But he can!! You can’t censor or silence him! He can call me “son” if he wants! He can walk around the grocery store and call everyone “son” anytime the mood strikes him. He can call Lady Gaga and Dolly Parton “son”. He can even call his own son “son”, because FREEDOM, AMERICA, THE CONSTITUTION!
And if you try to tell him he can’t, he’ll stomp his feet and hold his breath until he turns blue…because that’s all he’s got.
He’s a sad pathetic loser that managed to back an even sadder and more pathetic losing loser, and he and his loser ilk are the sorest losers ever to lose anything in the history of loss.
This is it, this is all he has left. Decency has won, polite society has triumphed. We’ve got the government, big business and 153 of the 155 channels on my TV set. He’s got a twice impeached one term President surrounded by a gang of grifters, Fox News, and the constitutional right to self-soothe by calling people “son”. Which he CAN!
Thank you do much for this! I’ve been preaching this message for some time now, particularly with regard to the christian persecution complex, but you’ve just phrased this so elegantly and eloquently. I’m stealing this, if I can manage to remember a quote.
If all you are using is one specific criteria, then by that standard, you are correct. But the issue is bigger if one is trying to account for and overcome what may be systemic inequities that selectively disadvantage groups within that selection criteria. If the goal is to provide equality of opportunity, one has to devise strategies that offset those inequalities. Of course the long term goal is to find and address the inequalities themselves, but that is a long term goal that does nothing to fix the immediate impacts of those systemic problems.
And people disagree over what those problems even are, how big an impact each particular problem causes, and what the proper changes should be. In the meantime, other tools have to be utilized.
By the time one gets to college or a profession, acceptance of an unqualified or lesser qualified candidate based on group identity does no one any real favors. Plus it’s bigoted. We are never going to have identical space-time paths for each individual.
Sure is bigoted to assume before hand that that will be the case. The reality is that unless you assume that the ones that finish the courses and still get good grades are still “tainted” somehow. But just because you think they are still “tainted” is not a good argument.
Thanks It’s nice talking with you, too. Sorry it’s taken me so long to get back.
I do…kinda. However, before I go into further detail, I’d like to ask you to clarify something for me. My understanding of your argument is that, if it’s indeed true that we can’t draw a clean line between good and bad cancellations, we therefore can’t objectively call any cancellation a “bad” cancellation. Do I have that right? I’d just like to make sure before I go into any more detail because otherwise we might end up talking past each other. Thanks.
Yeah, but it’s “If I Ran The Zoo” that’s the problem.
My sister is a children’s librarian, and said this issue has been discussed for some time within their community. She showed my an online copy. It depicts traveling around the world top collect exotic beasts that make normal animals seem plain and boring. It shows, for example, a camellike beat with multiple humps - I forget how many, but let’s say ten. It describes them as being ridden by the locals who are a characature of a middle easterner. Ok. Then he describes putting the “camel” in his zoo, and one of the camel riders, too. Haha, let’s put an Arab in the zoo as an exhibit.
He gets the local people to help collect the animals. Then we come to this African tufted bird, and the locals who wear their hair tufted like the bird. Haha. Except the depiction of these locals do not look human. It looks like two big apes. The bodies are somewhat human, but the faces are not. It makes blackface look almost accurate by comparison. I would not have recognized that as being people.
Not goofy people shapes like Whos or the Grinch, but straight up gorilla faces.
And this is the thing. I remember in the 1980s, the vile racist jokes that were considered acceptable. Kids would tell these, and parents would tell these, and fucking movies would tell these. We moved past that, thank god. You better believe there are certain movies I’m not going to show kids unless it’s as part of a discussion of changing social norms around issues of racial prejudice.
Why on earth wouldn’t we curate books the same way?
If Dr. Seuss were the only source of funny rhymes and engaging pictures, that’d be one thing. But we live in an age of plenty: we have so many excellent children’s books out there, we don’t need ones mired in the worst impulses of the 1950s.
Apropos of this thread, I’ve been fairly disgusted by the racial attitudes in the book Islandia (Austin Tappan Wright). Ursula LeGuin wrote about this book in several of her essays, so I decided to read it based on her recommendation. Holy cow, the racism!
On this fictional continent, the “baddies” are the Negroes with their scary black faces. It was written in the first couple of decades of the 20th C. (he was an amateur writer who spent years on the book), so I understand the cultural issues of that time, but, man, it slaps me in the face every time I see one of those descriptions.
No, I think it must be pretty easy to hypothesize extreme cases that would be pretty much unanimously (even if not “objectively”, a theoretical standard that’s very difficult to meet) condemned as “bad” cancellations.
Example: Somebody says “I like peanut butter” and a wokemob goes ballistic about “This person is trying to get us all killed from deadly allergic reactions to peanuts! Murderer! Monster!!”. That would be generally accepted as a “bad cancellation”, I think.
But just because it’s easy to tell red from blue at opposite ends of a spectrum doesn’t mean that we’ll be equally successful in distinguishing between various shades of purple towards the middle of the spectrum. It seems very unlikely to me that distinguishing between “good cancellation” and “bad cancellation” along the lines you propose could be reliably accomplished except in those extreme sorts of cases.
I think that it is entirely up to the individuals. There is no “mob”. There is only a group of individuals making individual decisions.
There may be some crazy guy that gets mad because you like peanut butter, but they are an outlier, and not going to get you “cancelled”. It is only when a large number of individuals make an individual decision to be against something that anyone starts to take notice.
When I was a kid (80s too) I read books called “Truly Tasteless Jokes”. There was a series of them. I thought they were funny at the time (and in retrospect some of the jokes were, the non-offensive ones that were just silly) but many jokes were flat-out racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or whatever. The book reveled in knowing that the jokes were bad, and at the time I thought that even the offensive ones were okay because they were jokes and the ideas behind the jokes (the stereotypes and all) were ridiculous so no harm. I certainly never thought they represented anything real.
But now I know that’s not true. A joke denigrating a class of person is going to offend and hurt people. Some other idiot’s going to probably think even though it’s a joke but there must be truth behind it. I’d never repeat those jokes and I don’t find them funny anymore. I certainly have never exposed my kids to that kind of humor. It is not harmless at all.
I’m sure that’s true, but the specific way they denied transgenderism in this case was to make the boy wrestle girls, and he dominated the field.
Their alternatives probably include (a) not allowing him hormone treatment, or (b) not allowing him to wrestle.
Fuck you with a cactus, you shitstain.
I’ve tried to remain polite, to be civil, to give you the benefit of the doubt, to respect that other people have different views. I’ve defended conservatives on this board when I’ve felt them unfairly attacked. I rarely pit anyone.
Your attitude with that remark demonstrates as strongly as anything you’ve said that you really are just a whiny, selfish, inconsiderate, rude, obnoxious “traditional” racist with no value to the board. If you had a scintilla of compassion, or understanding, or respect for others, or even basic courtesy, you would make the tiniest effort to listen and understand about the history of how whites mistreat blacks. You would acknowledge that someone might misunderstand your casual use of a diminutive because you think you’re older than everyone here (if that’s your intent).
I realize you might have specific animosity toward Mr. Dibble, an ongoing difference of opinion that has led to mutual disrespect and insultfests. I realize you have no reason to care how he feels about anything. But you whine about “virtue signaling”. Well guess what - you are just as much signaling your “virtue”, what you consider important and what you dismiss as meaningless. Your words and your behavior are just as much signs that you don’t care about casual racism. If you were inadvertently doing something taken out of context, you would make the slightest effort to acknowledge it.
Instead, you blow off concerns with a dismissive selfish whine. You prove without a doubt that you really are a racist prick.
I’m not one to yell “racism” everywhere. I give alternative interpretations consideration. I had a dispute in a thread about the cops in Texas who walked a black man using a rope to control him while they were on horseback, where I disputed any racist intent by their behavior. I’m a white man who has previously held similar opinions to conservatives on several topics, such as transgenderism or illegal immigration. I have listened to friends explain their beliefs about, say, the Confederate flag and what it means to them, or kneeling during the national anthem, and done so with respect and continued friendship.
But you make that impossible. You either are a racist, or want to seem like one to bolster your persecution complex. If you ever had value to this board, that time has long past. You are a walking, talking typing stereotype of conservative ideals. You think you are edgy and defending freedom of ideas and expression and speech, but you’re just an obnoxious troll out to irritate and frustrate as many liberals as you can.
I’ll look forward to seeing you in Hell. At least I’ll have some consolation knowing you deserve to be there.
[French Oceanographer]
And of course, weeth zat reply, zat only shows a fear of dealeeng weeth creeticeesm. We see zat ze mollusk continues to be a Gallus gallus dahmesteecus.
[FO]
[French Oceanographer]
(Looking at reply)
It has zo be zaid that he ees cute when sinkeeng zat ze reply to him wahs not comptent zat was well earned mahny times ahlready.
[FO]
Even in the Pit, people generally try to keep their insults non-racist in nature. Calling Irishman or any other poster “snowflake” is well within Pit tradition, but calling MrDibble or any other black man “son” is a hole that IMHO you really need to stop digging in. As I originally pointed out over 350 posts ago.
There’s no shame in apologizing for having been a little too gross for once, even in the Pit.
It’s nice talking with you, too. Sorry it’s taken me so long to get back.