Ok donkey how about you read the Bible before spouting off non-sense. It explains this hell even Ancient Aliens knows the story. You are a dipshit who throws shit at the wall to see what sticks.
CNN, PPP Shock Polls: Bernie vs Trump
- Thread starter CowboyUp
- Start date
Ok donkey how about you read the Bible before spouting off non-sense. It explains this hell even Ancient Aliens knows the story. You are a dipshit who throws shit at the wall to see what sticks.
Wow! crazy cup has really outdone himself this time. The Bernie post has grown into the cluster f**k that is a crazy cup thread. I tried to follow as best I could. Let's see what I've learned here. If you invoke the name of a little girls organization, that happens to be the same name as the presidents skin color, you're a racist. Is this correct? You libs really need to get a grip with this race thing it's making you look silly to say the least. After using such word it has been suggested that I tell everyone that I didn't mean it as a racist thing, and could see how it might offend, and I'll be more careful in the future when using this word. Also, if I do this people won't think I'm a racist. Do I have this right so far?
Where to begin. Let's see.........the brownies comment was in response to a barrage of drive by posts with dumb ass pictures in it that were supposed to demonstrate Mr. Obama's prowess as the great unifier that cup thinks he is. I replied to a few of them in rapid fire mode to keep up with his dumb assery. That was apparently not a wise move as it has led to this quagmire of a thread regarding the word brownies. If anyone took offense to the words "ah yes brownies" I really don't give a shit. (as squeak would say f**k your feelings) It was in no way meant as a racial comment, and to take it that way reflects a lot about the person you are. The use of that word was used to describe the picture posted and nothing more. If I was going for a racial tone or some kind of joke I probably would have used a couple of quotations on the word brownies for the desired effect.
My daughter was a brownie. I love brownies (the organization and the warm brown stuff you put in the oven and cut into little squares and eat).
Carry on.
Where to begin. Let's see.........the brownies comment was in response to a barrage of drive by posts with dumb ass pictures in it that were supposed to demonstrate Mr. Obama's prowess as the great unifier that cup thinks he is. I replied to a few of them in rapid fire mode to keep up with his dumb assery. That was apparently not a wise move as it has led to this quagmire of a thread regarding the word brownies. If anyone took offense to the words "ah yes brownies" I really don't give a shit. (as squeak would say f**k your feelings) It was in no way meant as a racial comment, and to take it that way reflects a lot about the person you are. The use of that word was used to describe the picture posted and nothing more. If I was going for a racial tone or some kind of joke I probably would have used a couple of quotations on the word brownies for the desired effect.
My daughter was a brownie. I love brownies (the organization and the warm brown stuff you put in the oven and cut into little squares and eat).
Carry on.
Hey CUP I am gonna take a second to educate you. The first sin was Eve eating the forbidden fruit. This fact alone shows you have never even opened a Bible. SO if you don't like black jokes then I suggest not being a hypocrite and making biblical jokes.
Dong,
I knew what you meant the first time, when I read it with an understanding of you and context. It's not hard to understand the humor you were spitting.
....unlessssssss you are a sensitive fella with a penchant for finding "victims" everywhere in life. And it seems there are at least 2 in this thread.
You're right, it makes one seem like a doofus. Or, in my opinion, weak. Weak in the way that coddles a society and gradually absolves normal humans of basic notions of self control...ultimately leading to societal decay and the dumbing down of a species. What happened to the day of measured men and women?
Pilt, I've thought on replying several times today, but I just can't bring myself to. I find your position (if that is indeed your position) so fragile and ungrounded that I have nothing to say. It's just. ..revealing.
I knew what you meant the first time, when I read it with an understanding of you and context. It's not hard to understand the humor you were spitting.
....unlessssssss you are a sensitive fella with a penchant for finding "victims" everywhere in life. And it seems there are at least 2 in this thread.
You're right, it makes one seem like a doofus. Or, in my opinion, weak. Weak in the way that coddles a society and gradually absolves normal humans of basic notions of self control...ultimately leading to societal decay and the dumbing down of a species. What happened to the day of measured men and women?
Pilt, I've thought on replying several times today, but I just can't bring myself to. I find your position (if that is indeed your position) so fragile and ungrounded that I have nothing to say. It's just. ..revealing.
dong--
I knew you weren't being racist. I thought your comment was comical, sort of a face palm.
Good stuff. Roll on...
BTW I appreciate all the Bible experts clearing this stuff up for me. BTW did Jonah REALLY live in the belly of a whale for 3 days. That would be very dark and RANK....!I used to have nightmares about that when I was a kid.
My buddie's Dad was an evangelical precher and artist. One of his murals on the way into the church was the arm of Satan plucking sinners, even some kids. That scared the crap out of me. Their family used to pray for me when I had supper at their house because I cussed a lot using words like "darn" and "dadgummit". Brother Calvin asked to Lord to wash out my mouth. I smoked grape vine when I was six.
I knew you weren't being racist. I thought your comment was comical, sort of a face palm.
Good stuff. Roll on...
BTW I appreciate all the Bible experts clearing this stuff up for me. BTW did Jonah REALLY live in the belly of a whale for 3 days. That would be very dark and RANK....!I used to have nightmares about that when I was a kid.
My buddie's Dad was an evangelical precher and artist. One of his murals on the way into the church was the arm of Satan plucking sinners, even some kids. That scared the crap out of me. Their family used to pray for me when I had supper at their house because I cussed a lot using words like "darn" and "dadgummit". Brother Calvin asked to Lord to wash out my mouth. I smoked grape vine when I was six.
Ummm...is that ALL you smoked as a young man? Let's get to the bottom of those interceding prayers......
Last edited:
Just reply to the cancer bit. Why is it normal human deceny and politeness stop applying in this specific case?
Pilt,
I'm honestly not following your logic, though I've re-read the conversation a few times. If someone tells a rape or cancer joke, the last thing on my mind is that that person is a rapist or wishes cancer on anybody. Since someone in my family has been touched by rape and another by cancer, I might not find the humor in the joke, but again, I might.
It's not reasonable for me to expect that the person presenting the joke actually thinks that the act of rape is funny or that someone suffering from cancer is actually funny. In 99% of occasions where a joke may involve rape or cancer, the nuance of the joke is circumspect to the vileness of suffering in either instance and mainly plays on stereotypical caricatures within society. "Don't trust that guy over there, Jennifer, he's got rapey eyes."
Secondly, I don't find cancer or rape sensitivity comparable to racial sensitivity in the context of political discussions or political characters chiefly bc they aren't used to create leverage and victimize a sub group. You could say the War on Women is a close cousin, in that vein, to racial politics, and if CUP or Sys ever start implying that board posters are okay with rape or are, indeed, rapists, because they disagreed with a policy of Hillary, then I'd forcefully interject in that case as well.
People should be held accountable for how they react. Is the reaction reasonable? Why or why not? No, people don't have the freedom to express whatever they want bc their precious heart was broken. I think I've read it on here before, and it bears repeating, there are times when people's feelings become offensive. Seeing race in an exchange where race was not an issue is not what needs correction. Taking the added step of implying racism or racist tendencies by an individual...is a behavior that needs correction. That level of certainty by the interpreter had not been established or demonstrated.
Lastly, you didn't find Dong's statement funny bc i) you didn't follow the context or ii) your sense of humor is pretty stale. That you felt the need to remark to me on it not being "half as funny" says something about you. I don't care enough to wonder what that is, though. I still do find it ridiculous that YOU put the onus on DONG to clarify to DAVID within his exchange with CUP that the "ahhh Brownies" remark wasn't racial. If that's your position, in this instance, you are also part of the problem. I assume that also means that you would have gotten around to impugning Dong and anybody who "liked" his retort, but that David beat you to the punch.
I'm honestly not following your logic, though I've re-read the conversation a few times. If someone tells a rape or cancer joke, the last thing on my mind is that that person is a rapist or wishes cancer on anybody. Since someone in my family has been touched by rape and another by cancer, I might not find the humor in the joke, but again, I might.
It's not reasonable for me to expect that the person presenting the joke actually thinks that the act of rape is funny or that someone suffering from cancer is actually funny. In 99% of occasions where a joke may involve rape or cancer, the nuance of the joke is circumspect to the vileness of suffering in either instance and mainly plays on stereotypical caricatures within society. "Don't trust that guy over there, Jennifer, he's got rapey eyes."
Secondly, I don't find cancer or rape sensitivity comparable to racial sensitivity in the context of political discussions or political characters chiefly bc they aren't used to create leverage and victimize a sub group. You could say the War on Women is a close cousin, in that vein, to racial politics, and if CUP or Sys ever start implying that board posters are okay with rape or are, indeed, rapists, because they disagreed with a policy of Hillary, then I'd forcefully interject in that case as well.
People should be held accountable for how they react. Is the reaction reasonable? Why or why not? No, people don't have the freedom to express whatever they want bc their precious heart was broken. I think I've read it on here before, and it bears repeating, there are times when people's feelings become offensive. Seeing race in an exchange where race was not an issue is not what needs correction. Taking the added step of implying racism or racist tendencies by an individual...is a behavior that needs correction. That level of certainty by the interpreter had not been established or demonstrated.
Lastly, you didn't find Dong's statement funny bc i) you didn't follow the context or ii) your sense of humor is pretty stale. That you felt the need to remark to me on it not being "half as funny" says something about you. I don't care enough to wonder what that is, though. I still do find it ridiculous that YOU put the onus on DONG to clarify to DAVID within his exchange with CUP that the "ahhh Brownies" remark wasn't racial. If that's your position, in this instance, you are also part of the problem. I assume that also means that you would have gotten around to impugning Dong and anybody who "liked" his retort, but that David beat you to the punch.
Well one way to address my point is to dance around and deny the premise of someone taking issue with an insensitive or careless joke about rape or cancer. Another way to address it is to grant the premise and answer the question of how people should react in such a situation.
Let's try again. What if instead of a rape joke, some one crosses the line with the use of "retard." If you can't fathom some one taking an issue with that we can move on to other things impolite people do. Just let me know.
You think DavidAllen was creating leverage or victimizing a sub group? Did you have a dialogue with him to determine that?
Here you are conflating identity politics with simply calling out racist statements and actions. You are talking about accusing political opposition of being racist/sexist for opposing the views of a woman or black person. I agree that is pernicious. But there is a line between doing that and calling statements actions racist. Again in this thread no one has even been called a racist just their statements.
What I am saying is all be people should be held accountable for their words and actions. For some reason you don't see this as a two way street it is only the reactor who is accountable. Blanket immunity for anyone to say anything except if that anything is "that was racist."
Wow. If you don't value absolute freedom of expression, I guess I don't even understand your point.
Please fill in the blank: "I think frivolous claims of racism should be discouraged because they have a chilling effect on _________"
I'll take this opportunity to point out how genteel this attitude about other peoples feeling are. "I really don't give a shit. (as squeak would say f**k your feelings)" Real Southern gentlemanly.
Please delineate the difference between the feelings that are offensive (did you have a dialogue with the feeler to check first?) and the potentially racist statement that is not. (hint: It is simply whether you are agreeing with them or not)
If we boil down what you are saying to its essence, It is that Dong (using his name only for clarity, I am making this point generally not specifically) can say whatever he wants because you subjectively agree with what he is saying and Davidallen can't respond in anyway he would like because you subjectively disagree with him.
Can you articulate you position in terms of a ethical rule that doesn't require subjective value judgement? I can articulate mine: "People can say whatever they want."
Who determines if it was an issue or not? And again no one has called Dong a racist.
Come on man. It wasn't funny. I didn't find it to be racist, but I also didn't find it to be funny. Just a troll responding to another troll.
I think it mostly says that I don't find humor childish troll offs.
Literally in any other exchange onus is on the speaker to ensure that what was said is interpreted correctly.
Listen, I didn't think it was racist. But, I also thought Davidallen was entitled to his interpretation. And Dong was entitled to tell him he is wrong. It is called free exchange of ideas. It is a good thing.
For the sake of brevity, in my response your response is bulleted with a number, my response is in the sub-bullet.
1. Well one way to address my point is to dance around and deny the premise of someone taking issue with an insensitive or careless joke about rape or cancer. Another way to address it is to grant the premise and answer the question of how people should react in such a situation.
Let's try again. What if instead of a rape joke, some one crosses the line with the use of "retard." If you can't fathom some one taking an issue with that we can move on to other things impolite people do. Just let me know.
2. You think DavidAllen was creating leverage or victimizing a sub group? Did you have a dialogue with him to determine that?
Here you are conflating identity politics with simply calling out racist statements and actions. You are talking about accusing political opposition of being racist/sexist for opposing the views of a woman or black person. I agree that is pernicious. But there is a line between doing that and calling statements actions racist. Again in this thread no one has even been called a racist just their statements.
3. What I am saying is all be people should be held accountable for their words and actions. For some reason you don't see this as a two way street it is only the reactor who is accountable. Blanket immunity for anyone to say anything except if that anything is "that was racist."
4. Wow. If you don't value absolute freedom of expression, I guess I don't even understand your point.
Please fill in the blank: "I think frivolous claims of racism should be discouraged because they have a chilling effect on _________"
I'll take this opportunity to point out how genteel this attitude about other peoples feeling are. "I really don't give a shit. (as squeak would say f**k your feelings)" Real Southern gentlemanly.
5. Please delineate the difference between the feelings that are offensive (did you have a dialogue with the feeler to check first?) and the potentially racist statement that is not. (hint: It is simply whether you are agreeing with them or not)
If we boil down what you are saying to its essence, It is that Dong (using his name only for clarity, I am making this point generally not specifically) can say whatever he wants because you subjectively agree with what he is saying and Davidallen can't respond in anyway he would like because you subjectively disagree with him.
Can you articulate you position in terms of a ethical rule that doesn't require subjective value judgement? I can articulate mine: "People can say whatever they want."
6. Who determines if it was an issue or not? And again no one has called Dong a racist.
7. Come on man. It wasn't funny. I didn't find it to be racist, but I also didn't find it to be funny. Just a troll responding to another troll.
8. I think it mostly says that I don't find humor childish troll offs.
9. Literally in any other exchange onus is on the speaker to ensure that what was said is interpreted correctly.
10. Listen, I didn't think it was racist. But, I also thought Davidallen was entitled to his interpretation. And Dong was entitled to tell him he is wrong. It is called free exchange of ideas. It is a good thing.
Pilt, the context was sufficient for DavidAllen to fully understand that there were no racial undertones involved. His fuk-up, that you are defending tooth and nail, is in the accusation by implication. Words mean things. How words are stated, means things. Dong doesn’t NEED to explain himself, nor should DavidAllen raise that question into the air FORCING Dong to have to explain himself….yet David did. And now, your ramblings, have attempted to serve as an enabler for David and the climate to perpetuate itself. I’ll draw the line and go on the offensive at that fulcrum every time.
Point blank, that you believe the onus is on Dong to explain that he wasn't racist in his remark (your point #10), means you're aligning yourself with the improper "side." Innocence until demonstrated otherwise? No? Especially in the light of the significant context provided in the jousting between CUP and Dong?
Let's try again. What if instead of a rape joke, some one crosses the line with the use of "retard." If you can't fathom some one taking an issue with that we can move on to other things impolite people do. Just let me know.
a. Since your responding to me in a “the witness is hostile” stance, so to speak, I’ll respond in kind Pilt. I did no dancing. I stated that I WOULD respond differently. I OWN my response, Pilt. Where you and David and me apparently are different, is that I’m going to make sure I understand what was MEANT before I reel off an implication or accusation. Yes, I find your (yours and David’s) lack of self-edification in responding to need correction. It is an undue burden.
2. You think DavidAllen was creating leverage or victimizing a sub group? Did you have a dialogue with him to determine that?
Here you are conflating identity politics with simply calling out racist statements and actions. You are talking about accusing political opposition of being racist/sexist for opposing the views of a woman or black person. I agree that is pernicious. But there is a line between doing that and calling statements actions racist. Again in this thread no one has even been called a racist just their statements.
a. Correction, Pilt, DavidAllen entered into the accusation by implication game at this statement 2/3rds the way down the 2nd page of this thread:
“What is most disheartening is the sheer number of otherwise good people who snigger at things like the "brownies" comment with no thought of how that impacts the overall conversation in America.”
It is this statement that moved me to respond. He fundamentally misunderstood the brownies remark and the response of the people who CORRECTLY found humor in it.
3. What I am saying is all be people should be held accountable for their words and actions. For some reason you don't see this as a two way street it is only the reactor who is accountable. Blanket immunity for anyone to say anything except if that anything is "that was racist."
a. Give me a break. Nowhere did I say that people shouldn’t be held accountable for their actions. My entire rant has been very specifically aimed at those who are too sensitive to “detecting” racial undertones in modern society. Re-read the thread if you missed that.
4. Wow. If you don't value absolute freedom of expression, I guess I don't even understand your point.
Please fill in the blank: "I think frivolous claims of racism should be discouraged because they have a chilling effect on _________"
I'll take this opportunity to point out how genteel this attitude about other peoples feeling are. "I really don't give a shit. (as squeak would say f**k your feelings)" Real Southern gentlemanly.
a. Are you passing judgment Pilt? Like DavidAllen did by implication in his language above? Both you and him are in the wrong in that. A southern gentleman would own his response and in that, take that responsibility of seeking to understand before accusations are handed out. But it’s possible your definition of taking the high road is different than my definition, as in this very point you’ve proven yourself to be 100% hypocrite, moving with ease from your sarcastic “Wow…blah, blah blah freedom of expression,” to being critical of me for lacking gentlemanly mannerisms. How quaint of you.
5. Please delineate the difference between the feelings that are offensive (did you have a dialogue with the feeler to check first?) and the potentially racist statement that is not. (hint: It is simply whether you are agreeing with them or not)
If we boil down what you are saying to its essence, It is that Dong (using his name only for clarity, I am making this point generally not specifically) can say whatever he wants because you subjectively agree with what he is saying and Davidallen can't respond in anyway he would like because you subjectively disagree with him.
Can you articulate you position in terms of a ethical rule that doesn't require subjective value judgement? I can articulate mine: "People can say whatever they want."
a. No, what I’m saying is that there was a context that provided everything needed to REASONABLY ascertain that Dong’s response did not carry racial undertones. MORE OVER, the threshold created by the context was SUFFICIENT that ACCUSATION BY IMPLICATION is NOT the route to take in seeking further clarification. THAT is the hard line that I want to enforce, that people act reasonably. If David had a real issue with the “ah Brownies” remark, the exchange between CUP and Dong provided plenty of context for a correct understanding that this has nothing to do with race. If David needed more clarification, the evidence (context) was sufficient for him to go about it in an manner that wasn't accusatory.
6. Who determines if it was an issue or not? And again no one has called Dong a racist.
a. It became an issue when David accused, by implication, Dong and those who “sniggered” of some sort of wrong doing.
7. Come on man. It wasn't funny. I didn't find it to be racist, but I also didn't find it to be funny. Just a troll responding to another troll.
8. I think it mostly says that I don't find humor childish troll offs.
a. That’s fine, but why make a remark to me about it. It adds nothing to your contention.
9. Literally in any other exchange onus is on the speaker to ensure that what was said is interpreted correctly.
a. You’ll have to show me the rulebook where this assertion is found. I see EVERYWHERE people putting words into other people’s mouth’s for the convenience of creating a fictitious scenario against which to rail.
10. Listen, I didn't think it was racist. But, I also thought Davidallen was entitled to his interpretation. And Dong was entitled to tell him he is wrong. It is called free exchange of ideas. It is a good thing.
a. DavidAllen IS entitled to his own interpretation. That’s not what this is about.
Pilt, the context was sufficient for DavidAllen to fully understand that there were no racial undertones involved. His fuk-up, that you are defending tooth and nail, is in the accusation by implication. Words mean things. How words are stated, means things. Dong doesn’t NEED to explain himself, nor should DavidAllen raise that question into the air FORCING Dong to have to explain himself….yet David did. And now, your ramblings, have attempted to serve as an enabler for David and the climate to perpetuate itself. I’ll draw the line and go on the offensive at that fulcrum every time.
Point blank, that you believe the onus is on Dong to explain that he wasn't racist in his remark (your point #10), means you're aligning yourself with the improper "side." Innocence until demonstrated otherwise? No? Especially in the light of the significant context provided in the jousting between CUP and Dong?
Your refusal to even address the hypothetical really says it all.
And you turned around and accused him of creating leverage and victimizing a sub group. how is that incorrect accusation any different that David's?
Yeah like is said ALL people. You are strongly implying that Dong or any speaker is completely absolved of accountability for their speech on two conditions 1) they later specify that they had innocent intentions 2) they don't use their speech to in any way call out racism.
Yes I am passing judgement on you. Your taboo discussing racism serves only to protect the racist status quo. You are wrong, but entitled to your wrongness.
“Wow…blah, blah blah freedom of expression,” was not sarcastic. I am really flabbergasted that you are coming out against absolute freedom of expression.
I am not being critical of you for "lacking gentlemanly mannerisms." I just don't want you to be under the illusion that you can have the "I really don't give a shit. (as squeak would say f**k your feelings)" and be a nice guy or a gentleman. If that is your attitude you are an asshole and you should own it.
BradSmiths' rules for discourse:
1. Check in with Brad to see what he thinks you should reasonably ascertain from context.
2. Check in with Brad to see if the available evidence is strong enough to preclude clarification through accusation.
I think you might have trouble broadly applying these rules.
You must be thinking of another issue. You said "Seeing race in an exchange where race was not an issue is not what needs correction." To which I replied "Who determines if it was an issue or not?"
Because I felt like weighing in on whether it was funny or not?
There is no rule book. Just give me a single scenario where the communicator isn't responsible for ensuring the correct message is conveyed. I'll give a few where they are responsible.
Book.
Commencement speech.
Political speech.
Work email.
Engineering spec.
Instruction manual.
Text message.
Magazine article.
Tweets.
That is precisely what it is about.
My point is that DavidAllen clearly didn't see things the way you do, and there is no reason to privilege your interpretation of over DavidAllen's. What makes your subjective interpretation of the events superior to his? Dong doesn't NEED to explain himself, but he should if he doesn't want people to misunderstand what he was saying. Your entire point is just that you think the threshold for calling something racist is too low and it should be higher, but you never can provide a reason why. To which I say "That’s just like, your opinion, man"
Yes, definitely, David should have to prove Dongs guilt before sending him to jail. I don't think the standard is so high for interpreting meaning from words.
I go to Tahoe for a nice relaxing long weekend and this sh!tst0rm continues...
Who is making a mountain out of a mole hill? You read me accusing Dong of being racist because I suggest that race based humor is cheap and insensitive? If you want to move the needle with me you will have to explain how the joke is not a play on the skin color of the POTUS. I think reasonable people can disagree on such things, but if you want to explore it further I am game.
I asked what you found "Simple, yet Powerful" in the brownies comment - can you perhaps help me understand what I am missing?
BTW: Dong I don't think you are a racist, insensitive - yeah like most of us - but not a racist.
Love you to educate me on what the genesis of the humor in the comment was...
Accusation by implication. Words mean things.
Ironic though that you are the one asserting some sort of character attack out of criticism that a comment was cheap, easy, insensitive - those are the words I have used to describe the brownie joke. I am sorry if those words hurt your feelings - I doubt Dong felt wounded by them.
Last edited:
I go to Moore for a nice relaxing long weekend and this sh!tst0rm continues.....
I've stated my position on this matter. Nothing more needs to be said as far as I'm concerned.
I've stated my position on this matter. Nothing more needs to be said as far as I'm concerned.
Nothing should have ever been required of you Dong, unless David had properly asked your intent rather than forcing you to have to defend against his charge....as he just did again.
That fine, David, that you believe that about Dong. All reasonable people familiar with this board agree he's not racist. But you. ..AGAIN. ..insert race by re-stating JUST NOW that Dong intentionally said "AH BROWNIES" due to the President's skin color. Thanks for demonstrating EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
My feelings in this are non existent (no happy, no sad, nothing), I only want for there to be justice and BETTER dialogue regarding racial issues, and the FRAMING that occurs from a charge rather than a fact finding question, puts racism into play until demonstrated otherwise. That is unnecessary. And for such a sensitive topic, there IS a better way to converse on the topic...a way that doesn't put into play the ignorant and disgusting habit unnecessarily.
I'm maintaining that Dong NEVER NEEDED to have to assume a defensive position because of YOUR negligence to clarify intent. You came at that in a way that shifts it from what should have been an information gathering activity by you due to YOUR OWN ignorance of Dongs intent, into Dong having to defend himself....to say nothing about your implication of those that "sniggered."
That's YOUR bad and perpetuates the devastatingly electric atmosphere that surrounds racial conversations. Accuse first, seek clarification later.
There was a 100% reasonable way to interpret Dongs remark to Cup within the context of that exchange that did not involve tinges of racism. YOU created it by forcing Dong on the defensive by your ASSERTION....That Dong is being intentionally racially insensitive. That's your assertion.
All I'm asking. ..is for everybody to "be better than the GAP." And on the scales of "social justice" within the arena of public perception (or whatever) it takes a bigger person to approach understanding from a non impugning position, than to assert first and ask questions later.
If you'll read back into the thread, he addressed the issue. YOU forced him to by your charge.
More later. Do none of you folks work for a living?
That fine, David, that you believe that about Dong. All reasonable people familiar with this board agree he's not racist. But you. ..AGAIN. ..insert race by re-stating JUST NOW that Dong intentionally said "AH BROWNIES" due to the President's skin color. Thanks for demonstrating EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
My feelings in this are non existent (no happy, no sad, nothing), I only want for there to be justice and BETTER dialogue regarding racial issues, and the FRAMING that occurs from a charge rather than a fact finding question, puts racism into play until demonstrated otherwise. That is unnecessary. And for such a sensitive topic, there IS a better way to converse on the topic...a way that doesn't put into play the ignorant and disgusting habit unnecessarily.
I'm maintaining that Dong NEVER NEEDED to have to assume a defensive position because of YOUR negligence to clarify intent. You came at that in a way that shifts it from what should have been an information gathering activity by you due to YOUR OWN ignorance of Dongs intent, into Dong having to defend himself....to say nothing about your implication of those that "sniggered."
That's YOUR bad and perpetuates the devastatingly electric atmosphere that surrounds racial conversations. Accuse first, seek clarification later.
There was a 100% reasonable way to interpret Dongs remark to Cup within the context of that exchange that did not involve tinges of racism. YOU created it by forcing Dong on the defensive by your ASSERTION....That Dong is being intentionally racially insensitive. That's your assertion.
All I'm asking. ..is for everybody to "be better than the GAP." And on the scales of "social justice" within the arena of public perception (or whatever) it takes a bigger person to approach understanding from a non impugning position, than to assert first and ask questions later.
If you'll read back into the thread, he addressed the issue. YOU forced him to by your charge.
More later. Do none of you folks work for a living?
SMH - work my ass off for a living BTW - just able to do it on my schedule...
In my universe there is a continuum on the one end is an angelic saint on the other is Hitler. The racist is somewhere on the Hitler end - the insensitive (and really that is all of us at one time or another) are somewhere in the middle. To conflate insensitivity with racism is really your issue to work out - no one else can do that for you.
In my universe there is a continuum on the one end is an angelic saint on the other is Hitler. The racist is somewhere on the Hitler end - the insensitive (and really that is all of us at one time or another) are somewhere in the middle. To conflate insensitivity with racism is really your issue to work out - no one else can do that for you.
Your process of discovery (of intent) is part of the problem. It creates or perpetuates a racially charged environment by your choosing to accuse, rather than approach your lack of knowing (Dong's intent) in a less charged way. Why force him to have to respond to your incorrect accusation? Why impugn Dong when an alternative to discovery (of intent) is at your fingertips?
This is what I mean by owning your reaction. You ask instead of assert, and Dong isn't labeled with a scarlet "R."
You can try to explain this as me having a sensitivity issue, but you're deluding yourself into not acknowledging that there is a better process to accomplish that which you set out to do with the accusation in the first place.
If I had to put a finger on why so many conversations on race devolve into shouting matches with neither side feeling heard, it would be what you demonstrate right here. But please, David, tell me again how this is a problem of my sensitivity and ignore the grown up conversation I've attempted to have with you.
And for the record, you (all) obviously have jobs. That was a dry remark referring to how, at that moment, I was unable to get away from work long enough to respond in a manner worthy of anybody's time....an attempt at levity in an otherwise heavy/downer thread.
This is what I mean by owning your reaction. You ask instead of assert, and Dong isn't labeled with a scarlet "R."
You can try to explain this as me having a sensitivity issue, but you're deluding yourself into not acknowledging that there is a better process to accomplish that which you set out to do with the accusation in the first place.
If I had to put a finger on why so many conversations on race devolve into shouting matches with neither side feeling heard, it would be what you demonstrate right here. But please, David, tell me again how this is a problem of my sensitivity and ignore the grown up conversation I've attempted to have with you.
And for the record, you (all) obviously have jobs. That was a dry remark referring to how, at that moment, I was unable to get away from work long enough to respond in a manner worthy of anybody's time....an attempt at levity in an otherwise heavy/downer thread.
I see you're stalking me again. You finish that list of Hillary accomplishments yet?
