Oh my goodness, thank your for repeating this drivel once more, I finally figured out that this was what you were saying.
1. Yet we do have the right to engage in activities that harm others. You've been suggesting for weeks that the rioters had the "right" to riot. Yet their rioting harmed and oppressed thousands. By your vague "right to the opportunity to work" standard, anyone who's denied a job could claim harm or oppression.
"This is why it's against the law in the United States, because we believe in human rights and rightfully legislate against those who would deny human rights to others."
Where exactly do our rights come from?
Is it a "human right" to be hired for any job you apply for?
85 comments:
You read and read and yet never understand (or at least rarely).
None of what I'm saying is a mystery or some weirdo arcane liberal secret. TRUMP's conservative Supreme Court recognized that it is a human right violation to discriminate at the workforce based on gender and sexual orientation.
Do you recognize that even conservatives are recognizing this basic human right NOT to be discriminated against based upon race, gender, sexual orientation and religion?
You've been suggesting for weeks that the rioters had the "right" to riot.
I literally never said that, nor hinted at that. Not one time. You read and read and fail to understand.
Yet their rioting harmed and oppressed thousands.
And I disagree with causing harm. Do you know how you can know this? BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT I'VE ALWAYS BEEN OPPOSED TO CAUSING HARM.
Now, you might say, "Dan, I've never noticed you taking a stand against hitting little people. I guess you're okay with that!"
But you would be stupidly, stupidly mistaken. Because, of course, I'm not. DO you know HOW you can know I'd be against that? BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT I'VE ALWAYS BEEN OPPOSED TO CAUSING HARM.
But then, you might ponder, "Ah! But you've never come out against torturing cats. I guess you're okay with that! CAUGHT YOU!" But you'd be foolishly, idiotically and stupidly mistaken. Do you know HOW you can know I'd be against that? BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT I'VE ALWAYS BEEN OPPOSED TO CAUSING HARM.
How many different instances do I need to point out before you can get it inside your head that I'm opposed to causing harm?
You can't be this stupid. That leaves me with the guess that you're being deliberately divisive, right? Or are you literally that stupid? You tell me because, in either case, it doesn't speak well of you.
By your vague "right to the opportunity to work" standard, anyone who's denied a job could claim harm or oppression.
Not vague. Not "mine." It's the common law of the land accepted by most Americans and for good reason. There is a specific prohibition SPECIFICALLY on refusing to hire people (or promote employees) for reasons of discrimination against race, religion, gender and now, sexual orientation. So, NO, not "anyone who's been denied a job." A black gay man may be denied a job because the employer thought the white straight Christian was the better candidate. That's fine! What IS illegal and a strike against human rights is denying employment based SPECIFICALLY on race, religion, gender and sexual orientation.
What is "vague" about that?
You can't be this obtuse, Craig.
"What I'm saying in response to that is that we do not have freedoms to oppress and cause harm to people."
Oh my goodness, thank your for repeating this drivel once more, I finally figured out that this was what you were saying.
I know (think) you're being sarcastic here but the problem is not that I'm pointing out the obvious ("freedom" does not include the freedom to oppress...). The problem is that you and Marshal don't recognize the harm that comes when an oppressed group is allowed to be discriminated against in the hiring process.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but is it not the case that you (both of you) look at a bigot refusing to hire a black or gay person and think, "Ah well, that person isn't really harmed... they can just apply somewhere else." and shrug it off like it's NOT a harmful oppression. Right?
Whereas the conservative Supreme Court and rational, moral adults interested in justice recognize that when there is an historically oppressed group who can be discriminated against by one employer, then they can be discriminated against by another and another and another.
In other words, it's your white privilege and lack of rational empathy that is preventing you two from seeing that it's NOT a one off, no big deal, no harm instance. It's been a PATTERN of discrimination that has stretched back for centuries. MAYBE, one day, we'll be to the point where that there is only ONE racist, sexist bigot in the world and that bigot owns a business and it truly is no big deal if he refuses to hire a minority. In that case, it truly would be not harmful.
But we are not in that case. There are still plenty of bigots in the world and it appears you two are letting your privilege make you intentionally blind to the bigotry that still takes place and thus, in your privilege and ease, you can "afford" to write it off because it doesn't harm YOU. Or so you think.
Open your eyes. Listen to oppressed people. Don't be intentionally ignorant and intentionally blasé to the oppressed peoples of the world. Be an actual walking-in-the-steps-of-the-marginalized-and-oppressed-Jesus Christian and act like it.
"Do you recognize that even conservatives are recognizing this basic human right NOT to be discriminated against based upon race, gender, sexual orientation and religion?"
Do you realize the demonstrable fact that I've answered this multiple times, and that I am required by the terms of my license to abide by all anti discrimination laws?
"And I disagree with causing harm. Do you know how you can know this?"
Yet, you've been silent about the harm inflicted on thousands of innocent victims. Not one mention of the tiniest bit of sympathy or acknowledgement of their harm. Even now, that it's been pointed out to you, you still can't muster up anything more that a generic "I don't like harm". For someone who is so opposed to harm, you end to be very quiet about harm when it's caused by people you support.
"Not vague. Not "mine." It's the common law of the land accepted by most Americans and for good reason."
Please point out where this "right to the opportunity to work" can be found specifically in US legal code?
"Correct me if I'm mistaken, but is it not the case that you (both of you) look at a bigot refusing to hire a black or gay person and think, "Ah well, that person isn't really harmed... they can just apply somewhere else." and shrug it off like it's NOT a harmful oppression. Right?"
Before I answer, I need some clarification. You claim that US law guarantees a "right to the opportunity to work". Does this US law specify a specific right to work in a specific job, or in a specific industry or career field? Does it specify that the job seekers desires about the job they want supersede all other considerations?
"Whereas the conservative Supreme Court and rational, moral adults interested in justice recognize that when there is an historically oppressed group who can be discriminated against by one employer, then they can be discriminated against by another and another and another."
1. Are you suggesting that ALL historically "oppressed" groups are ALL currently "oppressed" in the same ways and at the same levels as in the past?
1a, If yes, then please prove your point.
1b, if no than shouldn't that be taken onto account?
1c, Is there ever a benchmark where it can be said that the "oppression" has been overcome?
2. You do realize that "can be" is not the same as "will be"?
3. Are you really trying to suggest that ALL employers of ALL races are oppressing ALL blacks?
4. Do you realize that there are ample opportunities for people of all ethnicities to employ themselves and be the oppressors rather then the oppressed?
Weasel Boy didn't answer, instead said... "You claim that US law guarantees a "right to the opportunity to work"."
I didn't. I said that we have a right not to be discriminated against by employers for the color of our skin, are gender, our religion or our orientation.
"In other words, it's your white privilege and lack of rational empathy that is preventing you two from seeing that it's NOT a one off, no big deal, no harm instance."
As someone who discriminated against hiring whites, in favor of blacks for over a decade, I say shut the hell up with your bullshit ad hom attacks.
As someone who's spent over a decade watching the non profit I worked for twist their hiring practices (including firing older white men with long years of service) in order to hire younger POC, shut the hell up with your ad hom bullshit.
As a person with the ability to look at things rationally, I can realize that there aren't infinite jobs, and that people aren't willing or able to do certain things to get jobs. But as a general statement, it's absurd to claim that failing to get hired for one job automatically precludes getting hired for another or becoming self employed.
"There are still plenty of bigots in the world and it appears you two are letting your privilege make you intentionally blind to the bigotry that still takes place and thus, in your privilege and ease, you can "afford" to write it off because it doesn't harm YOU. Or so you think."
Yet, that number is shrinking.
What's interesting is that the much heralded response to poverty throughout the developing world is some form of microfinance. Yet we see very little of that in the US, I wonder why?
Wouldn't it make sense to use micro financing principles to equip, empower, and fund, POC in businesses that will allow them to support themselves AND hire others? Wouldn't it makes sense that if your equip, empower, and fund those "oppressed" by the process on seeking work that they would be less "oppressive" in their hiring practices?
Maybe the problem is that y'all are focused on keeping "black folks" as employees of others, rather than entrepreneurs and employers. I wonder what would motivate that sort of short sighted, limited, low bar approach?
"Open your eyes. Listen to oppressed people. Don't be intentionally ignorant and intentionally blasé to the oppressed peoples of the world. Be an actual walking-in-the-steps-of-the-marginalized-and-oppressed-Jesus Christian and act like it."
Don't be a bigoted, moron driven by your prejudices and biases ignoring reality.
The reality is that I've more than likely hired, paid, and given glowing references to more actual individual black folks than you have. I know it sucks when reality crowds out your narrative built on prejudices, but maybe your bigotry is part of the problem.
Where exactly do our rights come from?
Is it a "human right" to be hired for any job you apply for?
Craig... "As someone who's spent over a decade watching the non profit I worked for twist their hiring practices (including firing older white men with long years of service) in order to hire younger POC..."
Quit your virtue signaling. Black people don't need you as their white savior, boy.
That you may or may not have hired black people - I bet you even have black friends don't you? - does not negate the point that racism and sexism and homophobia are still a problem, and the reality is in our nation it is illegal to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, orientation and it is the law for good reason.
It is and remains your white privilege that allows you, still - even if you do hire black people - to ignore the harm still done by the systems of oppression.
Listen to black people. Listen to the oppressed.
One white conservative willing to hire black people - thank you sir! - does not undo centuries of oppression.
Not that you'll ever answer my questions but...
"Where exactly do our rights come from?
Is it a "human right" to be hired for any job you apply for?"
Human rights are innate to our Humanity. We believe that some things are self-evident these include human rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
To your second question, still, no. I of course don't think it is a human right to get any job that you apply for. You can tell that I don't think this by the way that I never f****** said it.
"Not that you'll ever answer my questions but..."
Says Dan, after failing to answer these and ignoring the questions I've answered and continue to answer.
"Human rights are innate to our Humanity. We believe that some things are self-evident these include human rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
That's great, but it doesn't tell me where these rights come from.
"To your second question, still, no. I of course don't think it is a human right to get any job that you apply for. You can tell that I don't think this by the way that I never f****** said it."
Since you've never answered this to my knowledge, it should probably read simply "No".
I'm glad you could finally be so definitive. It's hard to tell since you've not really defined or pointed our where in US code this "right to the opportunity to work" is, and since you keep arguing that failing to get hired for one specific job is "oppressive" , "racist", and final.
It's refreshing when you aren't equivocal and simply give direct answers. Unfortunately, you don't seem to be able to do that very often and you often hide your answer behind bitchiness.
"Quit your virtue signaling. Black people don't need you as their white savior, boy."
From a master at virtue signaling, that's high praise. Unfortunately, it's not anything but the Truth. I'm sorry the Truth about something you are ignorant of, offends you so.
"Listen to black people. Listen to the oppressed."
Your repetition of this ignorant trope will never make it True.
"One white conservative willing to hire black people - thank you sir! - does not undo centuries of oppression."
I've never said anything of the sort. I'm simply defending myself against your vile, false, bullshit attacks.
If you have an honest bone in your boy you'd acknowledge that fact that I rarely talk about what I do. Clearly the concept of putting ones OWN money where ones mouth is, seems strange to you. It's so much less difficult to put other peoples money where your mouth is.
That's great, but it doesn't tell me where these rights come from
Yes, it literally does. It is INNATE part of humanity. Being able to reason is an INNATE part of humanity. Where does reasoning come from? IT IS INNATE. Where do our human rights come from? THEY ARE INNATE. "Our humanity" IS where it comes from.
Do you think I'm mistaken? Please support that claim, then.
"Weasel Boy didn't answer, instead said... "You claim that US law guarantees a "right to the opportunity to work"."
I didn't. I said that we have a right not to be discriminated against by employers for the color of our skin, are gender, our religion or our orientation."
Every time I see "..." it virtually guarantees that something inconvenient has been left out. In this case that was "Before I answer".
So, despite your false characterization of my response, are you categorically denying that you've ever used the phrase I've quoted?
" ever use the praise I quoted..."
It's possible that the phrase was used, but it was used in the context of the conversation about discrimination.
This has all been about discrimination.
Do you recognize that this whole conversation has been about discrimination based on gender and race in orientation?
So, if that phrase came up in the middle of that conversation about discrimination, you should be able to figure out that what I'm talking about is discrimination. If you want to point it out to me, it's possible I made a mistake and used that phrase removed from the context. But I'd be willing to bet, if it does appear at all, it appears in the context of discussion about discrimination.
Keep up with the conversation.
"It's possible that the phrase was used, but it was used in the context of the conversation about discrimination."
So, is that a "Yes I've used the phrase." or a "No, I've never used the phrase."?
If you made that particular claim, then it would need to be proven regardless of the context.
"Do you recognize that this whole conversation has been about discrimination based on gender and race in orientation?"
It's been a bit broader than that, but whatever you say. Do you recognize that the current US law on those things has bee acknowledged by us and that you continue to act otherwise?
Again, if you claimed the existence of such a "right" then you'd certainly be happy to prove your claim wouldn't you?
"Do you think I'm mistaken?"
No, I think you're just being selective, and using the a term to define itself.
"Where do human rights come from?"
"From being human?"
Didn't your elementary school teachers you can't use a word to define itself?
No more time to look for the phrase in question.
I kept getting sidetracked by the numbers of questions you ignored and the number of times I corrected your lies and you ignored those corrections.
It's relatively clear that your use of the phrase is immaterial, and that you'll more than likely come up with an excuse to exonerate yourself.
It seems like a more productive use of time to pull together the unanswered questions, but I probably won't.
The fact is, you can't produce one single false claim that I have made. The fact is I've answered your questions. You not liking the questions is not the same as me not answering them. And I'm not really expecting you to answer the questions because that's just not what you do.
Dan: "There are still plenty of bigots in the world and it appears you two are letting your privilege make you intentionally blind to the bigotry that still takes place and thus, in your privilege and ease, you can "afford" to write it off because it doesn't harm YOU. Or so you think."
Craig:
Yet, that number is shrinking.
I don't know that to be true and I suspect that you don't know it, either. Indeed, white nationalism violence is on the rise, not on the decline, according to the government experts...
Extremist-related murders spiked 35 percent from 2017 to 2018, "making them responsible for more deaths than in any year since 1995," according to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Last year, every one of those extremist-related murders was carried out by a right-wing extremist.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/white-nationalism-fueled-violence-rise-fbi-slow-call-it-domestic-n1039206
Also, black people by large margins say that racism is getting worse in the Trump years.
About six-in-ten Americans (58%) say race relations in the U.S. are generally bad, a view that is held by majorities across racial and ethnic groups. Still, blacks (71%) are considerably more likely than whites (56%) and Hispanics (60%) to express negative views about the state of race relations...
Overall, 53% of the public says race relations are getting worse. Views are particularly pessimistic among those who say race relations are currently bad: 69% of this group says race relations are getting even worse, and 22% say they’re staying the same.
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/04/09/how-americans-see-the-state-of-race-relations/
Do you have some data that makes you make that disagree with the majority of black people or is it just an empty claim born out of how things "feel" for you, as a white man?
So, is that a "Yes I've used the phrase." or a "No, I've never used the phrase."?
it's an "I don't know if I've used that phrase. IF I DID, it was in the context of a conversation about discrimination. DISCRIMINATION is not allowed in our nation as it is recognized as a human right violation to discriminate based on gender, race, etc.
So, you're insisting I used a quote that you've taken out of context and you don't even know if I made it??
Man, take a reading comprehension class. It's embarrassing.
"TRUMP's conservative Supreme Court recognized that it is a human right violation to discriminate at the workforce based on gender and sexual orientation."
Two problems here that Dan purposely imposes:
1. That there are now ostensibly more conservatives than liberals on the bench does not mean the Supreme Court is "conservative". What's more, since only two of those five conservatives ruled in this sad direction, that means it was more a liberal ruling to which two conservatives joined.
2. That the entire Court might "recognize" a right doesn't make it so. That's why they're called "opinions".
While it's rare...out some perverse respect for "precedent", likely to lessen the chances that any future ruling may be overturned later...every ruling by the Court can potentially be overturned at a later date, even by the same court that made the ruling in question. This means that no ruling is golden. When enough people are "oppressed" (to use Dan's favored term as if it means a group is to be given all deference) by a ruling, they can mount an argument that can result in a current ruling being overturned.
Bonus problem: Even conservative justices can make a stupid ruling. Lefty justices make a habit of it, but even their betters can go wrong now and then. It just happened with this ruling.
"Do you recognize that even conservatives are recognizing this basic human right NOT to be discriminated against based upon race, gender, sexual orientation and religion?"
That it happened in this ruling doesn't indicate a trend among conservatives. Conservatives fully understand the vast difference between what government can do versus what the private sector can do. Government is obliged to treat all people equally, holding everyone to the law in the same manner. The rest of us are supposed to have the liberty endowed upon us by our Creator to make our own decisions. Rulings like this deny us that liberty, and in doing so discriminate against one group to the advantage of another, thereby not ensuring liberty for either.
"And I disagree with causing harm."
Except for the unborn, children under the influence of the sexually perverse you favor and enable, the wealthy and here, employers...just to name four groups.
"How many different instances do I need to point out before you can get it inside your head that I'm opposed to causing harm?"
Yet, despite the actual words Craig has spoken for years, you will demand that he rebuke everything said by a conservative that you don't like. The most obvious is how many times you've demanded he stand with or opposed to words of mine, despite how badly you distort them beforehand.
"What IS illegal and a strike against human rights is denying employment based SPECIFICALLY on race, religion, gender and sexual orientation."
Which is a strike against the human rights of the employer, who struggled, risked and spent to create a business to further his pursuit of happiness. THAT human right evidently has no value to the likes of weasel like Dan.
"The problem is that you and Marshal don't recognize the harm that comes when an oppressed group is allowed to be discriminated against in the hiring process."
And we're still waiting for you to describe that harm and how it differs from being denied a job for any other reason. The only "harm" that's plain is the job wasn't had and the search goes on.
"Correct me if I'm mistaken, but is it not the case that you (both of you) look at a bigot refusing to hire a black or gay person and think, "Ah well, that person isn't really harmed... they can just apply somewhere else." and shrug it off like it's NOT a harmful oppression. Right?"
Wrong for two reasons:
1. You haven't established what particular harm is inflicted that is more tangible than the harm of being denied a job for any other reason.
2. The "case" is that the job is the employer's to grant as he sees fit for whatever list of reasons HE deems beneficial for HIS business.
"Whereas the conservative Supreme Court and rational, moral adults interested in justice recognize that when there is an historically oppressed group who can be discriminated against by one employer, then they can be discriminated against by another and another and another."
There's no indication that the conservatives who ruled in this wrong direction recognized any such thing. Also, there's no rational way to insist that because people are no longer required to hire or serve those you insist they should that they will not do so. "Oh great! I don't have to hire Armenians anymore! Not that I ever did, but..." Dan, having no understanding of what it takes to start and maintain a business speaks when he shouldn't.
"I said that we have a right not to be discriminated against by employers for the color of our skin, are gender, our religion or our orientation."
We do NOT have that right. The government has that obligation to treat everyone equally. For the rest of us, there is only the expectation that we are treated fairly by others. We have the right to associate with whom we choose to associate. Imposing this law denies us that right. That's oppression. Start a business and hire all the "transsexuals" you like. You have the right to promote and enable perversity if you so choose. Leave rational and moral people to live their lives as they see fit.
"In other words, it's your white privilege and lack of rational empathy that is preventing you two from seeing that it's NOT a one off, no big deal, no harm instance."
There's that bullshit "privilege" morons throw about as if it's a thing. I have no "empathy" for willful morons. I have empathy for the entrepreneur and the sweat and sacrifice he put forth to create a business on whom morons think they have the right and authority to place impositions based on their irrational sense of "justice" without thought to how it impacts the entrepreneur. Morons like Dan, who won't put in that level of sacrifice and sweat and thus have no understanding of it, and clearly, no care whatsoever to try to have any understanding as they pretend they're on the "right side" of the issue. They are not.
"Quit your virtue signaling. Black people don't need you as their white savior, boy."
BWAAHHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! This has to be the most hypocritical pot/kettle remark I've ever seen Dan have the audacity and arrogance to type out!! And that is truly saying something!!
"I bet you even have black friends don't you?"
As if that would mean something.
"does not negate the point that racism and sexism and homophobia are still a problem..."
Racism is and always will be a problem, though it's nowhere near the problem leftist asshats like Dan want to believe it is. But "homophobia" is only a problem in that leftist asshats like Dan invented it to protect the sexually immoral people he wants to enable. It's a ridiculous a term as "white privilege". Dan would insist that homosexuality is innate and immutable like race, when it is a compulsion one is not without the means and ability to overcome were morality of any importance.
"It is and remains your white privilege that allows you, still - even if you do hire black people - to ignore the harm still done by the systems of oppression."
There is no "white privilege" except to enable the bad personal choices made by black people who wish to deflect personal responsibility. There is no harm done to blacks by any system that Dan or any other race-hustler can identify.
"The fact is, you can't produce one single false claim that I have made."
Well, the claim above is false, but other than that...
"The fact is I've answered your questions."
And this one is false as well...
"You not liking the questions is not the same as me not answering them."
that's true. I'm specifically referring to the questions you didn't answer. When I find your responses lacking, I point out the problems.
"And I'm not really expecting you to answer the questions because that's just not what you do."
You repeating this false claim one more time doesn't make it any less false.
"Do you have some data that makes you make that disagree with the majority of black people or is it just an empty claim born out of how things "feel" for you, as a white man?"
Looking at life in a large multi ethnic metropolitan area.
"Also, black people by large margins say that racism is getting worse in the Trump years."
You mean like the ropes in the trees in Oakland?
I'll note that you used percentage increases to "make your point", because the actual numbers are likely so small that an increase of 1 or 2 is a significant percentage jump.
"So, you're insisting I used a quote that you've taken out of context and you don't even know if I made it??"
No, I'm asking if you made the quote, and haven't had time to search for it.
The fact that you're left to bitch about minutia indicates that you really have nothing significant to offer.
Art,
It's interesting that Dan gets so bent out of shape with the "white savior/black friends" trope when he hasn't been shy in talking about all the things he's done to help "black folks" and all about his black friends.
Marshal... That it happened in this ruling doesn't indicate a trend among conservatives. Conservatives fully understand the vast difference between what government can do versus what the private sector can do.
The majority if Americans support anti-discrimination protections. I'm not sure if that's true for conservatives or not, but if not, good God, shame on them! Have they NOT READ the teachings of the Jesus they claim to follow?
This survey is speaking more of LGBTQ discrimination, but what is true for them is even more true for other historically oppressed groups.
A strong majority of Americans support comprehensive nondiscrimination protections – and lawmakers ought to take particular note of the high levels of support among young Americans.
A supermajority of our nation’s small business owners – 80 percent – support federal protections for LGBT people covering public accommodations – public spaces like restaurants, shops, hotels and parks. That’s according to a July 2015 poll from Small Business Majority, the Center for American Progress and American Unity Fund.
A recent survey from Hart Research found that nearly 70 percent of Millennial adults support comprehensive federal nondiscrimination legislation for gay and transgender Americans. Their support is unwavering across the country – from 80 percent in the Northeast to 60 percent in the Midwest, 57 percent in the South to 66 percent in the West.
https://www.freedomforallamericans.org/non-discrimination-by-the-numbers-polling-data-statistics/
Or here, in this report, it says that even conservatives support protections from discrimination for LGBTQ people (and again, what's true for gay folk is even more true for national support for rules against the oppression of/discrimination against people based upon race, gender or religion. (in this context, it's speaking of a drop in support amongst GOP types, but it's still a majority...)
One pronounced decline was among Republicans — there was a 5 percentage point drop in support. In 2015, 61 percent of Republicans supported LGBTQ nondiscrimination protections, while in 2018, that support fell to 56 percent.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/majority-americans-back-lgbtq-protections-support-sliding-n987156
So, while you and your privileged subset of white friends living far removed from the realities of oppression may be opposed to anti-discrimination policies, you are in a minority and rightly so.
Marshal, striking a blow in defense of racists and sexists and haters everywhere, said...
. THAT human right evidently has no value to the likes of weasel like Dan.
Read this slowly and try to comprehend:
You have NO HUMAN RIGHT to oppress or harm others, and that includes discrimination based upon gender, race, religion or orientation.
You do NOT have that as a human right.
The racists, rapists, misogynists and pigs you defend DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT.
Do you understand that?
Quit defending the oppression of peoples. Get on the right side of justice, morality, reason and history.
Well, Dan's not one for consistency or introspection, is he? He has the very same problem with regard to what constitutes perversion, who is supporting real harm to others, etc.
"Also, black people by large margins say that racism is getting worse in the Trump years."
What polling is Dan going by now?
https://trendingpolitics.com/report-us-is-less-racist-under-trump-than-obama/
https://lidblog.com/race-relations-under-trump/
Now, the second article is clearly pro-Trump (and why shouldn't it be given the great job he's been doing), but Trump doesn't run Gallup.
As to Dan's comment above, upon what is it based, if not his personal polling of lefty blacks he knows? He'd best have something more authoritative than that, given his rejection of my polling of women with regard to the words "whore" and "slut" (still 100% have no feeling of oppression, harm or insult by their mere mention, BTW). I would also insist that any such real polling have taken place prior to the George Floyd incident, as racial tensions have been stoked far more by race-hustlers than by anything Trump's ever done.
Dan,
Before you play the card, just stop right there.
Until you start policing the loads of bullshit, ad hom attacks, and lies that your groupie posts on your blog, don't even bother to ask that I police Art. I let you post with virtual impunity and spew all sorts of vitriol here. If you can't accept that I'm treating you and Art equally, regardless of my agreement with either of your views, then I can't help you.
What polling is Dan going by now?
Most Americans and large majorities of people of color consider Trump racist (and rightly so) according to an AP/NORC poll...
https://1069thefox.com/news/030030-poll-most-americans-say-trump-is-racist/
Or 8 in 10 blacks saying Trump is a racist and 65% saying things have gotten worse under Trump, according to a Washington Post/Ipsos poll...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2020/01/17/8-in-10-black-americans-view-trump-as-a-racist-poll-finds/#77c558bd18e2
Or the Gallup poll showing that only 10% of black people approve of Trump (and that was back in 2019, things have almost certainly gotten worse)...
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/268517/analyzing-black-support-president-trump.aspx
Or this Pew poll showing that 85% of black people think that Trump has handled the police protests wrong...
https://www.journalism.org/2020/06/12/majorities-of-americans-say-news-coverage-of-george-floyd-protests-has-been-good-trumps-public-message-wrong/
Or this Gallup poll talking about black opinions about how they are discriminated against...
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/312590/american-attitudes-race.aspx
And there are, of course, many others, as well as what most black people are just saying if you'd just listen to them. They'd tell you that, yes, things DID get worse in some ways under Obama (than before Obama) but that this was at least in part, due to a white privilege/racist backlash against Obama, and not something that Obama caused (other than his being black).
But this is all common knowledge that you'd be aware of if you just paid attention and, especially, listened to black people.
Ah...so Dan refuses me the right to an opposing opinion, does he? (How oppressive!) He demands you deny me that right by demanding you condemn me for them, does he? (Why is he oppressing you?) He should know by now that I have no fear of having my opinions addressed, and that unlike him, I have no problems with engaging with any intelligent attempt to do so. Someday, perhaps he'll provide such an attempt instead of wetting himself and stopping the floor like a petulant child.
In the meantime....
"You have NO HUMAN RIGHT to oppress or harm others, and that includes discrimination based upon gender, race, religion or orientation."
Yeah. You keep saying this, but can't seem to craft an intelligent defense of the proposition. What harm? Hurt feelings? How is being denied a job because one is a dude who thinks he's a chick any more problematic than being denied because the job is filled? The real oppression here is the oppression of employers who have their liberty is threatened by thoughtless laws like these. But being the liar you are, you'd pretend I'm defending...who is it?..."racists, rapists, misogynists and pigs". I don't know what barnyard animals have to do with this, unless you demand the bestial must be hired as well, but I have no problem with any black dude who doesn't want to hire me because I'm not black, or a woman who won't hire me because I'm not a woman. And I certainly don't want to work for a rapist!
Back in the time after 2008, when I was laid off and jobs were hard to come by, I considered it a success to even have an interview at all, never mind whether or not I was hired or called back for a second interview. I didn't give a flying rat's backside why I wasn't hired. All I knew was that I was still without a job and had to continue searching. Had I found out one of the employers denied me because I'm white, male and handsome as all get out, I might put up a fight only to draw a paycheck. But then I'd be out of there at the first opportunity because the dude did me a service by letting me know I'm not welcome. I'm sure life would be great for anyone working for someone who did not want them.
"Quit defending the oppression of peoples. Get on the right side of justice, morality, reason and history."
Says the fake who defends abortion, sexual immorality, rapists who favor abortion to cover their crimes, the taking of one's hard earned money to support others without consent, and the illegals who have done so much harm to our own citizens.
Nothing says "oppression" like ripping a child literally limb from limb after sucking out its brains. Nothing says "justice" like murdering a child in the womb. Nothing says "morality" like supporting this barbaric and never necessary procedure to secure one's liberty to sex on demand, the enabling and celebration of sexual behaviors God (you know, they Entity you claim to worship) regards as an abomination without regard for any scenario or context in which it takes place.
Nothing says "reason" like any of the wacky and never supported opinions you put forth as you denigrate and attack the character of people like Craig and myself. Nothing says "reason" like pretending you are on the "right side of history" while you support all that has led to the moral and cultural decline of this nation. You wouldn't know "reason" if it kicked you where your testicles should be if you had any.
Dan,
The problem I have with your use of these polls is not that they don't say what they say, or that they are necessarily wrong, it's with what they measure.
They measure peoples feelings about racism.
Feelings, by their nature, are subjective and mot always rational. What you are trying to do is to use polling date based on subjective feelings, to support your assertion of an objective claim. It is entirely possible, and happens regularly, that people's feelings don't represent reality. So when using the subjective to make an objective claim your run into problems.
For example you say that these subjective feelings are held "rightly so", in that you move from the subjective "consider" to the objective "rightly so".
Now it's clear that you agree with those feelings, and that in your opinion those feelings are right. This is certainly fine and even appropriate for you to do. I'd suggest that the problem is in how you are expressing your feelings and opinions, not in having or expressing feelings or opinions.
They measure peoples feelings about racism.
Do you understand WHY black people have these "feelings" about racism? Have you listened to what they're saying? If you listen, you'll see that every black family has stories where ACTS of racism (police abuse, mistrust in public, job and housing discrimination) has resulted in them "feeling" that racism is bad. In short, it's NOT about feelings, it's about their lived experiences.
And when white folk with the privilege of feigning ignorance of the lived experiences of black people then diminish this reality as merely being about "feelings," it is another blow against black people and the discrimination they still suffer through. It's a way of silencing their voices.
Don't do that.
Listen to black people.
Trump HAS and DOES make racist comments. He appeals to racists within his base by making these comments. The overt racists will TELL you that they are emboldened by Trump's racism. When the majority of the US, including 8 in 10 black people recognize that reality, you should listen.
When white people who have the luxury of ignoring those racist words try to diminish and silence black opinion (and, indeed, the majority opinion), they are using their privilege to try to silence and oppress black people.
Don't do that.
Listen to black people.
Just tell me these few things:
1. WHY do you think that the majority of the US and 8 in 10 black people THINK that Trump is racist? Why do you NOT think he's racist?
2. Why do you not think that they experience racism/recognize Trump's racism for what it is because of facts and not feelings?
3. Why are you willing to ignore the voices of racists who will tell you that Trump is their man, emboldening and empowering them?
4. Why are you over and over willing to give the benefit of the doubt to such an objectively bad human being and to write off black opinion as mere "feelings..."?
5. Do you recognize that many (most?) black people would call such attitudes patronizing and condescending?
Re: "They measure peoples feelings about racism..."
Says who? Did they pollsters in all these polls ask "Do you FEEL Trump is racist?" or "What are your FEELINGS about Trump and race relations?"
One of the questions asked to black citizens was, "IN your opinion, are the things Trump is doing good or bad for people of color?" To which they responded (76%) that things he was doing were NOT good for people of color.
And here is an example of one of the comments from one of those interviewed for these polls...
"[Trump] has created an atmosphere of division and overt racism and fear of immigrants unseen in many years,”
They aren't talking about their feelings. They're talking about what they're seeing and hearing. Why do you denigrate this down to being about their "feelings" and that their "feelings" may be wrong?
Why are YOU inserting "feelings" into this when the polls don't? So that you can ease your white conscience and ignore the informed OPINIONS (not feelings) of black people? Write them off as "feeling" things "wrong..."?
Why not just listen to black people without denigrating their feelings and opinions?
Feelings, by their nature, are subjective and mot always rational. What you are trying to do is to use polling date based on subjective feelings, to support your assertion of an objective claim.
Will you demonstrate you're speaking in good faith and admit that YOU are the one inserting "feelings" into this, not the pollsters or the people interviewed? YOU are the ones making the suggestion that black people are being, perhaps, "not always rational..."?
you say that these subjective feelings are held "rightly so", in that you move from the subjective "consider" to the objective "rightly so".
I say Rightly So because when looking at all the accumulated data, it is a reasonable conclusion that a majority of the US has reached. Can we prove objectively what is in a racist's heart? No. But when someone makes repeated attack after repeated attack on people of color, using words that racists recognize as speaking to/for them, attacking nations where people have darker skins, telling people of color to "go back where they came from" (even if they came from the US), who come from a wealthy family who at least in part built their wealth, at least in part, by discriminating against people of color and using redlining to discriminate...
When you look at ALL the ongoing data, it is STILL possible that the person is not a racist, but you can't deny that they are using racist words, actions, policies and attacks on people of color for their benefit (maybe they're not a racist, maybe they just hate people and are willing to use racism to further their wealth and power, as in the case of Trump) and to the harm of black people. It's not a feeling, it's a measured response to the actual known data.
Tell me: Do you SERIOUSLY think that Trump is not racist? You think that 8 in 10 black people are wrong, that the majority of the US is wrong, that even RACISTS are wrong, and you're right in that assessment? If so, I suppose you're being consistent and saying it's just your "feeling" that you have and that you well may be mistaken?
If I had to guess, you'll use your white privilege and ease of position to say some milquetoast pablum like, "I don't know his heart so I don't know if he's racist and I don't know that ALL those times he's done/said racist things is indicative of his real feelings... so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt..." Am I right?
If so, can you at least recognize that it's your position of white privilege that allows you to give that sort of benefit to a man who is objectively a bad and corrupt man, because, as a white guy, you won't have to deal with the harm caused by his racism?
That's exactly right, Craig...which is an objective truth claim, but supportable by virtue of definition. Your response to Dan's subjective polling is fact based. Look again at my polling of women. I ask a specific question regarding how the mention of particular words affect them. They respond specifically. Dan's polling data asks for an opinion specifically, and those responses are presented as reflections of reality. So again, for the small amount of women I've queried, the reality is that the words Dan pretends are a horrible representation of some myth he needs to hold as true, the reality is those words don't have the power Dan ascribes to them.
Yet all of his polls ask for opinions, not any facts or data that support the opinion. There's no reflection of reality there, but subjective opinion regarding the respondents' perspective of reality. That proves nothing more than what the perspective of a percentage of people have. Perspective not supported by fact.
Take his polls regarding what blacks think of Trump's handling of protests and his message. Dan himself will ALWAYS discredit Trump's handling of anything or message about anything. Now let's be clear, I might not necessarily approve of his message, more specifically how he delivered it. But that doesn't mean his message wasn't correct or accurate, but only that I had a problem with it. All subjective opinion.
As you say, his polls don't negate the point.
Dan
The problem isn’t that I don’t listen to black people, it’s that I listen to a wide enough spectrum of them to understand that they aren’t the one dimensional, monolithic bloc you think they are.
If Trump is objectively racist, why am I seeing more and more black people supporting him?
Hillary has made racist and anti Semitic comments, as has Biden. LBJ was a flaming racist. This isn’t about defending Trump, it’s about you ignoring racism on your side.
1. I can’t and wouldn’t begin to try to speak for the majority of black people in the country. I’d venture to say that they’d give multiple reasons and that some reasons are closer to reality than others. I’ve never made any claims about Trump and his racial views. I’ve certainly seem plenty of footage of the big race folks saying nice things about him. I really don’t know.
2. Because I’ve been taught, by black people in cross cultural training, that racism is often perceived rather than intended. Again, there are too many possible answers for me to possibly speak for others.
3. When did you decide what I’m willing to do or not do? Give me a specific example and Trump’s specific response to the example.
4. I’m not, and if you’ve got objective proof, let’s see it.
5. No. I’m not sure you’re the person to decide what black people think about anything. I’m sure they appreciate you speaking for them.
Responding from my phone, I’m not covering all your bullshit now.
If voting for a racist is bad, is voting for someone who has great respect for and accepts awards named after a racist bad also?
Craig... "monolithic bloc you think they are."
This is just another stupidly, pathetically, idiotically, feebly false claim. You're embarrassing yourself.
I have never said - do you hear me? I have NEVER said - that black people are one monolithic bloc.
Read those words. Let them sink in. Acknowledge f****** reality.
I. Have. Never. Said. Black. People. Are. One. Monolithic. Bloc.
That is not true and I have never said it. Only a f****** idiot or a pathetic partisan liar would make such a stupid claim.
Feel free to apologize for repeating the stupidly false claim. Be an adult.
Craig...
"1. I can’t and wouldn’t begin to try to speak for the majority of black people in the country."
Thanks for finally trying to sort of answer some questions. The problem with your first answer here, besides the dodge, is that you already have tried to guess why the majority of black people I think the Trump is racist.
You suggested it was their feelings. Remember? You suggested that their feelings were the Trump was racist, but their feelings were just emotional and not objective.
So, you've already once tried to give an explanation for why the majority of black folks hold the opinion that Trump is racist.
I'm asking you, if you're going to say it's because they feel that way, why do you think they feel that way? Why do you think it's feelings and not based on their observations of Trump's actual behavior and words?
Craig... "1. I can’t and wouldn’t begin to try to speak for the majority of black people in the country."
Also, I'm not asking you to "speak for the majority of black people in the country." I'm asking you to answer the question based on what you've heard from your black colleagues and acquaintances.
You keep trying to assure me you're listening to all types of black voices so I'm taking you at your word. When you listen to all black voices, then presumably you're hearing 8 out of 10 times that they think Trump is racist. What are they saying? Why are they viewing Trump's actions and words as racist? Or do you think that they are just silly emotional black people operating based on their feelings and not based upon their observations?
"Do you understand WHY black people have these "feelings" about racism? "
Conditioning.
"Have you listened to what they're saying?"
Yes. Most of it ignores the statistics and hard data some people insist upon. Know anyone like that?
"If you listen, you'll see that every black family has stories where ACTS of racism..."
Not all of which is more than mere perception, or excuses, for why an incident turned out to their disadvantage. "Stories" need evidentiary support as well, otherwise they're just stories and subject to scrutiny. That's not racism. That's just the way it is. Questioning stories is not specific to the stories of black people. Even from those I love most, if a story sounds weird, I'll be questioning them like crazy. People jump to conclusions all the time. I've seen it on the job, within my social circles...it's not a unique thing. But apparently you want us to believe that black people are absolutely objective in their story telling...just because you say so.
"And when white folk with the privilege of feigning ignorance of the lived experiences of black people then diminish this reality as merely being about "feelings," it is another blow against black people and the discrimination they still suffer through. It's a way of silencing their voices."
Bullshit, you white-guilt racist. It's a way of getting at the truth. There's no privilege involved, which is just the bullshit false construct you favor...which confirms you're a liar. You double-down on that reality with the following:
"Trump HAS and DOES make racist comments."
You're a liar or incredibly stupid. At this point, either or both is likely as either AND both describe you quite well. You're now required to present a racist comment of his, with a link so that your betters can see it in full context.
"He appeals to racists within his base by making these comments. The overt racists will TELL you that they are emboldened by Trump's racism."
Not surprised you believe even racists if doing so will help your irrational anti-Trump hatred. Don't forget that racists were and are emboldened by Scripture in support of their racism and past defense of slavery. But as honest people of even moderate intelligence (that's way above your level) acknowledge, there's no such basis in Scripture for their being so "emboldened". That same is true with regard to Trump's words. LSOS.
"When white people who have the luxury of ignoring those racist words try to diminish and silence black opinion (and, indeed, the majority opinion), they are using their privilege to try to silence and oppress black people."
There's a vast difference between "ignoring" and "dismissing" as not totally accurate. You're free to believe whatever you're told. Intelligent people prefer evidence before passing judgement. In the meantime, whether "ignoring" or demanding substance, there's no freaking silencing or oppressing at hand. That's typical bullshit Trabue-speak.
"1. WHY do you think that the majority of the US and 8 in 10 black people THINK that Trump is racist?"
Conditioning by a variety of unreliable sources, such as the media and left-wing pundits and race-hustlers among the black population.
"Why do you NOT think he's racist?"
Evidence:
---His quick response to the murder of Jennifer Hudson's family members and subsequent offer to her and remaining family members to stay at his hotel for as long as they needed.
---The aforementioned study and poll concluding that race relations improved since Trump became president.
---His support for and signing of the First Step Act
---He gave more to HBCUs than anyone before him.
---The many black people he's appointed and hired in his life in business and his administration.
---Here's more you'll ignore:
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/456523-donald-trumps-no-racist-as-past-acts-and-presidential-record-prove
https://www.afro.com/op-ed-black-americans-are-winning-with-president-trump/
"2. Why do you not think that they experience racism/recognize Trump's racism for what it is because of facts and not feelings?"
Because as my points above demonstrate, the facts are not in favor of that narrative, thus, they cannot "recognize Trump's racism for what it is"...since he's not a racist...like you are.
"3. Why are you willing to ignore the voices of racists who will tell you that Trump is their man, emboldening and empowering them?"
Because they're f**king racists, you racist! I answered this above.
"4. Why are you over and over willing to give the benefit of the doubt to such an objectively bad human being and to write off black opinion as mere "feelings..."?"
Because...you know...FACTS!!! They don't support the contention. And if the facts didn't align with someone's opinion, I'd defend an objectively bad human being like you against that false opinion. See how this works, you hateful objectively bad person?
"5. Do you recognize that many (most?) black people would call such attitudes patronizing and condescending?"
Hmmm. Interesting question. Are these "many/most" black people the same black people that can't base their opinions on facts insisting what counts as patronizing and condescending? Good Lord Almighty! Who is more patronizing and condescending toward minorities that YOU!!!
"One of the questions asked to black citizens was, "IN your opinion, are the things Trump is doing good or bad for people of color?" To which they responded (76%) that things he was doing were NOT good for people of color."
What a moron!! This is in response to a comment about feelings. Opinions are feelings, particularly when they have no facts or evidence to support the proposition.
"And here is an example of one of the comments from one of those interviewed for these polls...
"[Trump] has created an atmosphere of division and overt racism and fear of immigrants unseen in many years,”
They aren't talking about their feelings. They're talking about what they're seeing and hearing. Why do you denigrate this down to being about their "feelings" and that their "feelings" may be wrong?"
Because the facts don't support the contention. The reality is the race-hustlers have created that division...the leftist media has created that division. These people are relating their perceptions, not facts. When inundated with lies, some will eventually believe the lies. It's a known leftist strategy.
"Why not just listen to black people without denigrating their feelings and opinions?"
Because we're more rational than white-guilt chumps like you. And when much of our position is based on brilliant black people, we're can't dismiss the facts and evidence that is in stark contrast to those feelings and opinions.
"When you look at ALL the ongoing data, it is STILL possible that the person is not a racist, but you can't deny that they are using racist words, actions, policies..."
First of all, WHAT "data"? There's none that supports your favored narrative, regardless of who's spewing it. And how you choose to regard a person's words is your own hatred and corruption choosing to interpret them as racist. That doesn't make them so. It just makes you an asshole.
"If so, can you at least recognize that it's your position of white privilege that allows you to give that sort of benefit to a man who is objectively a bad and corrupt man, because, as a white guy, you won't have to deal with the harm caused by his racism?"
He's not a racist you lying piece of shit.
Craig... "4. I’m not, and if you’ve got objective proof, let’s see it."
So answer the question. You agree then with 8 out of 10 black people that Trump is a racist? You agree that this is not just their feelings what's their opinions based on what they have observed?
Do you realize how stupid it looks for you to tell me to listen to black people, yet ignore the fact that there is evidence that I’m doing so all over my blog?
Craig... "Do you realize how stupid it looks for you to tell me to listen to black people, yet ignore the fact that there is evidence that I’m doing so all over my blog?"
When you continue to cite only the opinions of a minority of black folk... Deliberately not listening to or posting all black voices (and by all, I mean a well-rounded representation of black voices), when you only cite those black voices which agree with you you give no evidence of listening to all black voices.
So, no. It does not look stupid for me to encourage you to listen to all black voices when you only cite those who agree with you and ignore 8 out of 10.
Just can’t help making false claims. I post the people I post, for your edification, I know you listen to people that tell you what you want to hear.
"I know you listen to people that tell you what you want to hear."
Another stupidly false claim provided with zero support because you can't support it because you don't know shit and thus, it's a stupidly false claim.
Do you realize how pathetic you look when your entire argument is based on the fact that 90% of blacks vote DFL (in a monolithic bloc), yet you complain when I point out the reality of your argument. Of course, you claiming I’m lying while unable to deal with your own lies is also pretty pathetic.
My sense from the blacks I’m around, interact with, and listen to is that there are a lot who are ready to leave (their words, not mine) the liberal plantation. I’ve not heard any of my black friends voice support for Biden, nor have I heard a majority of them complain about Trump’s racism.
No, I agree that 80 percent of people surveyed are saying that. I’ve seen nothing in that the objectively demonstrates actual objective racism.
Opinion polls, don’t measure facts and as we saw in 16, are sometimes horribly wrong.
I’m guessing that any “experience” people have with government “racism” is with local government not federal.
"I’ve not heard any of my black friends voice support for Biden, nor have I heard a majority of them complain about Trump’s racism."
So, you're literally not listening to the majority opinion of black people because you only surround yourself with black people who agree with you? Do you READ the majority black opinion at all or are you coming from a place of ignorance when it comes to the majority of black people?
Dan,
Do you really think that condescension is helpful. That you’re really better equipped to make judgements about who I interact with and to assume that your opinion poll applies exactly the same all across the board?
To continue my interrupted comment. The primary areas where I hear people talking about “racism” are in areas around policing, city/state legal system, and education. Unfortunately those are all areas that the federal government has little or no influence over.
If I heard someone arguing that the corruption in the MPD was Trump’s fault or that Biden would fix it, I’d assume that they were unaware of our government system and try to engage them in efforts more likely to produce results.
Finally, let’s acknowledge the possibility that if you live in a community where your told that everything bad is because of “racism”, don’t you think people might be predisposed to see everything through the lens of “racism”?
I’ve spent time in the poorest section of the poorest country in the hemisphere. Do you know what never gets mentioned? Race.
Don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying it’s not a thing, but from what I hear, it’s also not everything.
“So, you're literally not listening to the majority opinion of black people because you only surround yourself with black people who agree with you?”
You lying sack of shit. You literally asked me what the people I interact with are saying, so I give you the answer that is reality and you pull this bullshit.
You’re more interested in forcing me into your little racist box, than in the truth.
"when you only cite those black voices which agree with you you give no evidence of listening to all black voices."
Idiocy. The black voices that are most compelling are those backed by facts and evidence, not emotion, anecdote and feelings. Those backed by facts don't agree with us, we agree with them because of the facts and data they bring forth to support their voices. When I see an idiot like Colin Kaepernick or LeBron James whining on about police targeting blacks, or racists murdering black people with abandon, and then I see the data that totally contradicts their narrative, why would I "agree" with them instead of the facts? And when will we see any from YOU, Dan Trabue? Opinion polls only tell us opinions. They don't tell us facts that support those opinions. Show me a poll that says 99% of the public think you're brilliant and I still have all your posts to demonstrate what a twit you are. 8 out of 10 only tells me what 8 out of 10 think. It doesn't tell me why they think that way. It doesn't provide any reason to believe they have a good reason to think as they do, only that they do think as they do.
Craig... Do you really think that condescension is helpful. That you’re really better equipped to make judgements about who I interact with and to assume that your opinion poll applies exactly the same all across the board?
and...
You lying sack of shit. You literally asked me what the people I interact with are saying, so I give you the answer that is reality and you pull this bullshit.
? I literally asked you questions, based on what you had told me, to see if I was understanding you correctly. You said that all the black people you talked to were not thinking Trump was racist. You said...
"My sense from the blacks I’m around, interact with, and listen to is that there are a lot who are ready to leave (their words, not mine) the liberal plantation. I’ve not heard any of my black friends voice support for Biden, nor have I heard a majority of them complain about Trump’s racism."
GIVEN what you said, I asked the reasonable, "So, you don't know any black people who are coming from the 80-90% position?
That's not a lie. It's a question. It's not condescension (well, maybe a little). It's a question (mostly).
Craig... "let’s acknowledge the possibility that if you live in a community where your told that everything bad is because of “racism”, don’t you think people might be predisposed to see everything through the lens of “racism”?"
Marshal... "Conditioning."
When you say this stuff, you WILL and do come across as condescending, patriarchal and, yes, racist. As if you're saying, "Those poor black folk, by and large are too stupid to not be fooled by the media and liberals."
Listen to black people, don't condescend to them.
“So mobs in San Francisco tore down a statue of Ulysses S. Grant, who was raised in an abolitionist family, was an abolitionist, freed the slave he was "given" by his in-laws, and defeated Robert E. Lee. That's the French Revolution for you. Irrational. Hate-filled. Destructive.”
Yet some how the Stephen Douglas monument was untouched as of yesterday.
Dan,
The fact that your initial response to the smallest possibility that “racism” could be at least partially in the eye of the beholder, is defensive ad hom attacks...
Dan, who will whine about ad homes when it serves him to do so, prefers them to facts. Can't blame him, really, given he hasn't any facts to support his position.
But rather than accuse us of being "condescending, patriarchal and, yes, racist", those facts he doesn't have would go a long way toward convincing people his positions or allegations about his opponents are valid and rational. It's not just the media and liberals that misinform the misinformed black people, it's each other repeating the lies of the race-hustlers among them. They're really no different than any other Dem/leftist/progressive/socialist (same things) buying into falsehoods and passing them around to each other as true despite all the facts and evidence that contradict them.
In this case, the lie that Trump is a racist is firmly held by all or most lefties of every race despite there being no evidence to back up the charge. Dan's had plenty of opportunities to provide in that regard and has yet to provide. One would expect it would be easy to do if the charge was true.
Art,
I’ve pointed out for months that ad hom’s and labeling someone a racist are just the lazy and intellectually dishonest ways of avoiding countering arguments and data that you find troublesome.
So you two cracker-ass honkies with your little lives of white privilege are in a better position to know that Trump is not racist than 9 out of 10 black people. Is that what you're saying?
Do you know how f****** racist THAT sounds?
But go on. Keep on making these stupidly idiotic and racist claims. Go ahead and crush the GOP into the dirt. When y'all are obliterated from the electorate, you'll have no one to blame but yourselves. You'll just be a pathetic little laughingstock in the dung hill of history. And it will be nobody's fault but yours.
Craig... "pointed out for months that ad hom’s and labeling someone a racist are just the lazy and intellectually dishonest"
I mean, listen to yourself. Nine out of 10 black people are lazy and dishonest. Do you not see that? You are playing directly into the trumpian dog whistles in racism. The majority of the nation sees you when you do this. 9 out of 10 black people see you when you do this.
If you can't have some intellectual honesty, at least have some sense of shame.
“Dan TrabueJune 20, 2020 at 5:54 PM
So you two cracker-ass honkies with your little lives of white privilege are in a better position to know that Trump is not racist than 9 out of 10 black people. Is that what you're saying? “
Excellent choice, starting out with a condescending, racist, ad hom attack. Then moving on to making up stats (you’ve just arbitrarily changed from 8/10 to 8/10), combined with a false claim. That’s quite impressive.
“Do you know how f****** racist THAT sounds?”
Do you know how idiotic and out of touch with reality and like a flat out lie that sounds?
“But go on. Keep on making these stupidly idiotic and racist claims. Go ahead and crush the GOP into the dirt. When y'all are obliterated from the electorate, you'll have no one to blame but yourselves. You'll just be a pathetic little laughingstock in the dung hill of history. And it will be nobody's fault but yours.”
You keep making these false claims without actually demonstrating that they bear any relationship to reality.
Marshal... In this case, the lie that Trump is a racist is firmly held by all or most lefties of every race despite there being no evidence to back up the charge.
1. You DO understand that more than half the nation recognizes Trump's racism? And only 37% (give or take, depending on the poll) think that he isn't? That is, you are in a tiny minority who are too blind to see what the majority sees, you recognize this?
2. You DO understand that 8 in 10 black people think the evidence shows that Trump is racist?
3. Do you think that you (either/both) of you are smarter and in a better position to recognize Trump's racism than 8 in 10 black people? Why?
4. Do you recognize that claiming you're better able to recognize racism than nearly all black people is, by definition, racist? That is, you think black people are diminished in their capacity to understand and that you, a white man, are not, right?
5. Marshal, YOU think that Trump is definitively not racist because he "has black friends" and the nice rich man "hired black people..." is that right? And because he was a nice rich white man who sweetly gave money to poor little black people in need, is that right? That's your evidence?
6. You DO recognize that racist people can do kind deeds for black people? Indeed, some of those massahs were REAL nice to their property. That didn't make them not racist, you recognize that?
9. Craig, you won't even take a stand even to go so far as to say that you can at least UNDERSTAND why black people view Trump to be racist? You just don't know and no one CAN know and all the evidence that the majority sees as quite clear (and 8/10 of black people), they/we are just mistaken? OR is there a chance that we're right... maybe, and you just don't know, yourself?
10. Marshal, you say that you are entirely ignorant of the case that shows Trump is racist (or at least says racist things and takes racist actions)?
Here's one source making the case, are you not familiar with it? Are you not familiar that he was sued for racial discrimination?
https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history
“I mean, listen to yourself. Nine out of 10 black people are lazy and dishonest.”
Thank you so very much for making my point. You just go straight to the made up, bullshit, false claim, disguised as a quote, ad hom attacks. It’s lazy, intellectually dishonest, and just plain dishonest.
The fact that you’ve degenerated to this, would be laughable, if it weren’t so antithetical to the christianity you claim.
Excellent choice, starting out with a condescending, racist, ad hom attack.
You don't understand the meaning of racism, do you? Pointing out that you are white is NOT racist.
And I'm not making up stats, you lying piece of shit. If you were informed and if you listened to black people, you racist defender, you'd now that there are multiple polls out there and the numbers run from ~75% to ~90%, with some other portion saying "they don't know" if he's racist. Quit your defense of racists and listen to black people.
Are you telling me that you are entirely ignorant that polls show most black people (~8 in 10, but give or take) think Trump is racist? You can't be this ignorant, especially when we've been talking about it. Open your eyes and start listening to black people.
Saying that "We white guys know better that Trump isn't racist (or maybe that no one knows if he's racist) than nearly all black people" is the definition of racism.
Apparently it’s not a problem to treat 90% of blacks as a monolithic, one dimensional,bloc, it’s just a problem when the obvious is pointed out.
How about you make up your mind, you keep throwing out these “stats” but you can’t even keep your own crap straight.
“Saying that "We white guys know better that Trump isn't racist (or maybe that no one knows if he's racist) than nearly all black people" is the definition of racism.”
The problem with this unmitigated bullshit is that it’s not true. You keep acting like this shit you make up is actual quotes, when you know damn well is just more of your lies.
Either give me the link and quote to back up your shit, or stop making this crap up.
Lazy, intellectually dishonest, and dishonest. Nothing new. I guess when you run out of anything worthwhile, you just fall back on lies and as hom attacks.
Read how Trump is specifically inspiring racist killers. This is your "conservative evangelical" pervert inspiring racism.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-abc-news-finds-17-cases-invoking-trump/story?id=58912889
Craig... “Saying that "We white guys know better that Trump isn't racist (or maybe that no one knows if he's racist) than nearly all black people" is the definition of racism.”
The problem with this unmitigated bullshit is that it’s not true.
WE WHITE GUYS (the white race) know better than nearly all/most/8 out of 10 black people (and the majority of the US).
Racism:
The belief that a given race is inferior to one's own race
Racism:
a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities
and
that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
You are saying that you white guys have better understanding than the majority of black people. Your understanding is superior on this point, at least. Are you saying that your (you, being a white guy) understanding is NOT superior?
If it's not racist, it's at the least racist-ish. Racism lite.
And people see that.
"So you two cracker-ass honkies with your little lives of white privilege are in a better position to know that Trump is not racist than 9 out of 10 black people. Is that what you're saying?"
Oh, I'm abso-freakin'-lutely saying that! And here's why: no evidence to back it up. And like Craig seems to be saying, which is it, 8/10 or 9/10? Get your made up stats correct.
"1. You DO understand that more than half the nation recognizes Trump's racism?"
I understand that to recognize racism, racism must be evident...as it, where's your freakin' evidence? I could accept as possible that a significant number perceives Trump as racist, but that too requires evidence to regard it as worth a damn.
"2. You DO understand that 8 in 10 black people think the evidence shows that Trump is racist?"
I thought it was 9 in 10! I can't keep up. Does it change back and forth by the hour, or what? I do understand that, like you thinking God would bless a same-sex "marriage", "thinking" the evidence shows something means nothing. Actually providing evidence means way more. When will you do it? Oh, wait!! You did provide evidence, didn't you? Well, not quite. We'll get to that later.
"3. Do you think that you (either/both) of you are smarter and in a better position to recognize Trump's racism than 8 in 10 black people? Why?"
Is this a trick question? First of all, I can't be in ANY position to "recognize" Trump's racism if he's not a racist, which evidence clearly indicates he is not. Secondly, if 10 in 10 called him a racist, that only means 100% of them are wrong. But smarter? If I concede they're ALL smarter than me, that doesn't mean their right about accusing Trump of being a racist. It means for all their intelligence, they don't use a bit of it to attempt to find and bring forth evidence...or like you, they're too stupid to look beyond claims made by other Trump-haters.
"4. Do you recognize that claiming you're better able to recognize racism than nearly all black people is, by definition, racist?"
I'm sure you'd like to believe something so stupid like that might actually be true, but you're a moron. By providing evidence that Trump isn't a racist, while you (and presumably your unnamed 8 or 9 in 10 black people) provide nothing to the contrary, I'm clearly better able to recognize that Trump is no racist, and that all of y'all are race-hustling liars. I also totally reject the notion that any given white person is less able than any given black person to recognize racism, as if one's race has any damned thing to do with it.
"That is, you think black people are diminished in their capacity to understand and that you, a white man, are not, right?"
No. I, in my capacity as an honest man (or rather, one who strives to always be one on matters of import---you should try it some time), in fellowship with honest black men, don't accuse of racism those people who are not guilty of it.
"5. Marshal, YOU think that Trump is definitively not racist because he "has black friends" and the nice rich man "hired black people..." is that right? And because he was a nice rich white man who sweetly gave money to poor little black people in need, is that right? That's your evidence?"
That's a pretty arrogantly asshole way to word the questions given your constant virtue signaling while believing black people need you as their white savior boy. But I provided far more than what your asshole question indicates, while you provide nothing to rebut any of it. Trump's clearly done far more than you have for the cause of equal treatment. By the way, where's the golf course you opened that allows blacks and Jews where others don't? Must be across the street from Jeff St., right?
"6. You DO recognize that racist people can do kind deeds for black people? Indeed, some of those massahs were REAL nice to their property. That didn't make them not racist, you recognize that?"
Then how would you know they were racist? Where's your evidence? At some point he has to have done something you can show proves the charge. When will we get to see it? BTW, your patronizing poor little black people doesn't mean YOU'RE not a racist, does it?
"9. Craig, you won't even take a stand even to go so far as to say that you can at least UNDERSTAND why black people view Trump to be racist?"
I'm gonna field this question though it's directed at Craig, by responding it two ways:
First, where's questions 7 & 8?
Second, I actually answered this already...conditioning by leftist propaganda.
"You just don't know and no one CAN know and all the evidence that the majority sees as quite clear (and 8/10 of black people), they/we are just mistaken?"
What "evidence"? When do we get to see it? Are we supposed to take your lying-assed word for it? I don't know if "mistaken" the right word for it.
"OR is there a chance that we're right... maybe, and you just don't know, yourself?"
Not a chance in hell. You'll find that out when you get there. If you're going to pose such a question, you'd have more credibility of simply admitting you have no evidence to support your sick, twisted and wholly unChristian need to portray Trump as a racist...which confirms you're a liar.
"10. Marshal, you say that you are entirely ignorant of the case that shows Trump is racist (or at least says racist things and takes racist actions)?
Here's one source making the case, are you not familiar with it? Are you not familiar that he was sued for racial discrimination?"
And here's the "evidence" you think you have. Too bad you're a moron who is too lazy to look beyond the first thing that appears to bail you out. Sad:
http://www.newstandardpress.com/did-trump-not-rent-to-black-people/#comment-13485
"You don't understand the meaning of racism, do you?"
Clearly far better than you. That is to say, unlike you lefties, we understand the real meaning of racism. We don't redefine shit to make our cases.
"Are you telling me that you are entirely ignorant that polls show most black people (~8 in 10, but give or take) think Trump is racist?"
Doesn't matter what they think compared to what is true. He's not a racist and you have no evidence to the contrary. As such, as an alleged Christian (*snicker*), you're obliged to disabuse them of that false perception. But you're too much a pu**y to speak truthfully to them... because you're a liar.
"Open your eyes and start listening to black people."
You mean open your "ears"...or start "seeing" black people. Or maybe, reach out and start smelling them. In any case, we both listen and discriminate between those who know what's what and those who only think they do. We prefer black people of the first variety, while you enable those of the latter.
"Saying that "We white guys know better that Trump isn't racist (or maybe that no one knows if he's racist) than nearly all black people" is the definition of racism."
Again, either you're a total moron (that's rhetorical...of course you are) or...well...there's no other option here. Suffice it to say that racism is, specifically, believing one is superior to another based on being a member of a different race. Saying I know better than what you want to believe is "nearly all black people" is either a matter of fact or it isn't. That's not racism. BTW, on this issue, it's a matter of fact. Trump's no racist.
Stay tuned, fake. My response to your arrogant assholery at your blog is coming soon. Haven't decided exactly how I'm gonna tear you a new one, just yet. Suffice it to say that you will have a new one when it's all over. And you won't have the honor to respond, much less admit you're wrong as hell.
"You are saying that you white guys have better understanding than the majority of black people. Your understanding is superior on this point, at least. Are you saying that your (you, being a white guy) understanding is NOT superior?"
Dan,
When you make claims of fact like "You are saying that you white guys have better understanding...", but can't actually provide links and quotes to support your claim, you are telling a lie, making a false claim, spreading untrue bullshit, or however you'd like to excuse your disregard for the truth.
Given that reality, and the fact that your question is based on your prejudices, informed by your biases, and ungrounded in reality, I think I'll wait until your cana prove your claims before I give you anything else to lie about.
As for your link.
If you really want to establish the exact same standards for EVERYONE, in that you are holding someone responsible for the acts of people who claim to be "inspired" by someone, then you might have something. But to suggest that 54 people out of a country of 330,000,000 is statistically significant, or that Trump intends these people to engage in violence is absurd.
"54 criminal cases"
1. These "cases" are apparently ongoing and not adjudicated yet, perhaps the adjudication process will shed some more light on the reasons. Not that you've ever had a problem jumping to conclusions before all the evidence was in.
2. It doesn't say how many of these cases are state as opposed to federal, but I guess you think it's logical for Trump to incite these actions, then for his administration to prosecute them.
3. 0.00000016%
4. Earlier, you claimed that it was wrong to hold the majority of a group accountable for the actions of a tiny minority, I guess that was more bullshit.
Again, I gladly condemn these individuals for their actions and want them to be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It's just too bad that you can't bring yourself to do the same for all the idiots.
Dan,
We've just seen a retail employee brutally beaten for no reason other than his skin color,
Are you going to say that BLM is responsible for that beating?
In both MPLS and Chicago, we've saw a significant increase in shootings/killings recently. In CHAZ, as well. It seems reasonable that one could connect that "defund police" and the more inflammatory rhetoric associated with that movement, with this increase in shootings/killings.
Dan,
While I don't spend a lot of times on blogs where I'm not welcome to comment freely, I do occasionally peruse your blog. One thing I noticed is how you came up with quite the list of hoops that Art must jump through before you will allow him to comment. I looked at the list and though about how little restriction you face when you comment here or at Art's.
It's almost like the people that you try to paint and horrible, oppressive, racist, controlling, and anti freedom, actually allow you more freedom than you allow us. It's almost like a role reversal. The one who claims to be inclusive, is exclusive. While the ones you claim are exclusive are inclusive.
It's always interesting to see how things really operate, rather than the distortions that people often hide behind.
"You are saying that you white guys have better understanding than the majority of black people. Your understanding is superior on this point, at least. Are you saying that your (you, being a white guy) understanding is NOT superior?
If it's not racist, it's at the least racist-ish. Racism lite.
And people see that."
That's hilarious and a hilarious stretch to get to that hilarious conclusion. The basic message here is that any rebuttal or contradiction to anything said by black people or a black person is racism because, of course, one can't object to stupid opinions without claiming racial superiority over the buffoon(s) who said(says) them.
The true fact of the matter is that opinions are often inferior/superior to others. Clearly, Dan's opinions are inferior because they're not based on facts, but only emotions and indoctrinated myth of a racist bent.
As to blogs, clearly ours provides far more freedom of expression than Dan's or his troll. The troll allows nothing, pretending it is our "vote" that determined his denial of commenting there. Dan always has those hoops and irrational demands.
But it's because I don't restrict that Dan won't visit mine. He self-prohibits on the pretense that I'm "delusional" or supporting a pervert and other nonsensical and cheap rationalizations. It's rank cowardice, even if I AM exactly what Dan so desperately needs me to be in order to rationalize it...which of course I'm not. If his troll would not try to post at my blog that which would be better examined at his...because it's off-topic at mine (he hasn't the courage to address the topic on the table, nor the facts to oppose it maturely), he, too, would be allowed to comment freely.
So here we are open and willing to engage in discourse, to honestly examine facts for or against an issue, and these two cowards play games. It's how leftists roll. They don't want unity and understanding, they don't want to win hearts and minds to whatever their selling today, they want unconditional compliance. Ain't gonna happen without the conversation they don't want to have. Indeed, it's not possible any other way.
As to the link regarding Trump being cited by assholes, by Dan's logic, it's Christ's fault that racists feel superior to black people. The Words of God are responsible for their clinging to their feeling of superiority. That God fellow...He is a recruiter for racists!
The imbecility of Dan's position is, as Craig points out, ludicrous and one-sided given how these violent protests cite leftist, "progressive" ideology to justify their violence. That's always been the case and continues to be. While his link focuses on racists referencing Trump, it ignores the many instances of leftism encouraging the actions of violent protests and even cop-killing...to say nothing of the many instances of black on white racist violence.
One cannot help how assholes take one's words, except to refine how one expresses one's message. Can't see Trump doing that successfully enough to appease idiocy like Dan's any time soon. No. It will take honest and moral people from the other side of the ideological fence to talk down the assholes from their lunacy, as those on the right continue to reject such excuses and the behaviors they hope to rationalize. Instead, we see the Dan's of the left enable such false citations by insisting Trump is somehow purposely seeking to recruit such people to his side. But as is typical, they lie.
Post a Comment