"I’ve been pondering about how in the world Trump defines “black jobs”…"
I saw this today, pretending that it wasn't a shot at Trump.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Trump defines "black jobs" as any and all jobs filled by black people.
Trump's statement is a great example of him saying something that is not inherently controversial (that many black people have jobs), but saying it in a way that opens him up to criticism like this. I'd be willing to guess that if you dig into whatever State or Federal bureaucracy tracks employment that there are categories identified by various demographic labels, and I'd bet that "black" (or AA) is one of those labels. So referring to the jobs held by that slice of the demographic pie by the identifier "black" (or Hispanic or Asian) is simply a shorthand way to say "Jobs held by black people.".
This is an example of two things about the current political climate that annoy me.
1. The inability to say uncontroversial things in a way that doesn't open oneself up to criticism.
2. The tendency to jump on something that is uncontroversial, but that is not said in a certain way, and turn it into something to get all worked up about.
Maybe just chill out.
9 comments:
2. The tendency to jump on something that is uncontroversial, but that is not said in a certain way, and turn it into something to get all worked up about.
Maybe just chill out.
So, it may be noted that conservative Christians had a rough week at the Olympics. First, they lose their mind over a blue man in speedos, saying they were offended by the art display that, in their personal heads, affronted God and some Christians.
But it turns out, it wasn't an art exhibit depicting the last supper, it was depicting Greek gods.
And, it was a blue guy in a speedo and some drag queens in an art exhibit.
Do you think Christians losing their minds and speaking out in big emotional huffs of offense, when they didn't even know what the art was about, was a wise thing for them to do? Or did it make them look foolish?
THEN, a woman boxer who hit another woman boxer really hard was accused by right wing extremists of being a man beating up a woman. And they lost their minds in irrational righteous rage.
AND, as it turns out, the woman boxer WAS a woman who just happened to hit really hard. And while I find boxing barbaric and not really a "sport," hitting people hard is what people do in boxing.
Do you think Christians losing their minds and speaking out in big emotional huffs of offense, when they didn't even know her gender, was a wise thing for them to do? Or did it make them look foolish and, in fact, offensive?
You know that there is a history of white racists accusing black women of being ugly and like a man (and worse)? Do you think that the conservative churches' reputations were not harmed by their bad behavior?
Maybe they should have just chilled out?
"So, it may be noted that conservative Christians had a rough week at the Olympics. First, they lose their mind over a blue man in speedos, saying they were offended by the art display that, in their personal heads, affronted God and some Christians."
Obviously you are unaware of the fact that the creative genius behind the tableau literally called it something like "The Last Supper on a Boat on the Seine".
"But it turns out, it wasn't an art exhibit depicting the last supper, it was depicting Greek gods."
See above.
"And, it was a blue guy in a speedo and some drag queens in an art exhibit."
It wasn't an art exhibit.
"Do you think Christians losing their minds and speaking out in big emotional huffs of offense, when they didn't even know what the art was about, was a wise thing for them to do? Or did it make them look foolish?"
Some looked foolish, some didn't. Some looked foolish until we learned the actual name of the tableau.
"THEN, a woman boxer who hit another woman boxer really hard was accused by right wing extremists of being a man beating up a woman. And they lost their minds in irrational righteous rage."
A "woman" who'd been banned from men's boxing in every other venue because of their biological makeup.
"Do you think Christians losing their minds and speaking out in big emotional huffs of offense, when they didn't even know her gender, was a wise thing for them to do? Or did it make them look foolish and, in fact, offensive?"
Again, I'm not aware of anyone "losing their minds", yet some people probably did and said things that weren't "wise" and probably should have some regret. Are you actually going to deal with the point soon?
"You know that there is a history of white racists accusing black women of being ugly and like a man (and worse)? Do you think that the conservative churches' reputations were not harmed by their bad behavior?"
No, I guess you're just going to continue with bullshit unrelated to the point of the post.
"Maybe they should have just chilled out?"
It's strange that when certain things happen, those on the left are quick to jump to conclusions and blame their usual subjects. Then when better information comes out, they just stay silent.
The point of this post is NOT partisan, nor is it about jumping to conclusions. It's about taking something, often out of context, which is not controversial and making it controversial. Regardless of which side does it.
This notion you have of absolving those on the left by bitching about those on the right is bizarre.
There's nothing controversial about two dudes beating on two women under Olympic Committee sanctions...because nothing says "compassion for women" like allowing men to beat on women. It's also not controversial about pointing out that two dudes who pose as women, either because they're not good enough to compete against men or because they're mentally disordered (likely both).
But the lefties have made a controversy over all this obvious stuff because they're a mix of perverts, God-haters, liars and abjectly intellectually bankrupt.
Wherever perversion exposes itself, Dan will defend it, enable it, celebrate it, support it and even say that God somehow made it "pure". Perversion is opposed by good and honest people, Christian or not. It's not controversial until the immoral people like Dan make it so.
As I've read more about these two dudes, it appears they were born with deformity which in their country led them and/or their families to regard them as female. While the Algerian has posted many pics of himself clearly expressing his maleness, we're to pretend he's actually a female because he says so, despite all biological facts about his physique pointing toward the fact that he's a dude...particularly the one trait which is absolutely definitive: his XY chromosomes. Unlike other, more honest and responsible organizations, the Olympic committee chose to go woke and put the health and potential careers of female competitors at risk. Shame on them and on anyone who pretends the committee did the right thing. They most factually did not.
Art,
That's exactly how I understand it as well. I suspect that in a nation like Algeria it's more difficult to deal with those sorts of issues. Which might lead to just picking a sex and sticking with it. It's clear from his own photographic record that he presents as a dude.
I'll simply note that Dan, in just one single comment has completely and totally hijacked the topic of this post and dragged the discussion toward whatever he wanted to impose on everyone else.
Well, that's his way. He's not quite as blatant as his troll in trying to force unrelated crap onto a thread, but he'll do.
Craig, about the main point of the post, Jeff Goldstein blogging under the name Protein Wisdom had a hell of an article about the 2008/09 controversy when Rush Limbaugh said that he hoped Obama failed as president, similar to an astonishingly dishonest take on Bill Bennett. In short, someone not arguing in good faith can twist words NO MATTER WHAT.
"If we are worried about 'undecided voters' who get nothing but soundbite news, we must work to change the culture of how news is delivered. For my part, I don’t want to have to measure every word I say with the thought in mind that somebody is going to take me out of context. Instead, I’d like to be free to say what I mean, and when my meaning is obvious, I would like to know that honest people have my back — and will tell dishonest people to stop being dishonest, and uninformed people that they need to smarten up before they presume to join the conversation."
https://hotair.com/jeff-goldstein/2009/03/09/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-f-bomb-n160646
It's a lesson I took to heart in a variety of ways, not least in the application of interpreting ancient religious texts.
Art,
That's True.
Bubba,
Good stuff. The notion that people should be able to say things, and say what they mean how they choose to, without the meaning being twisted is clearly something we've lost to a great extent. The applicability to scripture is also spot on. The desire to move past the plain meaning of the text, to find something else is frustrating to say the least.
Indeed. Unfortunately, in some cases that means being deleted if one doesn't adhere to constantly changing rules of discourse engagement. On the other hand, I no longer care. I won't subordinate truth as I understand it and wish to express it to those with a poor understanding of it, or who find it inconvenient.
Post a Comment