. But I'd be happy to talk to you about this any time ;).
That all sounds good until you consider the tirades against the 'evil (straight) white man' of the past few years, increasingly vitriolic, assuming some level of racism, sexism, and misogyny to the degree that the shoutdown is composed of accusations of one or more of those if that person disagrees with any item of the Liberal agenda..
-
I had no idea that skin color mattered. Silly me, stuck in a dream of people being judged on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Half a century later, and all liberals can see is skin color.
It will be irrelevant when they stop asking all those questions about race/ethnicity on applications. :shrug:
-
@sneakypete I'm not sure you and I ever finished talking about the racial stereotype question.
There is a general societal idea that it's stupid to make fun of someone because of his race, gender, membership in a group. There are enough reasons to despise a person because of his individual personality ;). Stereotyping is a very blunt and lazy way to put someone down.
I agree,and that's why it makes no sense for me to everybody to start panicking and wanting to call out the National Guard and a Battalion of lawyers when it happens. So somebody that doesn't even know you tosses a racial slur your way. BFD! If that is the worse thing that ever happens to you,you will have lived a charmed life.
Moreover, in the not-so-recent history of the US, people were actively categorized and discriminated against because of their race, right? They were called names, denied jobs, not allowed to get married or buy houses, etc.
MOST of that is happening right now to white people,and the same people that piss and moan the loudest about discrimination are the ones doing it. Ever see anyone prominent lose their jobs or be sued for that?
So much for the lie of "We want equality".
A powerful part of that "dehumanizing" was giving groups derogatory names and comparing them to animals. Sure, "Heeb" comes from "Hebrew". But it's not a name Jews chose to call themselves, and it was used as a rude slur, like "spic" or "chink". Those words also might derive from the group's actual names, but they aren't terms of endearment. Neither is making comments about a group's supposed stereotypical physical characteristics, or comparing people to animals.
I know,but once again,BGD! People are getting upset because people they don't like anyhow are calling them names? The same people THEY call names like "cracka","honkey", and "white devils"?
BTW,I once asked a Chinese friend what they called white people in the privacy of their homes,and he laughed and said "Round-eyed,big-nosed MoFo's". I thought that was hilarious.
It's just not kind or civil; it reminds people of horrible things that happened as recently as their grandparents' time. This is one reason education about the Holocaust is so important, trying to prevent the "othering" that began with caricatures and nasty names.
I wish someone would educate the Jews about all the Poles,Ukrainians,Gypsies (especially the Gypsies),German homosexuals,petty thief's,and physically or mentally handicapped people were also murdered by the Nazi's. Jews don't "own" that horror,they only share it.
I don't know if this helps you understand where I'm coming from. But I'd be happy to talk to you about this any time ;).
I am certain you are both concerned and sincere. I'm probably both older and more cynical than you are,though. Back when I was in my teens and 20's,I was probably in agreement with you on all of that,but I have since learned that nothing is ever as simple as it seems because the victors keep editing history for their own personal benefit.
-
It will be irrelevant when they stop asking all those questions about race/ethnicity on applications. :shrug:
@Smokin Joe
Amazing,ain't it?
-
On the census form, I always create my own box, and check 'American'.
-
Ambien Drug Maker to Roseanne: ‘Racism Not a Known Side Effect’
by BEN KEW
30 May 2018
The producer of the sedative drug Ambien said “racism is not a known side effect†of their medication after actress Roseanne Barr claimed it might have affected her judgment when she made a racist remark about former Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett.
“People of all races, religions, and nationalities work at Sanofi every day to improve the lives of people around the world,†wrote the pharmaceutical company Sanofi on Twitter. “While all pharmaceutical treatments have side effects, racism is not a known side effect of any Sanofi medication.â€
<..snip..>
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/05/30/ambien-drug-maker-to-roseanne-racism-not-a-known-side-effect/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/05/30/ambien-drug-maker-to-roseanne-racism-not-a-known-side-effect/)
-
Ambien Drug Maker to Roseanne: ‘Racism Not a Known Side Effect’
by BEN KEW
30 May 2018
The producer of the sedative drug Ambien said “racism is not a known side effect†of their medication ....
@corbe You just couldn't make up stuff that funny if you tried.
-
Still no comment on this one. Surely there is someone here who has excused every other liberal racist quote posted so far who is willing to excuse this one as well.
(http://www.ntk.net/2002/02/08/dohinnis.jpg)
(Also still waiting for MSNBC to fire someone over this)
@Hoodat, Sorry I missed that one. Eek -- That's a terrible typo!!!
-
Ambien Drug Maker to Roseanne: ‘Racism Not a Known Side Effect’
by BEN KEW
30 May 2018
The producer of the sedative drug Ambien said “racism is not a known side effect†of their medication after actress Roseanne Barr claimed it might have affected her judgment when she made a racist remark about former Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett.
“People of all races, religions, and nationalities work at Sanofi every day to improve the lives of people around the world,†wrote the pharmaceutical company Sanofi on Twitter. “While all pharmaceutical treatments have side effects, racism is not a known side effect of any Sanofi medication.â€
<..snip..>
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/05/30/ambien-drug-maker-to-roseanne-racism-not-a-known-side-effect/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/05/30/ambien-drug-maker-to-roseanne-racism-not-a-known-side-effect/)
@corbe
Been using it for a long time . . .
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNwYtllyt3Q#)
. . . and I'm not a racist.
-
@Hoodat, Sorry I missed that one. Eek -- That's a terrible typo!!!
Typo? I think not.
-
@Hoodat, Sorry I missed that one. Eek -- That's a terrible typo!!!
@LauraTXNM
Apparently, Innis himself waved it off, according to the Associated Press at that time in 2002:
Shortly after [the graphic] appeared, correspondent Gregg Jarrett offered Innis a “profuse apology.â€
“Oh, God, I thought you guys thought I was a rapper or something,†Innis replied. “Media bias continues. Just kidding. It’s not the first time it’s happened, but hopefully it’s the last.â€
It was strictly a typographical mistake, network spokesman Mark O’Connor said Thursday. He wouldn’t say whether any disciplinary action was taken against the person who made the blunder.
I'm pretty sure a typographical mistake, if that's actually what it was, would only have gotten the one responsible for it an internal reprimand.
-
@LauraTXNM
Apparently, Innis himself waved it off, according to the Associated Press at that time in 2002:
Shortly after [the graphic] appeared, correspondent Gregg Jarrett offered Innis a “profuse apology.â€
“Oh, God, I thought you guys thought I was a rapper or something,†Innis replied. “Media bias continues. Just kidding. It’s not the first time it’s happened, but hopefully it’s the last.â€
It was strictly a typographical mistake, network spokesman Mark O’Connor said Thursday. He wouldn’t say whether any disciplinary action was taken against the person who made the blunder.
I'm pretty sure a typographical mistake, if that's actually what it was, would only have gotten the one responsible for it an internal reprimand.
Thanks, @EasyAce!
-
I just realized his name really is Niger (without the added 'g') Innis, sure it's a typo. /s
-
@Hoodat, I'm absolutely NOT trying to say any of the comments those people made are okay. And as far as I could tell, they were all called out for their statements. I agree with you; they were awful.
-
Thanks, @EasyAce!
@LauraTXNM
You can read my take on the Roseanne here . . .
ABC Dismounts the Sabertooth (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,318256.0.html)
-
lack or loss of self-control
It's down the list, but it is here: https://www.drugs.com/sfx/ambien-side-effects.html (https://www.drugs.com/sfx/ambien-side-effects.html)
-
Typo? I think not.
Uh huh. "Accidentally on purpose" was the phrase we used as kids.
-
Uh huh. "Accidentally on purpose" was the phrase we used as kids.
They were probably so used to calling him that behind his back that they didn't think twice when typing it. But typo? No friggin' way. Nobody 'accidentally' types that word.
-
@Hoodat, I'm absolutely NOT trying to say any of the comments those people made are okay. And as far as I could tell, they were all called out for their statements. I agree with you; they were awful.
@LauraTXNM
Thank you for your candor and open-mindedness. Do you now see that there is a sizable double-standard at work here too? Seriously, imagine if Donald Trump had made the same racially insensitive remarks that Joe Biden made. Or if someone like Greg Gutfield made the same profanity-filled tweets that Keith Olbermann posts.
-
They were probably so used to calling him that behind his back that they didn't think twice when typing it. But typo? No friggin' way. Nobody 'accidentally' types that word.
I occasionally double tap a key, but that's one I think I'd have been especially careful with.
Could be they were having some sort of muscle tremor, too. Maybe their 'meds' were overdue......
-
Could be they were having some sort of muscle tremor, too. Maybe their 'meds' were overdue......
Could it be . . .
A M B I E N ?
-
Could it be . . .
A M B I E N ?
:silly:
Yeah, that's it! :silly:
-
@Hoodat, Sorry I missed that one. Eek -- That's a terrible typo!!!
@LauraTXNM
Seems obvious to me a typo. A funny one,but still a typo. Hard to believe that there were no producers double-checking the spelling of Niger's name,though.
-
Typo? I think not.
@Hoodat
Pretty much has to be a honest mistake. The people that do the electronic cue cards just ain't paid enough to be able to afford to do something like that on purposes.
It is hard to believe that there was no producer assigned to double check the spelling of Niger's first name every time he appears,though. The laws of averages says that sooner or later that was going to happen.
-
They were probably so used to calling him that behind his back that they didn't think twice when typing it. But typo? No friggin' way. Nobody 'accidentally' types that word.
@Hoodat
I quit watching the political shows several years ago,but to the best of my memory Niger Innis was/is NOT a bomb thrower that runs around creating controversy and headlines.
-
@LauraTXNM
Thank you for your candor and open-mindedness. Do you now see that there is a sizable double-standard at work here too? Seriously, imagine if Donald Trump had made the same racially insensitive remarks that Joe Biden made. Or if someone like Greg Gutfield made the same profanity-filled tweets that Keith Olbermann posts.
@Hoodat, I don't see the double standard because all of these liberal people did get in trouble and had to apologize. Just like Roseanne made nasty comments previously and was criticized. Unfortunately, Donald Trump has also made some really nasty comments, both in public and in what he thought were private settings. They have all gotten bad press and probably hate mail for these "mistakes". I think Trump and Olbermann are the only two who don't apologize.
Keith Olbermann is the weirdest to me, because apparently swearing about sports and politics and everything else is his main means of communication -- so he is the example that might fit what you're talking about. I will say, he did apologize to Betsy DeVos, and the especially terrible "F*** f*** f***" tweet was proven a fake. But yuck.
Anyway, Roseanne Barr had to sink even lower than all these people to get fired (apparently Olbermann has been fired countless times for being a jerk). And she can't seem to stop -- she said her tweet was inexcusable and racist, but she's still tweeting!
BTW, I'm still trying to find racist examples from Jimmy Kimmel or another "late night host", because it's been mentioned so many times. @anybody have an example? When I find something, I'll post it.
-
Keith Olbermann is the weirdest to me, because apparently swearing about sports and politics and everything else is his main means of communication -- so he is the example that might fit what you're talking about. I will say, he did apologize to Betsy DeVos, and the especially terrible "F*** f*** f***" tweet was proven a fake. But yuck.
@LauraTXNM
Three things are guaranteed in this life---death, taxes, and Keith Olbermann being fired, often within almost a blink of him being re-hired.
-
There is a general societal idea that it's stupid to make fun of someone because of his race, gender, membership in a group. There are enough reasons to despise a person because of his individual personality ;). Stereotyping is a very blunt and lazy way to put someone down.
@LauraTXNM
I don't believe society in general agrees with the last. If you choose to join the Nazi Party, most would agree they are fair game for ridicule.
-
BTW, I'm still trying to find racist examples from Jimmy Kimmel or another "late night host", because it's been mentioned so many times. @anybody have an example? When I find something, I'll post it.
Do you find sexists comments more acceptable than racists comments?
https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/d3wj97/the-man-show-jimmy-kimmel-sexist
-
It will be irrelevant when they stop asking all those questions about race/ethnicity on applications. :shrug:
We’ve become so race sensitive that I recall hearing police issue a ‘be on the lookout’ warning where the suspect’s race is deliberately omitted.
-
We’ve become so race sensitive that I recall hearing police issue a ‘be on the lookout’ warning where the suspect’s race is deliberately omitted.
Which anyone with a modicum of common sense automatically understands to mean that the perp is not white.
-
@Hoodat
I quit watching the political shows several years ago,but to the best of my memory Niger Innis was/is NOT a bomb thrower that runs around creating controversy and headlines.
@sneakypete
Heavens no. Innis is far worse than that. He is a Conservative who happens to be black.
-
@sneakypete
Heavens no. In
Innis is far worse than that. He is a Conservative who happens to be black.
@Hoodat
Thank you for clearing that up for me. I THOUGHT that might be true,but it has been so long I wasn't sure.
It does explain why the Tan Klan wasn't in a uproar about it happening,though. They clearly think that any black that isn't a leftist is a bleep.
Just one of many reasons to hate the left.
-
I'd Argue Samantha Bees comment is far worse, at least Roseanne was on Hypnotic (actual classification) drugs at 2 in the morning. Samantha was sober on broadcast TV. Roseanne was wrong, and I can see why she was cancelled, but Samantha was vile.
-
Thanks to all this PC bullshit that now has us walking on eggshells unless you are the preferred aggrieved race and religion, we as a society will be perfectly conditioned and groomed for Sharia Law to be implemented without so much as a grunt of opposition once the muzzie population hits around 30% if not sooner.
-
@sneakypete
Heavens no. Innis is far worse than that. He is a Conservative who happens to be black.
Yep. The unforgivable sin.
-
Which anyone with a modicum of common sense automatically understands to mean that the perp is not white.
IMO, that's 'racist'.
....a little bit...little bit. :laugh:
-
IMO, that's 'racist'.
....a little bit...little bit. :laugh:
:silly:
I'll just blame it on the indoctrination I've received from the MSM.
-
:silly:
I'll just blame it on the indoctrination I've received from the MSM.
Just being alive, probably.
-
IMO, that's 'racist'.
....a little bit...little bit. :laugh:
@DCPatriot
Not to mention a whole LOT factual.
-
@DCPatriot
Not to mention a whole LOT factual.
^-^
-
We’ve become so race sensitive that I recall hearing police issue a ‘be on the lookout’ warning where the suspect’s race is deliberately omitted.
Depends on the new outlet. In some cities one local network, for instance CBS, will report a crime, tell the sex, size, and clothing of the perp without mentioning color.
However the ABC or NBC site for the city might mention race reporting on the same crime.
At any rate, whenever they fail to mention their color, it's automatically assumed by many commenters that the perps are black..... which is not always the case.
Many news outlets have dropped their comments sections due to the amount of racist comments.
-
Iowahawk tweets:
David Burge @iowahawkblog
2m2 minutes ago
The conclusion to all social media "controversial statement" dustups:
1. One side gets a scalp
2. The other side gets a martyr
3. In the end, everybody's happy
-
Just being alive, probably.
Well there is that too...and of course my "unconscious racism". **nononono*
-
Well there is that too...and of course my "unconscious racism". **nononono*
confess.... confess....CONFESS!!!...otherwise it's the comfy chair for you
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Sn7pr-wCVxY/hqdefault.jpg
-
(https://sites.google.com/site/authorstudyedgarallanpoe/_/rsrc/1463974077373/works/short-stories/the-pit-and-the-pendulum/the-spanish-inquisition/spanish%20inquisition.jpg)
-
Which anyone with a modicum of common sense automatically understands to mean that the perp is not white.
True, but in the area where I spent my youngest years, what was once the other half of the population looks like a meeting of the UN. Considering all those groups will whine and throw the race card, that leaves it down to white/notwhite, which leaves out a lot of potential refinements in between.
Considering a BOLO was to describe who/what you were looking out for, I consider it the height of stupidity to start redacting it on the radio.
-
There is a general societal idea that it's stupid to make fun of someone because of his race, gender, membership in a group. There are enough reasons to despise a person because of his individual personality ;). Stereotyping is a very blunt and lazy way to put someone down.
@LauraTXNM
LOL! That depends entirely upon the race, 'gender', and group membership in question - Like all things liberal, some are more equal than others.
Moreover, in the not-so-recent history of the US, people were actively categorized and discriminated against because of their race, right? They were called names, denied jobs, not allowed to get married or buy houses, etc.
They still are, all the time.
A powerful part of that "dehumanizing" was giving groups derogatory names and comparing them to animals. Sure, "Heeb" comes from "Hebrew". But it's not a name Jews chose to call themselves, and it was used as a rude slur, like "spic" or "chink". Those words also might derive from the group's actual names, but they aren't terms of endearment. Neither is making comments about a group's supposed stereotypical physical characteristics, or comparing people to animals.
That is bullcrap. I grew up in the midst of that in my youth, and no one took that stuff seriously. Everyone had racial epithets, and everyone used them. If I called my buddy a 'dumb mick' he wouldn't be offended. And that goes for all the rest. ALL the rest.
Now, if it was INTENDED as a racial slur, totally a matter of intonation and intent, THEN it was an insult.
It's just not kind or civil; it reminds people of horrible things that happened as recently as their grandparents' time. This is one reason education about the Holocaust is so important, trying to prevent the "othering" that began with caricatures and nasty names.
Oh, baloney. It was not necessarily unkind, or uncivil, unless it was meant to be. People are different, and those differences are noticed. People like herds, and herds don't always get along. I think one of the most unkind things to come out of American liberals is this whole buttsore attitude over everything. There was a time, not long ago, when people were insensitive to that nonsense, and in a good way.
-
@roamer_1 I generally agree. If something was intended as an insult, it usually had cusswords wrapped aorund it. Some terms we just didn't use. For instance (and this is 60 years ago), the terms 'colored', 'darky', and 'Negro' were considered acceptable descriptions in polite conversation, although "Negro" was the one considered most acceptable as a racial descriptor. We didn't use "black" so much, because the folks there who would be considered such today reqally varied from high yellow Wesorts to folks who were, indeed, of coal black complexion. Even the descriptions on Police radios characterized the general racial group by intensity of their melanin, by 'light', 'medium', and 'dark".
There were a host of other terms which were intended to be demeaning to downright insults which I will save the Mods the trouble of excising from this post, and those were just terms that got you kicked out of the Parlor, and my mother would have taken a switch to my backside over if she had ever heard me using them.
Sadly, the perpetually offended Liberals have ensured that folks of any stripe feel either stupid or demeaned if they aren't as perpetually offended as the liberals are. Hence sports teams which had names like "Fighting Sioux" have been coerced to change those names and abandon mascots images which were not demeaning to a warrior band, because there is always one person to prop up in front of the microphone as a poster child to put a face on the affront done to liberal sensibilities--and if there isn't, they'll dye their hair, and fudge the skin tone in the images used, and have someone who 'identifies' as a member of the group, from Rachel Dolezal to Fauxcahontas.
Keep in mind, though, the Liberals want grievances, they thrive on the misery, real or imagined, or just ginned up, of others. THey are never so miserable as when everyone is happy.
-
@roamer_1 I generally agree. If something was intended as an insult, it usually had cusswords wrapped aorund it. Some terms we just didn't use. For instance (and this is 60 years ago), the terms 'colored', 'darky', and 'Negro' were considered acceptable descriptions in polite conversation, although "Negro" was the one considered most acceptable as a racial descriptor. We didn't use "black" so much, because the folks there who would be considered such today reqally varied from high yellow Wesorts to folks who were, indeed, of coal black complexion. Even the descriptions on Police radios characterized the general racial group by intensity of their melanin, by 'light', 'medium', and 'dark".
@Smokin Joe
That's right... and there was no 'brown'... Hispanics were considered white. At least where I was, they didn't get their special aggrieved minority badge till way later.
And for all the aggrieved groups and PC bullcrap, what has it wrought? More racism, not less. More division, not less. More coarseness, not less. The very fabric of society is coming unwound, and folks just can't help but poke at the sore.
-
@roamer_1
@Smokin Joe
I don't know about other areas of the country,but in the SE in the 1950's it was perfectly acceptable to use the words "Negro" or "Colored" in public anywhere,but if you were in trouble if you used the word "black". Non-whites considered that to be an insult.
-
@Smokin Joe
That's right... and there was no 'brown'... Hispanics were considered white. At least where I was, they didn't get their special aggrieved minority badge till way later.
And for all the aggrieved groups and PC bullcrap, what has it wrought? More racism, not less. More division, not less. More coarseness, not less. The very fabric of society is coming unwound, and folks just can't help but poke at the sore.
There may have been some regional bias, but even where I grew up, it was far enough away from the border that being 'Hispanic' was as likely Spanish as Mexican, at least then, so it was no biggie, people just all did their best to speak English, no matter their background. I remember a fellow whose last name ended in -sky, telling Pollack jokes in the local store until someone pulled him aside and reminded him that his last name was Polish... :shrug: So it goes, so it went, but everyone had a sense of humor about it. But that was also before the attorneys figured out how to get rich off someone else's butthurt, and ginned that up bigtime. (Y'know, the gig before Big Shyster made Big Money off Big Tobacco, Hot Coffee, and microwave puppies).
All that said, there were instances where people intended things to be offensive, where even that verbal behaviour was acted upon, and those are inexcusable (and partly the reason I don't play golf, but that is another long story).
-
@roamer_1 I generally agree. If something was intended as an insult, it usually had cusswords wrapped aorund it. Some terms we just didn't use. For instance (and this is 60 years ago), the terms 'colored', 'darky', and 'Negro' were considered acceptable descriptions in polite conversation, although "Negro" was the one considered most acceptable as a racial descriptor. We didn't use "black" so much, because the folks there who would be considered such today reqally varied from high yellow Wesorts to folks who were, indeed, of coal black complexion. Even the descriptions on Police radios characterized the general racial group by intensity of their melanin, by 'light', 'medium', and 'dark".
There were a host of other terms which were intended to be demeaning to downright insults which I will save the Mods the trouble of excising from this post, and those were just terms that got you kicked out of the Parlor, and my mother would have taken a switch to my backside over if she had ever heard me using them.
Sadly, the perpetually offended Liberals have ensured that folks of any stripe feel either stupid or demeaned if they aren't as perpetually offended as the liberals are. Hence sports teams which had names like "Fighting Sioux" have been coerced to change those names and abandon mascots images which were not demeaning to a warrior band, because there is always one person to prop up in front of the microphone as a poster child to put a face on the affront done to liberal sensibilities--and if there isn't, they'll dye their hair, and fudge the skin tone in the images used, and have someone who 'identifies' as a member of the group, from Rachel Dolezal to Fauxcahontas.
Keep in mind, though, the Liberals want grievances, they thrive on the misery, real or imagined, or just ginned up, of others. THey are never so miserable as when everyone is happy.
"Hence sports teams which had names like "Fighting Sioux" have been coerced to change those names and abandon mascots images which were not demeaning to a warrior band"
What I find interesting is the fact that when they conducted polls among a number of Indian tribes concerning using Indian nicknames for sports teams, as much as 80% said that had no objections.
But why should they? The reason those teams took names like the Fighting Sioux for their teams was to indicate they were indeed, mighty warriors, teams that were strong and tough. The exact opposite of disrepect which the rabble rousers claimed. Why, indeed, would a sports team take a name of a group they hated and wished to dishonor for their nickname?
No sports team I've ever heard of took the name Wimpy Vegans for their name.
But the scoundrels and race-baiters attempting to abolish all sports names of Indians did not go after names like the Fightin' Irish, Minnesota Vikings, or other teams with names of people who were non-Indian indicating their hypocrisy. I've never heard one group claiming Irish ancestry get upset about Notre Dame using Fightin' Irish for their nickname. There are numerous high school teams in the area where I live that use the name Vikings or Norsemen for their sports teams. I've never heard a person of Norwegian descent complain about the teams using Norsemen or Vikings for their nickname.
They even forced the Marquette University sports teams to change their name from Warriors to Golden Eagles. Many countries had/have warriors, but I guess the SJWs felt only Indians could be warriors.
-
@Smokin Joe
That's right... and there was no 'brown'... Hispanics were considered white. At least where I was, they didn't get their special aggrieved minority badge till way later.
@roamer_1
I remember when it was perfectly acceptable to say someone was a Mexican if they were brown and had a Spanish accent. It's wasn't an insult,it was an identified,like "Go get the guy in the back room with the blonde flattop hair cut,and the Mexican to come out and help you load the truck."
I was still calling brown people "Mexicans" when I moved to Colorado in the mid-70's,and moved into a Mexican-majority neighborhood. When I say "Mexican-majority",I mean the movie theater in the neighborhood only showed movies in Spanish,no sub-titles. I have no idea why,but nobody there really seemed to mind,although a few did point out they were Americans.
I guess they could tell I wasn't trying to insult anybody.
And I have to be honest,for some reason I don't really understand,I seem to have always gotten along with Mexicans better than any other group of people,including white people. Yeah,I've had some personal problems with a few over the years,but it was nothing racial from either side. Then again,I am 1/4 Tuscarora,and have black eyes. Maybe they just see me as one of them? Which is fine with me. It's not like I made a choice or had any control over my birth.
-
"Hence sports teams which had names like "Fighting Sioux" have been coerced to change those names and abandon mascots images which were not demeaning to a warrior band"
What I find interesting is the fact that when they conducted polls among a number of Indian tribes concerning using Indian nicknames for sports teams, as much as 80% said that had no objections.
But why should they? The reason those teams took names like the Fighting Sioux for their teams was to indicate they were indeed, mighty warriors, teams that were strong and tough. The exact opposite of disrepect which the rabble rousers claimed. Why, indeed, would a sports team take a name of a group they hated and wished to dishonor for their nickname?
No sports team I've ever heard of took the name Wimpy Vegans for their name.
But the scoundrels and race-baiters attempting to abolish all sports names of Indians did not go after names like the Fightin' Irish, Minnesota Vikings, or other teams with names of people who were non-Indian indicating their hypocrisy. I've never heard one group claiming Irish ancestry get upset about Notre Dame using Fightin' Irish for their nickname. There are numerous high school teams in the area where I live that use the name Vikings or Norsemen for their sports teams. I've never heard a person of Norwegian descent complain about the teams using Norsemen or Vikings for their nickname.
They even forced the Marquette University sports teams to change their name from Warriors to Golden Eagles. Many countries had/have warriors, but I guess the SJWs felt only Indians could be warriors.
The incident with the Fighting Sioux (University of North Dakota) was imposed by the NCAA. The usage of the name had been cleared with the local bands of Sioux, the logo was designed by Bennett Brien, (Native American artist) and likewise okayed by the Spirit Lake Elders before it was used. All the amenities to ensure no insult, accidental or otherwise, was made had been met fully, again, before the image was used. It was not a carriacture, but an attempt to accurately portray a warrior. No slight intended, nor discerned, until the NCAA found a poster child to lead the charge.
Just wait until birds and other critters find legal representation..... 9999hair out0000
-
Time was ....
Time was, it was perfectly acceptable to own a man or a woman as a slave and, if it tickled your fancy, best him or her to death.
Times change.
-
Time was ....
Time was, it was perfectly acceptable to own a man or a woman as a slave and, if it tickled your fancy, best him or her to death.
Times change.
That is a bizarre comment IMO.
-
The incident with the Fighting Sioux (University of North Dakota) was imposed by the NCAA. The usage of the name had been cleared with the local bands of Sioux, the logo was designed by Bennett Brien, (Native American artist) and likewise okayed by the Spirit Lake Elders before it was used. All the amenities to ensure no insult, accidental or otherwise, was made had been met fully, again, before the image was used. It was not a carriacture, but an attempt to accurately portray a warrior. No slight intended, nor discerned, until the NCAA found a poster child to lead the charge.
Just wait until birds and other critters find legal representation..... 9999hair out0000
@Smokin Joe
Can you imagine ever seeing a team named "The Harlem Homies","The Detroit Darkies","The Cleveland Crips",etc,etc,etc?
Now you know why blacks didn't want teams named after Indian Tribes.
-
That is a bizarre comment IMO.
Big deal. “Time was†is a rather silly basis on which to complain that you can’t use today words that were, by your lights, acceptable 30 or 40 years ago.
-
Big deal. “Time was†is a rather silly basis on which to complain that you can’t use today words that were, by your lights, acceptable 30 or 40 years ago.
@Oceander
You are right. I only use words that are acceptable to me. If you don't like my words,you are welcome to leave so you don't have to hear them.
-
@LauraTXNM
LOL! That depends entirely upon the race, 'gender', and group membership in question - Like all things liberal, some are more equal than others.
They still are, all the time.
That is bullcrap. I grew up in the midst of that in my youth, and no one took that stuff seriously. Everyone had racial epithets, and everyone used them. If I called my buddy a 'dumb mick' he wouldn't be offended. And that goes for all the rest. ALL the rest.
Now, if it was INTENDED as a racial slur, totally a matter of intonation and intent, THEN it was an insult.
Oh, baloney. It was not necessarily unkind, or uncivil, unless it was meant to be. People are different, and those differences are noticed. People like herds, and herds don't always get along. I think one of the most unkind things to come out of American liberals is this whole buttsore attitude over everything. There was a time, not long ago, when people were insensitive to that nonsense, and in a good way.
Case in point:
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTc5ZjE2MmEtYWIxYi00OGY0LTk0ZTUtMzJiYjI4OWZmNTVmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzc5MjA3OA@@._V1_UX182_CR0,0,182,268_AL_.jpg)
-
All that said, there were instances where people intended things to be offensive, where even that verbal behaviour was acted upon, and those are inexcusable (and partly the reason I don't play golf, but that is another long story).
Well sure, @Smokin Joe ... If you want to piss someone off, there is always a way to do it. And if you want to be offended, the very same applies. And thus the goalposts keep moving... And always will. It's dumb.
-
Time was ....
Time was, it was perfectly acceptable to own a man or a woman as a slave and, if it tickled your fancy, best him or her to death.
Times change.
While ownership was accepted, beating the slave to death wasn't, at least not in decent society.
Aside from being a measure of a man's character, well treated slaves were more productive and likely to be loyal to their owners than those who were mistreated. Owning a slave was a responsibility, much as owning a gun or a car is (a responsibility, I'm not equating owning another human being with owning a piece of hardware. ).
Assh*les are assh*les, regardless of the age, and no father would let his daughter marry one.
-
Case in point:
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTc5ZjE2MmEtYWIxYi00OGY0LTk0ZTUtMzJiYjI4OWZmNTVmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzc5MjA3OA@@._V1_UX182_CR0,0,182,268_AL_.jpg)
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
When I was in the army in the 60's I knew a couple of guys that were as close as brothers. One grew up in an ethnic Polish neighborhood in Chicago,and the other grew up in an ethnic Italian neighborhood in NYC. If there was a Pollock or Wop joke those guys didn't know,I can't guess what it would be. They would sometimes just go off on each other with ethnic jokes,most of which were hilarious,and seemed to not bother either of them in the slightest.
People need to lighten up,and probably would if there wasn't so much money to be made from lawsuits.
-
Big deal. “Time was†is a rather silly basis on which to complain that you can’t use today words that were, by your lights, acceptable 30 or 40 years ago.
Yeah. "Time was" that a lot of what is said and done in "entertainment" on television would have had the network license pulled.
Funny thing, but there are acceptable moral behaviours which are and remain virtually unchanged for a couple millennia. Most folks with principles use something like that as a standard.
-
@Oceander
You are right. I only use words that are acceptable to me. If you don't like my words,you are welcome to leave so you don't have to hear them.
Why would I leave? Watching you make a fool of yourself is fun, and you’ll get your comeuppance if you use your preferred epithets with the wrong people. Better to know who the racists and bigots are by letting them self-identify.
-
racists
Ah see, there's that word again. Everything we don't like is a racist, isn't that right?
-
"Hence sports teams which had names like "Fighting Sioux" have been coerced to change those names and abandon mascots images which were not demeaning to a warrior band"
What I find interesting is the fact that when they conducted polls among a number of Indian tribes concerning using Indian nicknames for sports teams, as much as 80% said that had no objections.
From my teen years onward, I grew up among natives - Indians - I lived with em, dated em, worked with em... I carry a name with both the Salish and the Cheyenne... which is something like honorary adoption. They have their loudmouth liberals too, but by and large, they are an easy going lot, unlikely to take offense. They also have their stereotypes (which they know are true), but in the main, they are a good and honorable people.
I haven't heard ANY of that rigamarole FROM THEM, to amount to a row of pins.
But it don't take long for a liberal to call me racist toward em. Even though they call me brother. *****rollingeyes*****
-
Ah see, there's that word again. Everything we don't like is a racist, isn't that right?
To you, perhaps.
-
To you, perhaps.
:shrug:
If you say so. I don't go around calling everyone a "racist".
-
:shrug:
If you say so. I don't go around calling everyone a "racist".
But apparently you think it, judging by your own admission.
-
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
When I was in the army in the 60's I knew a couple of guys that were as close as brothers. One grew up in an ethnic Polish neighborhood in Chicago,and the other grew up in an ethnic Italian neighborhood in NYC. If there was a Pollock or Wop joke those guys didn't know,I can't guess what it would be. They would sometimes just go off on each other with ethnic jokes,most of which were hilarious,and seemed to not bother either of them in the slightest.
People need to lighten up,and probably would if there wasn't so much money to be made from lawsuits.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXD8yOxIPB0#)
-
But apparently you think it, judging by your own admission.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/106PwpLIIXJnXi/giphy.gif)
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/106PwpLIIXJnXi/giphy.gif)
Well, you’re the one who said it, mate.
-
Wow. They just cancelled Roseanne? Thank God I just caught this breaking news here at the site.
-
But apparently you think it, judging by your own admission.
The Pee Wee Herman defense? "I know you are, but what am I?"
Talk about watching someone make a fool of oneself.
-
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
When I was in the army in the 60's I knew a couple of guys that were as close as brothers. One grew up in an ethnic Polish neighborhood in Chicago,and the other grew up in an ethnic Italian neighborhood in NYC. If there was a Pollock or Wop joke those guys didn't know,I can't guess what it would be. They would sometimes just go off on each other with ethnic jokes,most of which were hilarious,and seemed to not bother either of them in the slightest.
People need to lighten up,and probably would if there wasn't so much money to be made from lawsuits.
@sneakypete
Yeah, funny that.... I come out of Chicago, and have a lot of kin there. Being Hollanders, the Pollack jokes come fast and furious...
But you ought to notice something... Wherever Hollanders are, Pollacks ain't ever far away. Doesn't matter if it is Chicago, IL, or Bozeman, MT. They always live together, side by each. And that is really saying something, as insular as the Dutch tend to be.
-
But the scoundrels and race-baiters attempting to abolish all sports names of Indians did not go after names like the Fightin' Irish, Minnesota Vikings, or other teams with names of people who were non-Indian indicating their hypocrisy.
You know that, down the road, the next generation of social justice warriors will start complaining that all of the sports teams named after human groups are all white, and that we need more representation of persons of color in sports team names.
Those of us young enough to survive to see that day will just sit back and snicker.
-
That is a bizarre comment IMO.
It was a non-sequitur. I guess Oceander feels that liking/supporting the name of an Indian tribe for a sports team nickname indicates you are a vile racist but doesn't want to say so directly.
-
@Smokin Joe
Can you imagine ever seeing a team named "The Harlem Homies","The Detroit Darkies","The Cleveland Crips",etc,etc,etc?
Now you know why blacks didn't want teams named after Indian Tribes.
I seem to recall some amateur sports teams being called "mighty Zulu warriors" or something like that. Being white, I would have no objection playing for a team with that nickname. Other people (ahem) might have objections.
There are many black players who have played for teams like the Notre Dame Fightin' Irish or the Minnesota Vikings. I've never heard any black person object to that.
-
Well, she bailed on Joe Rogan.....
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YueAclDBh0g#)
-
@Smokin Joe
Can you imagine ever seeing a team named "The Harlem Homies","The Detroit Darkies","The Cleveland Crips",etc,etc,etc?
When I was a kid, my farm league team was called the 'Crackers'. No one ever told me that i was supposed to act offended at that.
I am sick and tired of all this fake outrage.
-
When I was a kid, my farm league team was called the 'Crackers'. No one ever told me that i was supposed to act offended at that.
I am sick and tired of all this fake outrage.
@Hoodat
And that is exactly what it is.
-
When I was a kid, my farm league team was called the 'Crackers'. No one ever told me that i was supposed to act offended at that.
I am sick and tired of all this fake outrage.
Why would you be offended by that?
-
Why would you be offended by that?
I wasn't.
-
When I was a kid, my farm league team was called the 'Crackers'. No one ever told me that i was supposed to act offended at that.
I am sick and tired of all this fake outrage.
@Hoodat
Back when I was a kid,I never heard the term "Cracker". It was always "Georgia Cracker",and supposed to be a slam on white people in Georgia. AFAIK,nobody really gave a damn,including white people from Georgia.
-
@Hoodat
Back when I was a kid,I never heard the term "Cracker". It was always "Georgia Cracker",and supposed to be a slam on white people in Georgia. AFAIK,nobody really gave a damn,including white people from Georgia.
The internet and 24/7 news cycle changes all that.
-
@Hoodat
Back when I was a kid,I never heard the term "Cracker". It was always "Georgia Cracker",and supposed to be a slam on white people in Georgia. AFAIK,nobody really gave a damn,including white people from Georgia.
The offensive term was "white trash". "White trash" was the epithet most demeaning, the cultural for Caucasians, respectively reserved in the circles I traveled in for only those of low morals and character from their respective racial demographics.
-
As a 10 yo in the early 60's my friends and I would sneak out of the open window in SW LA. (not Los Angeles or Lower Alabama) to go to the end of the street, near the Tracks and tangle with 'other people'.
Fast Forward 25 years in Houston on a Halloween night, the same people terrorizing little kids and needless to say the punks put me in the hospital.
I am no longer a racist. (Besides I have Black Friends and watch the NBA)
Sorry for the ThreadJack
(https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/roseanne-barr__131202020248.jpg)
-
The offensive term was "white trash".
Hey now, that's "Mr. White Trash" to you.
-
The offensive term was "white trash". "White trash" was the epithet most demeaning, the cultural for Caucasians, respectively reserved in the circles I traveled in for only those of low morals and character from their respective racial demographics.
@Smokin Joe
Was and still is,but for some reason Georgia Cracker was slang for white people in Georgia.
White trash was a generic term for backwards,ignorant,clueless white people. It seemed to only apply to poor whites,though. People with the same flaws born into wealth seemed to be exempt.
-
Boy, I hope your all's weekend is going better than mine. My mil is here and the crazy is high.
Anyway, so glad Samantha Bee gave me an example of a late night host being a bigot! Not a racist, but at least a sexist. I hope aside from anything else this sparks a discussion about why p**** and c*** are not acceptable insults.
-
Boy, I hope your all's weekend is going better than mine. My mil is here and the crazy is high.
Anyway, so glad Samantha Bee gave me an example of a late night host being a bigot! Not a racist, but at least a sexist. I hope aside from anything else this sparks a discussion about why p**** and c*** are not acceptable insults.
To call someone a d*ck seems to be an accepted part of many people's speech, mostly young people including many females. But call someone a c*nt, and all sorts of people get upset.
Seems sexist to me....so therefore..............FIRE EVERYBODY!!!! NOW!!!
Just kidding. 22222frying pan
-
To call someone a d*ck seems to be an accepted part of many people's speech, mostly young people including many females. But call someone a c*nt, and all sorts of people get upset.
Seems sexist to me....so therefore..............FIRE EVERYBODY!!!! NOW!!!
Just kidding. 22222frying pan
Men (and boys) have been getting their comeuppance ever since radical feminism took root in the 70’s. No more Father Knows Best, now it’s all Dumb and Dumber. Society is clamping down on toxic masculinity, don’tcha know.
-
To call someone a d*ck seems to be an accepted part of many people's speech, mostly young people including many females. But call someone a c*nt, and all sorts of people get upset.
Seems sexist to me....so therefore..............FIRE EVERYBODY!!!! NOW!!!
Just kidding. 22222frying pan
Actually, both are equally offensive and both should be treated the same way.
-
Men (and boys) have been getting their comeuppance ever since radical feminism took root in the 70’s. No more Father Knows Best, now it’s all Dumb and Dumber. Society is clamping down on toxic masculinity, don’tcha know.
@aligncare
I'm assuming you referenced Father Knows Best the television show. If you'd ever heard the radio original that preceded its television incarnation, you might not make the reference---in the radio Father Knows Best, Jim Anderson was anything but the calm, reasoning, affectionate but firm head of the household. In fact, in his original radio incarnation Jim Anderson was a classic putz who thought he ruled with an iron fist, reeked of sarcasm, and usually got himself caught with his pants down when one of his three kids began a particular infatuation that ended in disaster. (Oh, nooooooooooo! was Father's usual show-closing, exposing-himself-as-clueless line as disaster struck.) About the only difference between the original Father and, say, Chester Riley, was that even as a putz Jim Anderson had a refinement about him. (Riley, of course, had a big heart and a brain that was his worst enemy, on radio and television alike; he was so hamfisted and oblivious to the disaster his buttinski-ism caused you got the impression that his wife was about two seconds away from braining him with an iron skillet or sticking his fool head into the Mixmaster.)
Robert Young originated the role on radio and was the only one of the radio cast to move with the show to television. The radio show (which ran six years) invariably opened with a commercial in which the youngest daughter would ask about the product, Mom would reply and advise daughter about her father's approval of the product, ending with, " . . . and your father knows best!"---in a more than slightly sarcastic tone. Only on television did he become the type we remember---even though he looked more as though the show should have been called Grandfather Knows Best; even now I'm astonished to remember how many television (and, since I became an old-time radio lover some years ago, radio) parents sounded and looked old enough to be their kids' grandparents. (The aforesaid Riley---played by William Bendix---looked more like his kids' grandfather than their father, too, but then when Bendix died in 1964 one wag suggested he'd been born at age 58, his age at his death.)
Why didn't the rest of the radio version's cast move to television with it? It was Robert Young's idea: he came to loathe the original premise because it was laughs at the expense of relationships and---this is something to bear in mind when people remember Father Knows Best on television as being a little too fictional a portrait of family life---at least as unrealistic a family portrait as the saccharine kind. He thought an entirely new cast plus himself would make the show a little more like what its head writer Paul West came to prefer, and West was in position to know: West is usually remembered as being a real-life television version of Jim Anderson, who had four kids to Anderson's three but was remembered as being exactly as gently tolerant but firm as the television character for whom he wrote.
(The classic example of Jim Anderson's tolerance, I remember well, was son Bud's nervousness about a confrontation with a cop, and when Dad said when he was a kid one of his best friends was the town sheriff, Bud shot back, "Really? Wild Bill Hickock?" To which Dad wouldn't blow his top but merely rejoin, "Just how old do you think I am?" You couldn't get away with a wisecrack like that in my house when I was growing up. [I was born the year after Father Knows Best moved to television.] I had parents with million dollar hearts but absolutely no patience or sense of humour when it came to children just being children. In my house you got beaten up worse for mere human mistakes---or, in my case, too, for not knowing how to handle yourself in a fistfight if someone got you into one, thanks to a father who thought it was something you were born knowing rather than something you needed to be taught, and a mother who didn't have the guts to stand up to and against that kind of abuse---than you did for genuine misbehaviour or disobedience. I suppose you could say I've had a sad enough last laugh: I've out-lived my entire childhood household, both of my parents [my father died at 39; my mother, at 61] and my too-wild-oat younger brother [38, shot to death].)
-
@aligncare
I'm assuming you referenced Father Knows Best the television show. If you'd ever heard the radio original that preceded its television incarnation, you might not make the reference---in the radio Father Knows Best, Jim Anderson was anything but the calm, reasoning, affectionate but firm head of the household. In fact, in his original radio incarnation Jim Anderson was a classic putz who thought he ruled with an iron fist, reeked of sarcasm, and usually got himself caught with his pants down when one of his three kids began a particular infatuation that ended in disaster. (Oh, nooooooooooo! was Father's usual show-closing, exposing-himself-as-clueless line as disaster struck.) About the only difference between the original Father and, say, Chester Riley, was that even as a putz Jim Anderson had a refinement about him. (Riley, of course, had a big heart and a brain that was his worst enemy, on radio and television alike; he was so hamfisted and oblivious to the disaster his buttinski-ism caused you got the impression that his wife was about two seconds away from braining him with an iron skillet or sticking his fool head into the Mixmaster.)
Robert Young originated the role on radio and was the only one of the radio cast to move with the show to television. The radio show (which ran six years) invariably opened with a commercial in which the youngest daughter would ask about the product, Mom would reply and advise daughter about her father's approval of the product, ending with, " . . . and your father knows best!"---in a more than slightly sarcastic tone. Only on television did he become the type we remember---even though he looked more as though the show should have been called Grandfather Knows Best; even now I'm astonished to remember how many television (and, since I became an old-time radio lover some years ago, radio) parents sounded and looked old enough to be their kids' grandparents. (The aforesaid Riley---played by William Bendix---looked more like his kids' grandfather than their father, too, but then when Bendix died in 1964 one wag suggested he'd been born at age 58, his age at his death.)
Why didn't the rest of the radio version's cast move to television with it? It was Robert Young's idea: he came to loathe the original premise because it was laughs at the expense of relationships and---this is something to bear in mind when people remember Father Knows Best on television as being a little too fictional a portrait of family life---at least as unrealistic a family portrait as the saccharine kind. He thought an entirely new cast plus himself would make the show a little more like what its head writer Paul West came to prefer, and West was in position to know: West is usually remembered as being a real-life television version of Jim Anderson, who had four kids to Anderson's three but was remembered as being exactly as gently tolerant but firm as the television character for whom he wrote.
(The classic example of Jim Anderson's tolerance, I remember well, was son Bud's nervousness about a confrontation with a cop, and when Dad said when he was a kid one of his best friends was the town sheriff, Bud shot back, "Really? Wild Bill Hickock?" To which Dad wouldn't blow his top but merely rejoin, "Just how old do you think I am?" You couldn't get away with a wisecrack like that in my house when I was growing up. [I was born the year after Father Knows Best moved to television.] I had parents with million dollar hearts but absolutely no patience or sense of humour when it came to children just being children. In my house you got beaten up worse for mere human mistakes---or, in my case, too, for not knowing how to handle yourself in a fistfight if someone got you into one, thanks to a father who thought it was something you were born knowing rather than something you needed to be taught, and a mother who didn't have the guts to stand up to and against that kind of abuse---than you did for genuine misbehaviour or disobedience. I suppose you could say I've had a sad enough last laugh: I've out-lived my entire childhood household, both of my parents [my father died at 39; my mother, at 61] and my too-wild-oat younger brother [38, shot to death].)
"In my house you got beaten up worse for mere human mistakes---or, in my case, too, for not knowing how to handle yourself in a fistfight if someone got you into one, thanks to a father who thought it was something you were born knowing rather than something you needed to be taught, and a mother who didn't have the guts to stand up to and against that kind of abuse---than you did for genuine misbehaviour or disobedience."
I've always been amused by the people (like Rush Limbaugh) who claim all Baby Boomers were spoiled brats. Which was about 180 degrees from my upbringing.
I was one of seven kids with parents who were mostly hands-off....unless you messed up, in which case they didn't spare the rod. Money was pretty tight until I was almost a senior in high school. My dad worked hard to move us up from poor, to lower middle class, to middle class. And like many kids, I got a summer job to get a little money for myself.
I didn't know any kids who were the only child in the family and got everything. Most kids I knew had multiple siblings like my family. I didn't know any rich kids until I got to high school. And they weren't my friends.
So while at times I envied only child kids, I'm glad I grew up with multiple siblings. You realized the sun didn't rise and set on your keister, and you learned to navigate without overbearing parents. You learned not to cry and whine for things, because you weren't going to get them if you did or you didn't. You were more likely to get something you very much didn't want, if you know what I mean.
As far as fathers gently guiding their male children through life, I remember my father's words one time when he refused to help me fix my bicycle...."why should I help you?, nobody helped me when I was growing up."
(And my parents did have it tougher growing up than us kids. My mother was one of ten children. When her grade school offered piano lessons at ten cents a lesson, her parents didn't have the dime to give her for the lessons. That was during The Great Depression.)
So, you learned (or in my case you often times didn't learn) how to cope with life yourself.
Was that the best way to grow up? I think it was better than modern kids with their parents constantly hovering over them, giving them everything, and preventing them from stumbling and learning on their own.
-
I enjoy your writing @EasyAce, very soulful.
-
I enjoy your writing @EasyAce, very soulful.
@corbe
Your kindness is overwhelming.
-
@corbe
Your kindness is overwhelming.
He's right.
-
He's right.
@musiclady
Your kindness is overwhelming, too!
-
Oh, the Never Trumpers have a love-in, how sweet.
-
Men (and boys) have been getting their comeuppance ever since radical feminism took root in the 70’s. No more Father Knows Best, now it’s all Dumb and Dumber. Society is clamping down on toxic masculinity, don’tcha know.
@aligncare
Thanks, you're political insight is uncanny; and your views, uncanny and truthful.
-
@Smokin Joe
Was and still is,but for some reason Georgia Cracker was slang for white people in Georgia.
White trash was a generic term for backwards,ignorant,clueless white people. It seemed to only apply to poor whites,though. People with the same flaws born into wealth seemed to be exempt.
Oh, there were rich white trash, too. Bob DYlan even wrote a song (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lonesome_Death_of_Hattie_Carroll)about one such. Like I have said, one of the reasons I have never golfed, never took it up as a young man, was the sort of people who hung out at the golf courses (country club) where I grew up. Better off hanging with watermen and sharecroppers, they were a finer grade of people and could be counted on to be honest with you, even if they didn't like you, and would have your back if they did. People were more likely to refer to "poor white trash" as such because poor people can only do so much to harm you, especially if you aren't face to face.
Most weren't really "white trash", just poor, and somewhere in there, economics got confused with class and even education. While there were some wealthier gentry (old families with old money, usually more land rich and cash poor, but not always). Rich white trash were just vindictive, wealthy (often from crooked land deals or scalawag/feather merchant activities during the War of Northern Aggression if older money), and connected enough to do some real damage, so they were more likely not to be spoken of as loudly. Most of the pedigrees they brayed about were established through the unfortunate union of some idiot fourth cousin in an older family which still had class, if not money and/or land post bellum.
-
Actually, both are equally offensive and both should be treated the same way.
But they aren't.
-
Oh, the Never Trumpers have a love-in, how sweet.
Wanna fight? Join the Marines! :silly:
-
I enjoy your writing @EasyAce, very soulful.
It's official, then. @EasyAce
E A S Y A C E
Winner of TBR's 1st Annual
Funk Soul Brother Award
(http://orig00.deviantart.net/bfaa/f/2010/146/6/5/funk_soul_brother_by_persian_b.jpg)
Congrats to my brother from another mother.
-
Oh damn, my bad. I thought for a moment that this was "Trump is the greatest thing since sliced bread" thread.
-
It's official, then. @EasyAce
E A S Y A C E
Winner of TBR's 1st Annual
Funk Soul Brother Award
(http://orig00.deviantart.net/bfaa/f/2010/146/6/5/funk_soul_brother_by_persian_b.jpg)
Congrats to my brother from another mother.
@Hoodat
Thank you, from one soul brother to another . . .
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noSs6gS4UxA#)
-
But they aren't.
You're right.
But the solution is not to make the filthy smears against women "OK," but to stop the filthy smears against men from being "OK."
You fellers could go a long way to make that happen iffn you want to. ^-^
-
Our school band the brothers afro Hair Picks back in 69 or 70 after a couple of unfortunate honkey's fell into them and got all forked up.
-
Writing about pro-life, pro-border security, pro-American, pro-Christian values politicians and calling them arsonists is soulful. We've got it.
-
Oh, the Never Trumpers have a love-in, how sweet.
What is wrong with you?
-
You're right.
But the solution is not to make the filthy smears against women "OK," but to stop the filthy smears against men from being "OK."
You fellers could go a long way to make that happen iffn you want to. ^-^
M'am, we do what we can.
If we complain about it we''re "sexist" or "misogynists" or "Chauvanists" or any of another dozen or so epithets, including "D*ck"..
If we just refuse to date 'em they just join up with the lesbians or find some guy to really abuse them first so they can claim we're all "that way".
About the only thing that works, is "Language! Keep it clean!" but then, we're being "patriarchal".
Ignore it, and that's taken either for assent, or it intensifies in a quest for attention.
:shrug:.
With some games the only way to win is just not play.
-
Writing about pro-life, pro-border security, pro-American, pro-Christian values politicians and calling them arsonists is soulful. We've got it.
Demurring from the overall stance and conduct of a particular president, or rejecting the political class as we know it now, equals demurring from pro-life, pro-security, pro-American, pro-Judeo-Christian values. I've got it.
How soon they forget . . .
1) I said often enough in 2016 that both presidential candidates in 2016 were prospective arsonists, when all was said and done.
2) I voted for "None of These Candidates" (or anyone else on the presidential ballot) in 2016 (Nevada doesn't have a write-in vote, alas). I wasn't shy or apologetic about saying so. And if the election were held today between the same pair of major party candidates (and the same lot of other presidential candidates) I'd still vote none of these candidates.
3) I'm well on record as arguing that crony capitalism and protectionism are no further along the line of my preferences than downright collectivism.
4) I didn't (and don't) think it's all that brilliant an idea to negate a tax cut (which I praised at the time) with the continuing metastasis of runaway federal spending (which I deplored then and now and always will) and tariffs, all of which are going to make people lament (among other reasons to lament) that it was a nice tax cut while its value lasted. (Congress may have a lot of splainin' to do about that budget, but nobody put a gun to the president's head forcing him to sign off on it, either. Who would have gainsaid if he'd put the iron in his spine, vetoed the damn thing, and then told Congress the onus was on them to write a budget that made sense, fiscal and otherwise.)
But I wonder if anyone among them noticed that, when Donaldus Minimus nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, pecked away at previous egregious executive orders, and signed the right-to-try law, I said it they were good things. As indeed I said about a handful (underline that) of other things he's done. (I'm well on record as saying that, while pecking away at those executive orders was a good thing, the downside is a) they can be well enough reinstated by a future ornery-enough president, so long as presidents continue believing and behaving as though they're the bosses and the Constitution means little to nothing; and, b) in the big picture they amount to chipping a miniscule amount away from the stone that has been the State, about which more anon. The chipping away isn't terrible by any means, but it's rather like merely excising the lump and not bothering to attack the rest of the cancer . . .)
So let me lay it on the line once and for all.
I believe in freedom.
I believe in individual rights and responsibilities.
I believe in a properly-construed government. Meaning, a government whose sole legitimate business---other than protecting and defending us from enemies actual and provably iminent from abroad and predators at home (real predators, not mere vicemongers)---is to stay the hell out of your business, my business, everyone's business, until or unless one would obstruct or abrogate another's equivalent rights. Not the improperly-consecrated State which we have now and have had for several generations, the State that makes its business every damn last nook and cranny of your business, my business, everyone's business, whether it is competent or Constitutionally sanctioned to do so.
I deeply disbelieve in what Gene Healy in https://www.amazon.com/Cult-Presidency-Updated-Dangerous-Executive/dp/193399519X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1528058142&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Cult+of+the+Presidency (http://[url=https://www.amazon.com/Cult-Presidency-Updated-Dangerous-Executive/dp/193399519X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1528058142&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Cult+of+the+Presidency)]two[/url] splendid books (https://www.cato.org/false-idol-free-ebook) (one by actual title) called the Cult of the Presidency---regardless of who occupies the White House and has the job, whether it's a president I voted for, a president whom I generally support, or a president I didn't vote for and don't generally support.
And, I believe in one God, and one Lord and saviour, . . . and They don't live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
-
To call someone a d*ck seems to be an accepted part of many people's speech, mostly young people including many females. But call someone a c*nt, and all sorts of people get upset.
Seems sexist to me....so therefore..............FIRE EVERYBODY!!!! NOW!!!
Just kidding. 22222frying pan
@goatprairie Yep, that is dumb, too. And it seems like Brits use C almost like Americans use D. Not any better than fag or retard. What's wrong with personalized insults, like "frizzy-haired moppet", or at least generic body parts like "ass"?
-
Demurring from the overall stance and conduct of a particular president, or rejecting the political class as we know it now, equals demurring from pro-life, pro-security, pro-American, pro-Judeo-Christian values. I've got it.
How soon they forget . . . .....
And, I believe in one God, and one Lord and saviour, . . . and They don't live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Well said, Ace. I agree with much of that. I did vote for Trump, or against Hillary, and hope that history will show that that was the correct course of action.
-
Oh, there were rich white trash, too. Bob DYlan even wrote a song (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lonesome_Death_of_Hattie_Carroll)about one such. Like I have said, one of the reasons I have never golfed, never took it up as a young man, was the sort of people who hung out at the golf courses (country club) where I grew up. Better off hanging with watermen and sharecroppers, they were a finer grade of people and could be counted on to be honest with you, even if they didn't like you, and would have your back if they did. People were more likely to refer to "poor white trash" as such because poor people can only do so much to harm you, especially if you aren't face to face.
Most weren't really "white trash", just poor, and somewhere in there, economics got confused with class and even education. While there were some wealthier gentry (old families with old money, usually more land rich and cash poor, but not always). Rich white trash were just vindictive, wealthy (often from crooked land deals or scalawag/feather merchant activities during the War of Northern Aggression if older money), and connected enough to do some real damage, so they were more likely not to be spoken of as loudly. Most of the pedigrees they brayed about were established through the unfortunate union of some idiot fourth cousin in an older family which still had class, if not money and/or land post bellum.
Your post rings so true, @Smokin Joe! I think we are unhealthily obsessed with "class" in this country. Any time someone is complimented as "classy" it is a throwback to admiration of the wealthy.
-
You're right.
But the solution is not to make the filthy smears against women "OK," but to stop the filthy smears against men from being "OK."
You fellers could go a long way to make that happen iffn you want to. ^-^
So right, @musiclady! And men referring to other men as f***s, p*****s, C***s, is just as bad if not worse, demasculating.
-
So right, @musiclady! And men referring to other men as f***s, p*****s, C***s, is just as bad if not worse, demasculating.
I'd rather guys were free with that language. It tells me a lot about them and it also beats getting a baseball bat across the head.
-
I'd rather guys were free with that language. It tells me a lot about them and it also beats getting a baseball bat across the head.
Sometimes they are just getting 'worked up' to start the physical confrontation.
I think civility is grossly underrated nowadays, under practiced, too.
-
I'd rather guys were free with that language. It tells me a lot about them and it also beats getting a baseball bat across the head.
@driftdiver, now that is true! I believe in letting bigots use their free speech freely. It lets us know who they are, and we can learn from the consequences they face.
-
Sometimes they are just getting 'worked up' to start the physical confrontation.
I think civility is grossly underrated nowadays, under practiced, too.
I dont disagree but it helps me identify and avoid those people.
-
She 'tweets some truth'? As in calling an African American an ape?
Sheesh.. we are getting infested with freeper thought.
I warned everyone not to tie your cart to this horse. She has always been a nasty racist, truther, disgustoid. Just because she claims to like someone you like doesn't change her spots.
@AbaraXas
Coming in late here, but agreed. She's also a lunatic. When we hitch ourselves to these types because they say something we like, it's going to blow up in our faces every time.
-
Oh, the Never Trumpers have a love-in, how sweet.
@TomSea
(https://i.imgur.com/QOdsWIs.gif)
-
M'am, we do what we can.
If we complain about it we''re "sexist" or "misogynists" or "Chauvanists" or any of another dozen or so epithets, including "D*ck"..
If we just refuse to date 'em they just join up with the lesbians or find some guy to really abuse them first so they can claim we're all "that way".
About the only thing that works, is "Language! Keep it clean!" but then, we're being "patriarchal".
Ignore it, and that's taken either for assent, or it intensifies in a quest for attention.
:shrug:.
With some games the only way to win is just not play.
What I was referring to is that men so frequently use demeaning, filthy language against each other.
I know that some of you don't, but I don't see many men trying to stop other men from using that kind of language.
As I said in my first response..... demeaning, filthy language against either men or women is wrong. Leftist women may be guilty of filth against men, but most conservative women aren't....... and too many conservative men are.
I've been on conservative boards far too long to have not seen it repeatedly.
(And how many times have I been ridiculed as a "church lady" because I want language cleaned up? So many times that it's a joke......... not on me, but on the idiots who try to belittle me for wanting language cleaned up).
-
So right, @musiclady! And men referring to other men as f***s, p*****s, C***s, is just as bad if not worse, demasculating.
Yes, it is.
This problem is a two way street, and while a lot of people want to whine about one side, not many are willing to see the fault on both.
-
Oh, the Never Trumpers have a love-in, how sweet.
You object to our kind words about Easy Ace's comments about Father Knows Best, and somehow connect it with Trump?
That's just bizarre, Tom..... **nononono*
-
You object to our kind words about Easy Ace's comments about Father Knows Best, and somehow connect it with Trump?
That's just bizarre, Tom..... **nononono*
That's how it goes around here: "Animals escape from German zoo" - "but Trump!". "UFO's seen over Los Angeles" - "You don't like Trump!". "Man drowns in flooded river" - "You said something ugly about Trump!".
Just flat weird.
-
That's how it goes around here: "Animals escape from German zoo" - "but Trump!". "UFO's seen over Los Angeles" - "You don't like Trump!". "Man drowns in flooded river" - "You said something ugly about Trump!".
Just flat weird.
Why are you calling Trump weird?
-
Why are you calling Trump weird?
888high58888
-
Holy Shit!!!! Roseanne just lost her show? Thank God I was on the forum to catch this breaking news!
-
What I was referring to is that men so frequently use demeaning, filthy language against each other.
I know that some of you don't, but I don't see many men trying to stop other men from using that kind of language.
As I said in my first response..... demeaning, filthy language against either men or women is wrong. Leftist women may be guilty of filth against men, but most conservative women aren't....... and too many conservative men are.
I've been on conservative boards far too long to have not seen it repeatedly.
(And how many times have I been ridiculed as a "church lady" because I want language cleaned up? So many times that it's a joke......... not on me, but on the idiots who try to belittle me for wanting language cleaned up).
I'm no saint, but generally If I make a derogatory reference about another guy, it's because I find that a valid characterization. I find common ground and get along with most folks, whether I agree with some of their personal decisions or not, whether I trust them or not, but I have known a few I'd have to be standing next to when they ignited, and I'd have to be in serious and urgent distress before I would contribute my urine to extinguishing the blaze.
I get your point, though, and it is much like women calling themselves or each other "B*tch". (Let someone call Mrs Joe that and she'd redefine it for whoever did).
In general, the course of interpersonal communication has been in a death spiral since women started tolerating being referred to as "Hos" and "B*tch" and even "baby mama", the latter concept even more degrading in that it implies accidental breeding with someone not worthy of a commitment. before or after coitus. It's a far cry from R-E-S-P-E-C-T, but people buy that crap, and after serious saturation, it affects the culture at all levels..
-
Oh damn, my bad. I thought for a moment that this was "Trump is the greatest thing since sliced bread" thread.
Just what exactly do you mean, SINCE? Are you trying to imply that sliced bread is better than the trump?
Get this one up against the wall, boys.
-
I'm no saint, but generally If I make a derogatory reference about another guy, it's because I find that a valid characterization. I find common ground and get along with most folks, whether I agree with some of their personal decisions or not, whether I trust them or not, but I have known a few I'd have to be standing next to when they ignited, and I'd have to be in serious and urgent distress before I would contribute my urine to extinguishing the blaze.
I get your point, though, and it is much like women calling themselves or each other "B*tch". (Let someone call Mrs Joe that and she'd redefine it for whoever did).
In general, the course of interpersonal communication has been in a death spiral since women started tolerating being referred to as "Hos" and "B*tch" and even "baby mama", the latter concept even more degrading in that it implies accidental breeding with someone not worthy of a commitment. before or after coitus. It's a far cry from R-E-S-P-E-C-T, but people buy that crap, and after serious saturation, it affects the culture at all levels..
One of the worst things about so-called women's "liberation" is that many women have become as vulgar as men.
You and I are both old enough to remember when women (a few outliers excepted) never used foul language, and men only did in the company of other men....NEVER with women around. Now, especially in the younger generations, no one thinks a thing about it when a female swears like a longshoreman. :shrug:
Of course, the days of polite conversation are long gone and our culture has gone into the literal sewer (thanks to leftists), but there are at least a few of us who will fight tooth and nail to keep whatever remains of civil discourse alive.
It may be a losing battle, but in the time the Lord gives me on this earth, I'm not backing down.
-
One of the worst things about so-called women's "liberation" is that many women have become as vulgar as men.
You and I are both old enough to remember when women (a few outliers excepted) never used foul language, and men only did in the company of other men....NEVER with women around. Now, especially in the younger generations, no one thinks a thing about it when a female swears like a longshoreman. :shrug:
Of course, the days of polite conversation are long gone and our culture has gone into the literal sewer (thanks to leftists), but there are at least a few of us who will fight tooth and nail to keep whatever remains of civil discourse alive.
It may be a losing battle, but in the time the Lord gives me on this earth, I'm not backing down.
@musiclady
It is funny how that works...
I too am old enough to remember, and was in fact raised that way. Deference to the weaker sex is a matter of honor, lending respect.
But what of honor, when it is no longer recognized as currency? Honor between men is a wholly different thing. Honor toward women is an artificial mode, useful only in the realm of polite society. A single man is seldom accepted therein - He is either there as an apprentice or agent of another man, or he is there because he has a woman. By its nature, polite society does not trust an unattached male, and largely denies access, even if he comes from polite stock, and especially so in this day and age.
A man in himself is nothing but a creature of merit and competition. He has no innate need for polite society, or society at all ~ I can function quite well on the other side of the tracks, or over the next range, deep in wilderness where women never go... The only thing tying me to society is the love and comfort of a woman, and nothing else.
What women need to know, both individually and in the aggregate, is that polite society is wholly a construct built by men for women - A sheltered environment for women that tends exclusively to their needs, wherein a man participates only because an honest woman desires him to. Early on, that is the desire of his familial matriarchy - but he won't stay there on that account for long. It is only for the love of a woman that he remains thus encumbered.
A woman really only does two things for a man, without which, he can function well, albeit imperfectly - She can see his heart, and she reminds him of his honor. That is the benefit toward man in the whole of polite society. Those are not small things, but they are things he does not require, and must be shown in order to experience the effective improvement... The impact upon his existence.
He does it for a woman. Period.
If women scoff at honor, if women scold attempts toward genteel manners, if young women are taught to use their visceral power over men (their bodies) to get their way, from a man's perspective, there is no need for polite society at all.
So do not blame men for the coarsening of society - Men are of a coarse nature. It is the women who need polite society - a safe place for hearth and home, where women can join together to provide for rearing children and caring for elders. It is the women's way that has been corrupted. Men are only doing what women will settle for.
-
@musiclady
It is funny how that works...
I too am old enough to remember, and was in fact raised that way. Deference to the weaker sex is a matter of honor, lending respect.
But what of honor, when it is no longer recognized as currency? Honor between men is a wholly different thing. Honor toward women is an artificial mode, useful only in the realm of polite society. A single man is seldom accepted therein - He is either there as an apprentice or agent of another man, or he is there because he has a woman. By its nature, polite society does not trust an unattached male, and largely denies access, even if he comes from polite stock, and especially so in this day and age.
A man in himself is nothing but a creature of merit and competition. He has no innate need for polite society, or society at all ~ I can function quite well on the other side of the tracks, or over the next range, deep in wilderness where women never go... The only thing tying me to society is the love and comfort of a woman, and nothing else.
What women need to know, both individually and in the aggregate, is that polite society is wholly a construct built by men for women - A sheltered environment for women that tends exclusively to their needs, wherein a man participates only because an honest woman desires him to. Early on, that is the desire of his familial matriarchy - but he won't stay there on that account for long. It is only for the love of a woman that he remains thus encumbered.
A woman really only does two things for a man, without which, he can function well, albeit imperfectly - She can see his heart, and she reminds him of his honor. That is the benefit toward man in the whole of polite society. Those are not small things, but they are things he does not require, and must be shown in order to experience the effective improvement... The impact upon his existence.
He does it for a woman. Period.
If women scoff at honor, if women scold attempts toward genteel manners, if young women are taught to use their visceral power over men (their bodies) to get their way, from a man's perspective, there is no need for polite society at all.
So do not blame men for the coarsening of society - Men are of a coarse nature. It is the women who need polite society - a safe place for hearth and home, where women can join together to provide for rearing children and caring for elders. It is the women's way that has been corrupted. Men are only doing what women will settle for.
Sorry, friend, but that's a copout. Men can be genteel if they are raised properly and obey God's laws.
The fault, no matter how eloquent your arguments for tradition and 'hearth and home,' is with BOTH genders.
Saying otherwise is looking at the issue half blind.
-
Sorry, friend, but that's a copout. Men can be genteel if they are raised properly and obey God's laws.
The fault, no matter how eloquent your arguments for tradition and 'hearth and home,' is with BOTH genders.
Saying otherwise is looking at the issue half blind.
Nope. Men have no innate need for it - and women do.
-
One of the worst things about so-called women's "liberation" is that many women have become as vulgar as men.
You and I are both old enough to remember when women (a few outliers excepted) never used foul language, and men only did in the company of other men....NEVER with women around. Now, especially in the younger generations, no one thinks a thing about it when a female swears like a longshoreman. :shrug:
Of course, the days of polite conversation are long gone and our culture has gone into the literal sewer (thanks to leftists), but there are at least a few of us who will fight tooth and nail to keep whatever remains of civil discourse alive.
It may be a losing battle, but in the time the Lord gives me on this earth, I'm not backing down.
The wife and I watched the cable series "Dexter" about a serial killer (played by Michael C. Hall) who satisfies his urge to kill by capturing and killing other serial killers.
While we enjoyed the series overall, there was one character, Dexter's sister, (played by Jennifer Carpenter) who was a police officer and who had the foulest mouth of any character I've ever seen on screen or tv.
She was so obnoxiously vulgar, I detested her character and wished Dexter would do her in as well as all the other evil people he killed.
Her character was, by far, the most obnoxious character I've ever watched on tv or the movies.
I don't know what type of men find that kind of language attractive, but it wasn't me.
-
The wife and I watched the cable series "Dexter" about a serial killer (played by Michael C. Hall) who satisfies his urge to kill by capturing and killing other serial killers.
While we enjoyed the series overall, there was one character, Dexter's sister, (played by Jennifer Carpenter) who was a police officer and who had the foulest mouth of any character I've ever seen on screen or tv.
She was so obnoxiously vulgar, I detested her character and wished Dexter would do her in as well as all the other evil people he killed.
Her character was, by far, the most obnoxious character I've ever watched on tv or the movies.
I don't know what type of men find that kind of language attractive, but it wasn't me.
So....because the woman character swore like a trooper, you wished Dexter would have killed her.
Do you see any 'problem' with your reasoning? :shrug: :laugh:
-
Nope. Men have no innate need for it - and women do.
You are ignoring the basic truth that both men and women are sinful, and that both can be equally redeemed from that sin. You are ignoring God's redemptive power in men and seem to be saying that because they have an "innate need" to be vulgar, that they somehow should be excused.
And in doing that, you are laying all the blame for the coarseness of today's culture on women.
Which, of course, is ridiculous on its face.
My question is, why do you think so little of men, and why do you not recognize that behavior can be modified through the grace of God?
Again, your insistence on (your personal perception and ideas about) tradition is interfering with your acceptance of God's laws and spiritual truth.
-
*****rollingeyes*****
-
*****rollingeyes*****
Use self-control and stay out of this discussion. The men on this forum don't need your help. :dx1:
-
I might roll my eyes too...if I could figure out what they were arguing about.
-
Use self-control and stay out of this discussion. The men on this forum don't need your help. :dx1:
How about using self-control and sticking to a discussion that most people who have previously commented give a crap about or taking your non-sensical and uselsss argument to PM.
-
How about using self-control and sticking to a discussion that most people who have previously commented give a crap about or taking your non-sensical and uselsss argument to PM.
I was responding to someone who was responding to me.
I'm allowed to do that, whether you like it or not.
But just to let you know, the last time you engaged in a stupid argument about my calling childish men 'boys' and wouldn't let go of it, I had to take some time off, and ended up putting two people on Ignore.
I'm not going to do it again. If you hector me, I'm outta here.
My discussion about how men are not as base as some here think, and can be gentlemen, will continue, because I know a whole lot of men who are polite to the core, and expect the same of others.
(btw, the two men with which I have been having a polite, respectful discussion, seem to be interested in the subject. Just because you aren't, doesn't mean that none of us should discuss it.....discussion forums don't work that way. Besides which, it's relevant to the topic, and to the problems we have in today's society).
-
I might roll my eyes too...if I could figure out what they were arguing about.
My believing that men are not doomed to coarse, vile lives because they were 'made that way.'
And my believing that men are capable of engaging in polite and civil discourse all on their own, and that it's not women's fault that they don't.
That's pretty much it in a nutshell.
-
My believing that men are not doomed to coarse, vile lives because they were 'made that way.'
And my believing that men are capable of engaging in polite and civil discourse all on their own, and that it's not women's fault that they don't.
That's pretty much it in a nutshell.
Well, of course. Why is that even an argument?
-
Well, of course. Why is that even an argument?
That's what I'd like to know.
But any time I see someone say that men can't help themselves because of the way they're wired, I will defend men against that argument. I guess I just know too many clean, healthy men whom I deeply respect to believe that they are all hardwired to be filthy.
(btw, the argument happens too often).
-
I was responding to someone who was responding to me.
I'm allowed to do that, whether you like it or not.
But just to let you know, the last time you engaged in a stupid argument about my calling childish men 'boys' and wouldn't let go of it, I had to take some time off, and ended up putting two people on Ignore.
I'm not going to do it again. If you hector me, I'm outta here.
My discussion about how men are not as base as some here think, and can be gentlemen, will continue, because I know a whole lot of men who are polite to the core, and expect the same of others.
I gotta tell you, I think it's pretty freaking hilariious that all of that is my fault. If you left because of an eyeroll emoji and then being responded to in kind I would laugh my ass off.
Hectoring you, indeed. I was actually rolling my eyes at both you and @roamer_1 . You're talking past each other, which you are wont to do and he should know better.
-
I gotta tell you, I think it's pretty freaking hilariious that all of that is my fault. If you left because of an eyeroll emoji and then being responded to in kind I would laugh my ass off.
Hectoring you, indeed. I was actually rolling my eyes at both you and @roamer_1 . You're talking past each other, which you are wont to do and he should know better.
I didn't even remotely imply that it was "all your fault."
I repeat. No man here needs you to come to his aid, as much as you feel the need to defend them against me.
roamer and I agree on almost every issue. The only one we disagree on is his strongly traditional (albeit, not necessarily Biblical) views of how he believes all women should behave, and in this instance, that women innately want decency and men don't, so that we are to blame for the coarseness of our culture.
He's a good man with strong beliefs and doesn't need help against big, bad musiclady. ^-^
(The use of the term "hectoring" was in reference to multiple occasions in the past, which, I'm thinking you remember as well as I do. It was not a comment on what you had done here. Just an effort to prevent you from doing it again).
-
I'm still trying to get past "the weaker sex". Smaller - ok, generally speaking. Weaker? Nope.
-
I didn't even remotely imply that it was "all your fault."
I repeat. No man here needs you to come to his aid, as much as you feel the need to defend them against me.
roamer and I agree on almost every issue. The only one we disagree on is his strongly traditional (albeit, not necessarily Biblical) views of how he believes all women should behave, and in this instance, that women innately want decency and men don't, so that we are to blame for the coarseness of our culture.
He's a good man with strong beliefs and doesn't need help against big, bad musiclady. ^-^
And as usual you're lecturing on a topic that was not mentioned to you.
-
And as usual you're lecturing on a topic that was not mentioned to you.
As usual?? LOL!
Put me on Ignore if I bother you so much. I can take it. *****rollingeyes*****
In the mean time, I'm going to continue to defend men.
-
I'm still trying to get past "the weaker sex". Smaller - ok, generally speaking. Weaker? Nope.
Are we talking physically or emotionally?
-
As usual?? LOL!
Put me on Ignore if I bother you so much. I can take it. *****rollingeyes*****
In the mean time, I'm going to continue to defend men.
See? The problem is you reacting as though it's the first time I mentioned it.
-
I'm still trying to get past "the weaker sex". Smaller - ok, generally speaking. Weaker? Nope.
Actually, in many ways, biologically stronger........... so that the human race continues. ^-^
-
You are ignoring the basic truth that both men and women are sinful, and that both can be equally redeemed from that sin. You are ignoring God's redemptive power in men and seem to be saying that because they have an "innate need" to be vulgar, that they somehow should be excused.
@musiclady
I am doing no such thing. I am saying that men survive in coarse conditions, not suitable for society (and thereby women). Men live and even thrive in lonesome places, far away from society and civilization. Thus I submit, he is immune not only to the coarse conditions of say, 'Hell on Wheels' at the railhead, or of the last outpost on a frontier, but also to the abhorrent conditions that lie beyond.
The coarsening of society is nothing. The mere coarsening of language is not even incidental. He will adapt. And he will survive. It's how we get from here to there with wilderness and war in between. Only afterward do women come along.
And in doing that, you are laying all the blame for the coarseness of today's culture on women.
Which, of course, is ridiculous on its face.
Indeed I am. I will state empirically: If women required polite society and genteel manners, that is what men would give them. I will reiterate: 'Society' is an artificial construct, built by men for women, according to their requirements.
My question is, why do you think so little of men, and why do you not recognize that behavior can be modified through the grace of God?
You are mistaking American societal norms for God's way. That is not true. And language, even more so: 'Shit' is not as coarse in Britain as it is considered here. And 'bloody' is far worse, while here, 'bloody' is entirely benign. It has less to do with God than local Christian women, and what they consider coarse... Mind you, there's nothing wrong with that. I just wanted to clear up that misconception.
Again, your insistence on (your personal perception and ideas about) tradition is interfering with your acceptance of God's laws and spiritual truth.
No, I think your perception of what God ordered is confused with what is considered polite here and now.
-
he should know better.
@RoosGirl
Alright. I'll lay off.
-
@musiclady
I am doing no such thing. I am saying that men survive in coarse conditions, not suitable for society (and thereby women). Men live and even thrive in lonesome places, far away from society and civilization. Thus I submit, he is immune not only to the coarse conditions of say, 'Hell on Wheels' at the railhead, or of the last outpost on a frontier, but also to the abhorrent conditions that lie beyond.
The coarsening of society is nothing. The mere coarsening of language is not even incidental. He will adapt. And he will survive. It's how we get from here to there with wilderness and war in between. Only afterward do women come along.
Indeed I am. I will state empirically: If women required polite society and genteel manners, that is what men would give them. I will reiterate: 'Society' is an artificial construct, built by men for women, according to their requirements.
You are mistaking American societal norms for God's way. That is not true. And language, even more so: 'Shit' is not as coarse in Britain as it is considered here. And 'bloody' is far worse, while here, 'bloody' is entirely benign. It has less to do with God than local Christian women, and what they consider coarse... Mind you, there's nothing wrong with that. I just wanted to clear up that misconception.
No, I think your perception of what God ordered is confused with what is considered polite here and now.
Thanks for reiterating a philosophy that once again ignores God's desire to transform lives, including the lives of men who submit to His wil. The idea that, because men can survive in the wilderness, they are not responsible to control their behavior in society as a whole is just not viable Scripturally.
What is polite in England or elsewhere (which I know all about) is not really germane to the point. There are standards of politeness that both men and women in the past have expected of each other. (Other than Ben Franklin, where is the crudity in the language of our Founding Fathers.... whose courage historically is second to none)?
Your attempt to put all the responsibility for civility on women, I repeat, is ridiculous on its face. By doing that, you are claiming that men are not capable of self-control, nor governance, nor decency.
It's too bad that you don't know men who are, by God's grace and a good upbringing, polite people with clean mouths. I'm sorry, but your denigration of so many good men is offensive to one who has so very many in my family and circle of friends.
They, you see, are transformed by the Grace of God, and are capable of, not only hunting bears and surviving in the wild, but of behaving in a civil manner on their own accord.
If I thought that all men were helpless to behave without women forcing them to behave, I would think much less of them than I presently do. (Once again, my respect for men is much greater than yours).
Your argument may hold in your theoretical world, but it is not functional in the real world where God (according to Scripture and multiple verses about controlling ones tongue and not letting coarse words come out of your mouth, not my own thoughts) is in control and men allow Him to rule in their lives.
-
Are we talking physically or emotionally?
Yes.
-
Yes.
Go watch American Ninja Warrior and tell me that women are physically as strong as men.
-
Anyway, wth does any of this have to do with Roseanne?
-
Go watch American Ninja Warrior and tell me that women are physically as strong as men.
Women have more stamina, men more explosive strength. Not less or more; just different.
-
Anyway, wth does any of this have to do with Roseanne?
Roseanne obviously has lots of stamina.
-
Women have more stamina, men more explosive strength. Not less or more; just different.
Is that why men's marathon times are always faster?
-
Is that why men's marathon times are always faster?
I don't know. I'm trying to care, but not getting there.
-
I don't know. I'm trying to care, but not getting there.
Lol. Yup.
-
This thread is the equivalent of a guest who overstay their welcome.
-
This thread is the equivalent of a guest who overstay their welcome.
I'm sure the Legos have been hidden in the basement somewhere.
-
Nope. Men have no innate need for it - and women do.
@roamer_1
I am going to say you are half-right. We men need to provide a civilized atmosphere for WOMEN TO RAISE CHILDREN. If there are no children around requiring care,women are actually tougher than men. They just aren't as strong as we are. Still,they are not Super Woman any more than we are Super Man,and generally speaking,pre-teen children need a mother focused on their care and upbringing,not on running a trap line or being a CEO somewhere. That's where the male is required to take up the slack.
Nothing more than the natural distribution of labor.
Yes,lots of single women as well as single men have been put into positions where they had to bring home the bacon as well as raise the children,but that situation is far from ideal,and anybody that tells you this isn't true is a dogmatic fool.
-
So....because the woman character swore like a trooper, you wished Dexter would have killed her.
Do you see any 'problem' with your reasoning? :shrug: :laugh:
@DCPatriot
I tried watching Dexter,and I was hoping somebody would kill HIM. Chick Flic series,where the women lust after a handsome serial killer. Made my head hurt.
-
@roamer_1
I am going to say you are half-right. We men need to provide a civilized atmosphere for WOMEN TO RAISE CHILDREN. If there are no children around requiring care,women are actually tougher than men. They just aren't as strong as we are. Still,they are not Super Woman any more than we are Super Man,and generally speaking,pre-teen children need a mother focused on their care and upbringing,not on running a trap line or being a CEO somewhere. That's where the male is required to take up the slack.
Nothing more than the natural distribution of labor.
Yes,lots of single women as well as single men have been put into positions where they had to bring home the bacon as well as raise the children,but that situation is far from ideal,and anybody that tells you this isn't true is a dogmatic fool.
Good post, @sneakypete.
-
I'm still trying to get past "the weaker sex". Smaller - ok, generally speaking. Weaker? Nope.
@Sanguine
No kidding,and not always smaller,either.
-
So....because the woman character swore like a trooper, you wished Dexter would have killed her.
Do you see any 'problem' with your reasoning? :shrug: :laugh:
A character in a fictional show? Actually, yes. She was too obnoxious. :laugh:
But I would have been satisfied with Dexter washing her mouth out with soap.
-
I am going to say you are half-right. We men need to provide a civilized atmosphere for WOMEN TO RAISE CHILDREN.
@sneakypete
If there are no women, there are no children, and the thought stands on its own (and I did iterate child rearing as cause upthread)
If there are no children around requiring care,women are actually tougher than men.
Not in any measurable way. There are some that will do, and make do, and I mean no disrespect, but in rough conditions, a woman will always require help, a slower pace, and a shorter hop, carrying half the load.
In all my life I have met one woman who could stand with men at what men do... That'd be Big Gert, a cigar munchin gal of 6 feet and 250 pounds. Dug ditches for a living and swore like a muleskinner. She couldn't keep up with me and a few others, but she did fair better than most men at it.
Saying otherwise is just so much nonsense.
-
@DCPatriot
I tried watching Dexter,and I was hoping somebody would kill HIM. Chick Flic series,where the women lust after a handsome serial killer. Made my head hurt.
@sneakypete
I watched the premier season. Plots held your attention then. Haven't clicked on it since.
-
This thread is the equivalent of a guest who overstay their welcome.
And you drop by, seems like every page. in your 'special' witty way to induce conversation on other threads.
I feel ya...but we're having a deep conversation here, Frank. :laugh:
-
@sneakypete
If there are no women, there are no children, and the thought stands on its own (and I did iterate child rearing as cause upthread)
@roamer_1
Sometimes women die,get sick,and just disappear. It happens.
Not in any measurable way. There are some that will do, and make do, and I mean no disrespect, but in rough conditions, a woman will always require help, a slower pace, and a shorter hop, carrying half the load.
Women have a tolerance for pain that is off the freaking charts. They also tend to go full-tilt batshit crazy if you ever scare or make one mad enough to attack you. People that fired up ain't easy to stop.
-
Sometimes women die,get sick,and just disappear. It happens.
@sneakypete
Not the same thing - If a man has children, he is already moored. Society exists where he is.
Women have a tolerance for pain that is off the freaking charts. They also tend to go full-tilt batshit crazy if you ever scare or make one mad enough to attack you. People that fired up ain't easy to stop.
Twice I have hit a woman in my life. Both times as I would hit a man.
One was pokin on me with a knife. I knocked her out on the principle of the thing.
One was, as you say, bat-shit crazy, and doing more harm to others than to me, one of which was a child. There was no talking to her, and no restraining her without a risk of injury, so I just put her out.
In both cases, a single blow. Out cold and doing the chicken. Now, I have done likewise to men, but not so very often. Usually they get back up.
No, women are not more powerful, or in possession of more strength, or possessing more endurance, or, for that matter, possessing more will. In every durable trial, a man will fair better, as a rule.
-
Women have more stamina, men more explosive strength. Not less or more; just different.
Marathon runners, Iron men...
-
A character in a fictional show? Actually, yes. She was too obnoxious. :laugh:
But I would have been satisfied with Dexter washing her mouth out with soap.
My husband and I had Showtime just for Dexter! Loved the show but, oh my, Debra was way OTT. And, it was obviously done because she was a woman. Man, now, I think I need to go watch a few episodes. There were a couple of seasons I did not like but for the most part, it was a fun ride. Loved the guest stars!
-
Marathon runners, Iron men...
Just a minor point - women's bodies are better suited for distance running because they have more body fat, and therefore are better equipped to run for a longer time.
That doesn't translate into saying that they run faster, just that their bodies handle it better.
Side point - Our son is an ultra marathon runner and has done several 100k races in the mountains, and one 100 mile race. And though he's exceptionally good at it, in every race there are women who come in before he does.
There may be 5 or 10 men in the world with faster times over 100K than they have, but that's about it, and I'm guessing no one on this forum is among them. :dx1:
@Sanguine @thackney
-
Just a minor point - women's bodies are better suited for distance running because they have more body fat, and therefore are better equipped to run for a longer time.
That doesn't translate into saying that they run faster, just that their bodies handle it better.
Side point - Our son is an ultra marathon runner and has done several 100k races in the mountains, and one 100 mile race. And though he's exceptionally good at it, in every race there are women who come in before he does.
There may be 5 or 10 men in the world with faster times over 100K than they have, but that's about it, and I'm guessing no one on this forum is among them. :dx1:
@Sanguine @thackney
This website does not support your claim. Maybe I'm reading it wrong.
https://ultrarunning.com/featured/ultrarunning-magazine-all-time-lists/
-
I feel ya...but we're having a deep conversation here, Frank. :laugh:
If you tied buttered toast to the back of a cat and dropped it from a height, what would happen?
-
If you tied buttered toast to the back of a cat and dropped it from a height, what would happen?
The only way to know is to run multiple experiments.
-
The only way to know is to run multiple experiments.
I only have toast.
-
I only have toast.
I'll get the traps set up.
-
I'll get the traps set up.
Try a cat herder 1st. More humane :cool:
-
This website does not support your claim. Maybe I'm reading it wrong.
https://ultrarunning.com/featured/ultrarunning-magazine-all-time-lists/
Which claim?
That website doesn't address the issue I was discussing, nor the specifics of recent races our son ran in over the past few years. (Those are not mountain races. NO one completes a 100k mountain race in 6 hours. And even so, look at the women's times in the 100 mile relative to the fastest men. If there are 200 people in the race and a woman finishes 30th, she is faster than almost all the men).
Edited to add: In a 100k mountain race, our son finished ninth and finished in 14 hours and 16 minutes. There was one woman who finished ahead of him at 14 hours and 1 minute. The fastest runners were men, but there were women who finished far faster than the majority of men. This has been true in all of his races.
That is the point I was making. It is factual, and not a 'claim.'
-
If you tied buttered toast to the back of a cat and dropped it from a height, what would happen?
It has already been done.
(https://i.embed.ly/1/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPR1ctOI.gif%3Fnoredirect&key=b1e305db91cf4aa5a86b732cc9fffceb)
-
Which claim?
That website doesn't address the issue I was discussing, nor the specifics of recent races our son ran in over the past few years. (Those are not mountain races. NO one completes a 100k mountain race in 6 hours. And even so, look at the women's times in the 100 mile relative to the fastest men. If there are 200 people in the race and a woman finishes 30th, she is faster than almost all the men).
Edited to add: In a 100k mountain race, our son finished ninth and finished in 14 hours and 16 minutes. There was one woman who finished ahead of him at 14 hours and 1 minute. The fastest runners were men, but there were women who finished far faster than the majority of men. This has been true in all of his races.
That is the point I 9was making. It is factual, and not a 'claim.'
FFS Making the general claim that women are stronger or as strong as men, making the claim that women have as much or more stamina than men is just plain false. There are outliers in every situation, however, no one here ever said that all men are stronger, etc than all women. No one here is stupid enough to believe that. Making the general claim is just plain false and it is supported by a plethora of data including the website I linked, regardless of whether those races are in the mountains, on the beach, on a track or on a road.
-
It has already been done.
(https://i.embed.ly/1/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPR1ctOI.gif%3Fnoredirect&key=b1e305db91cf4aa5a86b732cc9fffceb)
Okay dokaly then!
-
FFS Making the general claim that women are stronger or as strong as men, making the claim that women have as much or more stamina than men is just plain false. There are outliers in every situation, however, no one here ever said that all men are stronger, etc than all women. No one here is stupid enough to believe that. Making the general claim is just plain false and it is supported by a plethora of data including the website I linked, regardless of whether those races are in the mountains, on the beach, on a track or on a road.
So, is the corollary also false: men are stronger or as strong as women?
-
FFS Making the general claim that women are stronger or as strong as men, making the claim that women have as much or more stamina than men is just plain false. There are outliers in every situation, however, no one here ever said that all men are stronger, etc than all women. No one here is stupid enough to believe that. Making the general claim is just plain false and it is supported by a plethora of data including the website I linked, regardless of whether those races are in the mountains, on the beach, on a track or on a road.
If it makes you feel better to blow your stack at the information I provided, more power to you.
btw, I wasn't claiming that men or women are stronger or have more stamina than the other.
In fact, I specifically stated that women as a rule are slower and that body fat doesn't translate into better times. I'm just adding relevant details to the conversation. If you want to rant and rave that women can't do things, go for it.
I'm just discussing the issue. If you wanna fight, you'll have to find someone else.
btw, you could have said "Good job!" to my son for running 100k in the mountains and coming in 9th in 14 hours or to the woman who beat him, if you wanted to be polite. ^-^
-
So, is the corollary also false: men are stronger or as strong as women?
They can't both be false, speaking in general terms of course.
-
They can't both be false, speaking in general terms of course.
Of course they can!
OK, I'm done. No more, please!
-
Of course they can!
OK, I'm done. No more, please!
If you're only talking men or women, and which one is stronger, the answer can't be 'no'. :shrug:
-
If you're only talking men or women, and which one is stronger, the answer can't be 'no'. :shrug:
There's always equal.
-
If it makes you feel better to blow your stack at the information I provided, more power to you.
btw, I wasn't claiming that men or women are stronger or have more stamina than the other.
In fact, I specifically stated that women as a rule are slower and that body fat doesn't translate into better times. I'm just adding relevant details to the conversation. If you want to rant and rave that women can't do things, go for it.
I'm just discussing the issue. If you wanna fight, you'll have to find someone else.
btw, you could have said "Good job!" to my son for running 100k in the mountains and coming in 9th in 14 hours or to the woman who beat him, if you wanted to be polite. ^-^
Thanks again for another off-topic lecture.
-
There's always equal.
Wasn't that included in "as strong as" ?
-
Wasn't that included in "as strong as" ?
:banging:
-
Thanks again for another off-topic lecture.
You're welcome.
It was what was required in response to your off-topic temper tantrum. :beer:
-
:banging:
:laugh:
Are you trying to sell us that in general men are equal in strength to women? Show me the data and I'll believe it, otherwise no way.
Let's all look at pretty pictures and be thankful. Isn't this a beautiful kilt?
(https://img.etsystatic.com/il/337be8/1462522208/il_340x270.1462522208_qyxb.jpg?version=1)
-
You're welcome.
It was what was required in response to your off-topic temper tantrum. :beer:
A discussion is not a temper tantrum.
-
:laugh:
Are you trying to sell us that in general men are equal in strength to women? Show me the data and I'll believe it, otherwise no way.
Let's all look at pretty pictures and be thankful. Isn't this a beautiful kilt?
(https://img.etsystatic.com/il/337be8/1462522208/il_340x270.1462522208_qyxb.jpg?version=1)
Kilt?
-
Kilt?
Clearly.
-
:sadnana:
(http://rense.com/general85/bana.gif)
This discussion is resulting in So many samitches not being made. So sad.
-
A discussion is not a temper tantrum.
I'm glad that's what you think you were doing.
Have a lovely evening, Roos.
Some day we'll discuss this issue again when you're feeling better.
Meanwhile, perhaps you can re-read my actual words and rethink your angry response to what shouldn't have made anyone angry. You said you may have misread the data in your post and I provided more data, with a specific example, citing no generalizations about women being better than men.
This is the bottom line. Most men run faster than most women. Some women run faster than most men. And everyone on earth, man or woman, runs faster than I do. ^-^
Again........ have a lovely evening.
-
:sadnana:
(http://rense.com/general85/bana.gif)
This discussion is resulting in So many samitches not being made. So sad.
Not to worry the sammiches are shit anyway
-
There's always equal.
@Sanguine
Fine open your own damn door.
-
There's always equal.
No.
Not equal.
Different, and measured by wholly different standards.
But have it your way.
And when we meet in anger, we will fight, and I will crush you like I would any man.
And don't expect protection in your troubles. Protect yourself, like any man.
And don't expect deference - I defer to no man.
Don't expect the tipped hat in greeting.
Don't expect an offered arm on an icy walk.
Tote your own crap, as any man would do.
Load your own truck, as any man would do.
Fix your own car on the side of the road, as any man would do.
I am honor bound to defer to you in order to help you along... In order to make it 'equal'.
You can't have it both ways.
And women wonder what happened to genteel society.
-
No.
Not equal.
Different, and measured by wholly different standards.
But have it your way.
And when we meet in anger, we will fight, and I will crush you like I would any man.
And don't expect protection in your troubles. Protect yourself, like any man.
And don't expect deference - I defer to no man.
Don't expect the tipped hat in greeting.
Don't expect an offered arm on an icy walk.
Tote your own crap, as any man would do.
Load your own truck, as any man would do.
Fix your own car on the side of the road, as any man would do.
I am honor bound to defer to you in order to help you along... In order to make it 'equal'.
You can't have it both ways.
And women wonder what happened to genteel society.
GFT!
Some still get it. Far and far fewer don't.
-
I didn't say the same - I said equal. Y'all really want to argue that one?
(And, I was joking when I wrote it, but now I'm not.)
-
I'm glad that's what you think you were doing.
Have a lovely evening, Roos.
Some day we'll discuss this issue again when you're feeling better.
Meanwhile, perhaps you can re-read my actual words and rethink your angry response to what shouldn't have made anyone angry. You said you may have misread the data in your post and I provided more data, with a specific example, citing no generalizations about women being better than men.
This is the bottom line. Most men run faster than most women. Some women run faster than most men. And everyone on earth, man or woman, runs faster than I do. ^-^
Again........ have a lovely evening.
You're reading tone that isn't there. I really don't know why you're carrying on.
-
I didn't say the same - I said equal. Y'all really want to argue that one?
(And, I was joking when I wrote it, but now I'm not.)
Here's another kilt. You may notice it's a different color than the first.
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2016-04/29/9/enhanced/webdr07/enhanced-11750-1461935481-1.jpg?downsize=715:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto)
-
I didn't say the same - I said equal. Y'all really want to argue that one?
(And, I was joking when I wrote it, but now I'm not.)
I will argue it till the day I die.
Men and women are not equal.
They are DIFFERENT.
You can't measure em by the same standard.
Men are not equal among men. They are judged by merit, won in competition or in battle.
You are welcome to that same standard - to take the place you can carve out in the male hierarchy, and then try to keep it...
But a lady, standing in her honor, can dress down this ol boy, up one side and down the other, and have him hat-in-hand and digging a toe in the dirt.
A man would just get punched in the face.
Be careful what you wish for.
-
Proves once again @RoosGirl that you women just want to further destroy our masculinity by saying we look really well in SKIRTS.. It's BS!
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/88/4a/e0/884ae0a29f42eb7adf5e07daa9ae01db.jpg)
-
No.
Not equal.
Different, and measured by wholly different standards.
But have it your way.
And when we meet in anger, we will fight, and I will crush you like I would any man.
And don't expect protection in your troubles. Protect yourself, like any man.
And don't expect deference - I defer to no man.
Don't expect the tipped hat in greeting.
Don't expect an offered arm on an icy walk.
Tote your own crap, as any man would do.
Load your own truck, as any man would do.
Fix your own car on the side of the road, as any man would do.
I am honor bound to defer to you in order to help you along... In order to make it 'equal'.
You can't have it both ways.
And women wonder what happened to genteel society.
@roamer_1
I know this is a mistake because you have a closed mind,but we all benefit from a "genteel society". Besides women there are children,handicapped people,the elderly,and even physically weak or timid men.
Even those of us who might be a tad more aggressive than most benefit because WTH wants to be fighting or dominating all the time?
And when it comes to teeth,hair,and eyeballs "mean",women top the totem pole. No,almost none of them will call you out into a parking lot to go nose to nose,but a lot of them WILL wait outside in a warmed up car ready to run over your ass when you come out if if push them far enough. AND....,they will mostly get away with it if you even threatened to get physical with them.
Then again,I have been around a lot of women married to special operations people and hard-core biker chicks. That probably tilts the average some,but they are still women.
-
**nononono* **nononono* *****rollingeyes*****
-
Proves once again @RoosGirl that you women just want to further destroy our masculinity by saying we look really well in SKIRTS.. It's BS!
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/88/4a/e0/884ae0a29f42eb7adf5e07daa9ae01db.jpg)
Trust me @corbe , nobody wants to see you or any other man in that get up.
-
@roamer_1
I know this is a mistake because you have a closed mind,but we all benefit from a "genteel society". Besides women there are children,handicapped people,the elderly,and even physically weak or timid men.
@sneakypete
I absolutely agree. But that is not the point. As we rush headlong toward anarchy, the point becomes ever more clear.
The more 'equal' we become, the more coarse we become. This false sense of equality is precisely what is tearing at the foundations of genteel society - Polite society is only there to remedy inequality. And the more 'equal' we become, the less it is needed. Until it finally blows a gasket, wherein those that can will take, and those that can't will die. Welcome to the brave new world, same as the old world.
And it's coming fast. How 'equal' will we be when the lights go out?
Even those of us who might be a tad more aggressive than most benefit because WTH wants to be fighting or dominating all the time?
Right. Again, not my point. I said a man is capable of living beyond law and society. That men create these things in order to make a place for women (and granted, children, elderly, handicapped, but in the main, for women, as none of the rest will be there without them). To wit: Men make civil society for women, according to their (women's) requirements. That is all society is for. Women will get the society they ask for, and are willing to maintain.
And when it comes to teeth,hair,and eyeballs "mean",women top the totem pole. No,almost none of them will call you out into a parking lot to go nose to nose,but a lot of them WILL wait outside in a warmed up car ready to run over your ass when you come out if if push them far enough. AND....,they will mostly get away with it if you even threatened to get physical with them.
And which of them biker chicks rules over their old man? Same with hillbilly gals. Tough as nails, and holy hell if they get a fire lit. But not very many of them can live the life without an old man that's tougher still. By a country mile.
-
@sneakypete
The more 'equal' we become, the more coarse we become. This false sense of equality is precisely what is tearing at the foundations of genteel society - Polite society is only there to remedy inequality. And the more 'equal' we become, the less it is needed. Until it finally blows a gasket, wherein those that can will take, and those that can't will die. Welcome to the brave new world, same as the old world.
And it's coming fast. How 'equal' will we be when the lights go out?
@roamer_1
Well,I sure can't argue with that. In FACT,there is no such critter as "equal". We all have our own mixture of strengths and weaknesses,regardless of gender age,or any other factor that can be named. Just how freaking boring would life be if we were all truly equal?
-
@roamer_1
Well,I sure can't argue with that. In FACT,there is no such critter as "equal". We all have our own mixture of strengths and weaknesses,regardless of gender age,or any other factor that can be named. Just how freaking boring would life be if we were all truly equal?
@sneakypete
That's right, and there ain't no such thing as 'fair' either.
-
You fellas are exactly right. No way I'm your equal.
-
@sneakypete
That's right, and there ain't no such thing as 'fair' either.
Well that's just not fair.
-
You fellas are exactly right. No way I'm your equal.
LOL Solid burn.
-
Well that's just not fair.
Ain't it though?
:beer:
-
Roseanne has been cancelled? Thank God I caught this breaking news.
-
This is awesome. Someone told me there was a super awesome thread devoted to breaking Roseanne news but I didn't believe them. I can't wait to dig through all 19 pages.
-
This is awesome. Someone told me there was a super awesome thread devoted to breaking Roseanne news but I didn't believe them. I can't wait to dig through all 19 pages.
I was just about to ping you, Frank.
-
You fellas are exactly right. No way I'm your equal.
@Sanguine
Awful white of you to admit that. :smokin:
-
You fellas are exactly right. No way I'm your equal.
Right. You are not even on the same field. And that isn't a slur.
Different.
Equality is impossible between different things. There is no means of measurement. There can be no balance.
I would invite you to watch this long but informative vid - an amicable argument between Peterson and Paglia.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM&t=3017s#)
It is an astonishment to me that Conservative women cannot see feminism and the damage it has done to society. The weakness it invariably leaves in men.The destruction it does to patriarchy, not to mention matriarchy, which is left entirely wanting. This is the utter destruction of western civilization.
If feminism has so imbued even Conservative women, then we are truly lost, as there are none to point the way back home.
But don't fear. Inevitably there will come a reassertion of masculinity into society. If not by American males, then by Jihadis or Nazis or the like from outside. See how well you fare in the society they will build for you.
-
Right. You are not even on the same field. And that isn't a slur.
Different.
Equality is impossible between different things. There is no means of measurement. There can be no balance.
I would invite you to watch this long but informative vid - an amicable argument between Peterson and Paglia.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM&t=3017s#)
It is an astonishment to me that Conservative women cannot see feminism and the damage it has done to society. The weakness it invariably leaves in men.The destruction it does to patriarchy, not to mention matriarchy, which is left entirely wanting. This is the utter destruction of western civilization.
If feminism has so imbued even Conservative women, then we are truly lost, as there are none to point the way back home.
But don't fear. Inevitably there will come a reassertion of masculinity into society. If not by American males, then by Jihadis or Nazis or the like from outside. See how well you fare in the society they will build for you.
What's really amazing is that you can create a whole narrative by intentional misreading of what I actually said.
-
Hey @Frank Cannon Have you heard. ABC cancelled Roseanne. Can you believe that shit.
-
What's really amazing is that you can create a whole narrative by intentional misreading of what I actually said.
You are welcome to reiterate. But type slow. I am a man, after all.
-
Hey @Frank Cannon Have you heard. ABC cancelled Roseanne. Can you believe that shit.
Wow! They did? And it just happened because this is a "Breaking Story". Glad I am the first one in with a comment.
-
Wow! They did? And it just happened because this is a "Breaking Story". Glad I am the first one in with a comment.
I tells ya it is just conceivable
-
I didn't say the same - I said equal. Y'all really want to argue that one?
(And, I was joking when I wrote it, but now I'm not.)
@Sanguine
Reading through and wondering when somebody will get it. ^-^
IMO the best of all worlds is when a woman understands that she is different from a man, but completely equal. Inferiority complexes are (again, IMO) the root of feminism.
-
@Sanguine
Reading through and wondering when somebody will get it. ^-^
IMO the best of all worlds is when a woman understands that she is different from a man, but completely equal. Inferiority complexes are (again, IMO) the root of feminism.
Yes, ma'am!
-
What's really amazing is that you can create a whole narrative by intentional misreading of what I actually said.
That happens a lot around here.
Nothing I said on this thread was even slightly controversial, and yet, lots of arguing going on about simple truth.
Women are responsible for their own behavior. Men are responsible for their own behavior. Women are not responsible for men's behavior.
Not controversial.
Men run faster than women, but some women run faster than men.
Not controversial.
And yet........ :shrug:
I think some people just like to see things as they are not written just to argue.
I don't get that. I love to debate actual issues, but silly, deliberate arguments?
Nope.
-
This Thread will still be going when Trump appoints Roseanne to the NSC.
-
This Thread will still be going when Trump appoints Roseanne to the NSC.
Or the FCC.
-
This Thread will still be going when Trump appoints Roseanne to the NSC.
Or appoints her to commission to make sure the National Anthem is given respect. ^-^
-
Or the FCC.
@EasyAce
MY choice would be for him to make her the Ambassador to the Sauds.
-
Or the FCC.
The KFC, more likely.
-
@EasyAce
MY choice would be for him to make her the Ambassador to the Sauds.
@sneakypete
Wouldn't the Saudis consider that an act of war? ;)
-
That happens a lot around here.
Nothing I said on this thread was even slightly controversial, and yet, lots of arguing going on about simple truth.
Women are responsible for their own behavior. Men are responsible for their own behavior. Women are not responsible for men's behavior.
Say WHAT??? :pondering: :laugh:
-
Say WHAT??? :pondering: :laugh:
888high58888
-
@sneakypete
Wouldn't the Saudis consider that an act of war? ;)
@EasyAce
And?