I focus on what Paula Deen said in testimony. I have also addressed her obliviousness to racial issues, southern self justification and history. I have never hear Paula say that she didn’t know the word was racist to some people. From what I have heard, Paula has always maintained that the word is offensive and should not be said. She has said all that you believe she should have said and has in fact DONE better if you consider the fact that her comment was 30 years old and even the Plaintiff confirmed that she has never heard Paula say the word.
When have I said anything remotely like any of this? I believe Paula saying the word 30 years about should be a non-issue and is not a big deal. If you were raised in such a way, then how in the world is Paula Deen saying 30 years ago in anyway surprising and merits the media focus it has garnered. What about all the parts of the testimony that confirm that it is not behavior that Paula Deen practices today? My point here is not to be a racist defender or attempt to say Paula Deen is not racist. My point here is the media is not reporting the entire situation and focuses on the tidbits that make Paula seem like a raging racist to grab people’s attention. Are you comfortable with judging people on those standards?
I don’t see this as a denial. What can’t you pick and choose what aspects you like about anything. Do I throw out an entire meal because I don’t like okra? No, I scootch it over to the side and eat what I like. No one is denying slavery or racism. It might be ignored or downplayed with the focus on preferred things. Take the wedding theme for example, the focus would be on the dress, decor and food. The servers would represent the slaves of the era but they would be in the background, working as servers, just like servers at any other wedding.
So you seem to believe I behave like a pirate and to further explain you seem to refer buddist terms for Non-duality and the term for a Vow of Silence but I am the one with 2 minds? You sound like you are full of crap.
As far as VRA, is this the best congressional environment to allow them to deal with this issue? No. I wouldn’t say that because I believe the Republicans per se, but because the general inability to work together and their I-won’t-let-this-good-thing-pass-because-you-will-get-credit-for-it attitude. I understand this seems to be mainly a Republican problem. However, the Supreme Court can’t pick when issues come forward. Postponing a decision for a valid complaint because we don’t have a Congress that isn’t retarded is not for them to vote on. I believe the reasoning and justification was valid. Racism is constantly evolving, and we need to be using accurate information to combat it.
In this case, in terms of judging Paula Deen, and you? Absolutely. Her (and your) obliviousness regarding racial issues make me comfortable in my judgment that you are both racist assholes.
Addendum: I don’t believe that a person who uses a taboo word only uses it in the home. From what I’ve experienced through the years, a person who uses such a word will use it outside the home also. It’s really not that difficult a concept to grasp.
Me, neither. And she’s basically admitted that she has used it more than once, so the racist defender’s insistence on “ONE TIME 30 YEARS AGO LEAVE PAULA ALONE <weeps>” is the most ridiculous red herring going.
Not me. I read it somewhere. Perhaps even this very board.
Yes. And white people who continue to insist on their right to use this one word make me a bit :dubious: . “Oh, noes, there’s a word I’m not allowed to use - this shall not stand!” Suck it up, cupcake.
I don’t understand how people don’t get this. Bitch, just PRETEND that you understand that you’re not supposed to be a racist asshole, okay? People forgive all kinds of shit. If you can’t even get it together to PRETEND that you know that you shouldn’t be all openly racist these days, then I can’t even with you.
Well you wouldn’t. But pressing the point gets silly- ‘I’m not in denial!’ ‘Yes you are!’ etc.
It sounds like you are defining ‘denial’. And, the whole culture of the South was built on slavery. ‘Preferred things’ are going to be the fruit of that, especially if it involves a lot of black people playing period roles for real events. This wedding, for example, isn’t a show but somebody’s sacrament.
No, the Antebellum South was piratical. And I’m sorry if you don’t like the introduction of alternative philosophical traditions (*mouna *is just a kind of silence btw, not a vow AFAIK, nor specifically Buddhist AFAIK). You borrowed Paula’s ‘Let him who is without sin throw the first stone’ defense, which doesn’t even apply. Jesus is talking about a mob actually getting ready to stone a person to death. Every act of criticism is not a hypocritical, bronze age act of barbarism yanno- at least my full of crapness was more-or-less used accurately.
The VRA decision is a tough question. Courts can seem partisan no matter what they do. This decision seems destined to make discrimination worse, with partisan political effects. But the standard was outdated. I don’t know if they had to decide this now- sometimes they throw cases to other courts- but I do wish it played out differently in practical terms. It doesn’t seem outrageous enough for me to be in a position to point fingers at SCOTUS, though. Neither is there anything in the decision that says I have to like it.
Then along comes Paula Deen like the middle finger of the South…
I remember a long, rambling thread just like this one where some stormfronter white nationalist claimed that lots of people really agreed but were just quaking in their boots at the thought of voicing so. Pretty soon we’ll have somebody post that someone PMed them in confidence that they agree and want you to know that you’re not alone. :rolleyes:
Why are racists the least honest people on the planet as a group?
I agree, but I am going on testimony and evidence presented. Paula said she used it a long time ago, likely in instances where shew as quoting what others said, but she also likely used it in relaying a heated situation. Also all other evidence presented even by the plaintiff confirm that it is not a word Paula uses. The only reason it is known that she said it at all was because she said so in her testimony. I think it’s fairly safe to assume that it was a word that Paula heard and/or used early in her life, for what ever reason, and, like everybody else, doesn’t use the word anymore because it is so offensive and taboo. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? The evidence presented in testimony certainly seems to support my conclusion more so. Are you comfortable with people taking any comment from your past and passing judgment on you?
de·ni·al
/diˈnīəl/Noun
1.The action of declaring something to be untrue: “she shook her head in denial”.
2.The refusal of something requested or desired.
Seeing as how Paula’s briefly discussed, potential wedding theme, included people that would represent slaves, she was hardly in denial of the situation. Yes slavery was crucial to the Old South which is why they fought so hard to keep it. Also, you said, the black people would be “playing a role”. I would argue someone’s wedding can be what ever they wanted it to be. It’s their celebration and event. If she wanted to pay black people to be servers at the event to round out the time era, and she found black people that were ok with it, then so be it. It’s between her and those black people. It doesn’t mean she is celebrating slavery. And it doesn’t make those black people any different than the black people being to play a slave in the movie.
How was the Old South piratical? You understand plantation owners were not looting the African beaches for slaves. Of course they were one of it’s many supporters. Even if they were, I don’t see the connection to non-duality and mouna (I googled it and many sources claim it’s a vow of silence in many areas, not just for buddism).
As far as the Jesus defense, Jesus was defending a woman that committed adultry and the citizens were attempting to stone her for it. We don’t stone people any more, but I believe a connection can be made with the public punishment that the citizens were attempting impose on this women and the public and social discord that Paula is going through. Are you saying you connect the south, piratical behavior, buddies nonduality and a vow of silence or mouna, but you take the bible completely literal and only within the situation or events it writes about? Well now I am currently in denial.
“I think it’s fairly safe to assume that it was a word that Paula heard and/or used early in her life, for what ever reason, and, like everybody else, doesn’t use the word anymore because it is so offensive and taboo.”
Well, as long as you think it’s fairly safe to assume, I’m convinced. And I’m very happy to learn that everybody else doesn’t use the word anymore.
I agree that a wedding can be whatever they wanted it to be. Just like people are free to opine on what kind of person would want a wedding like that. And they are free to register their disgust with that kind of a person and sponsors are free to disassociate from that kind of a person.
My apologies. I was not trying to imply that every one used the word and doesn’t now. I was saying that though she likely used the word early in her life, she doesn’t know, as is the social norm regardless of a particular person’s use of the word in the past. Where as is was merely an offensive word 40 or 50 years ago that was considered in poor taste to use, it is very taboo to use now.
Ok, my question is the same, if she were employing people to play the role as slave, how is that using denial. Focusing on the “prettier” parts of the time doesn’t deny the bad. Its a party, a fantasy, a recreation. How is that different than playing a role in a movie?
