Alienated America

[GMDino]

(03-05-2019, 03:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, you mean "blow back" in the sense that people were offended or commented on it.  If that's the case then literally everything that happens in this country now generates "blow back" as there's always someone that's going to be offended or had their feelings hurt.  I'm referring to actual "blow back" in the sense that the event generates media attention, wide spread outrage, calls for people to be fired, calls for a boycott or, in the most extreme examples, actual violence.




It is certainly true that the larger the target the more often it's going to be hit.  I think you're missing the specific point being made though, that being that a similar event coopting the imagery and symbolism of Judaism or Islam would never have been put forth in the first place.  Certainly not by any mainstream organization and certainly no event attended by high profile celebrities.



Honestly, I'm fine with respect or disrespect regardless of the institution.  What I must insist upon is a consistency of view and reaction that is not predicated on the group being targeted, i.e. you can make fun of white protestants, transgender Hispanics or Buddhist Asians.  No group should be above ridicule and no group should be able to claim exemption or a special form of outrage.  Logical consistency is all I'm asking for, and I'm pretty sure that was Sunset's point as well, if I may be so bold as to speak for him.

Totally agree with that.  And I don't mind of the targeted group doesn't like it and wants to clapback either.  But no one is above being questioned/mocked/poked fun of.

[fredtoast]

(03-05-2019, 01:06 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

So who were the "weak men" who ruined the "good times" produced by Stalin Mussolini, and Hitler?

BTW what makes this image so disturbing to me is that the "strong man" is portrayed doing this



The image even has on the same hat.

Where did you find this?

[fredtoast]

(03-05-2019, 12:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Interesting thing to consider...

Bias against Muslims: Islamaphobe
Bias against Jewish: Anti-Semitism
Bias against Christians:

(I'm not religious myself, but it's interesting to think about how certain groups are considered free game while others are really sensitive subjects to criticize.)

Not sure what your point is.  Fill in the blank with "Anti-Christian".  It is one of the most common terms on the most watched news network in the country.

The funny thing is that accusations of "anti-Christian" activity usually involve just treating Christianity the same as all other religions instead of giving them special treatment.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2019, 04:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So who were the "weak men" who ruined the "good times" produced by Stalin Mussolini, and Hitler?

I think it's rather obvious that the WW2 generation would be the hard times making strong men portion.

Quote:BTW what makes this image so disturbing to me is that the "strong man" is portrayed doing this



The image even has on the same hat.

You notice the soldier in the top image is making the same gesture right?  He's pointing forward.  I absolutely knew someone would try and make a NAZI comparison though, thanks for not disappointing.

Quote:Where did you find this?

GM asked a similar question earlier, which is confusing given that the internets is not a new phenomena.  It's called google images, Fred.

[fredtoast]

(03-05-2019, 01:06 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: At the risk of sounding like an alarmist who kvetches about supposed bias I have to agree with this.  Take the recent "fashion week" theme of Christianity.



I honestly don't care about this at all, but imagine the shitstorm if this was done with Judaism.  We all know why no one would do this with Islam.

The only people you can blame for the lack of a "shit storm" are Christians.  They are an overwhelming majority in this country.  If they want to create a shitstorm no one can stop them.

Did not know that you followed the fashion industry, SSF. Maybe we have more in common than I thought.

[fredtoast]

(03-05-2019, 04:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think it's rather obvious that the WW2 generation would be the hard times making strong men portion.

But I was asking about the "good times" created by the "strong men" Hitler Mussolini, and Stalin.

My point is that your diagram is flawed.  Sometimes "strong men" make very "bad times"

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2019, 04:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The only people you can blame for the lack of a "shit storm" are Christians.  They are an overwhelming majority in this country.  If they want to create a shitstorm no one can stop them.

Oh Fred, we both know that's not true.

Quote:Did not know that you followed the fashion industry, SSF. Maybe we have more in common than I thought.

I don't really.  I did watch Project Runway with my sister for the first four or five seasons.

[fredtoast]

(03-05-2019, 04:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh Fred, we both know that's not true.

Actually, I don't.

Who is stopping them?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2019, 04:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But I was asking about the "good times" created by the "strong men" Hitler Mussolini, and Stalin.

Yeah, you're still not getting it.  The good times were created by the men who helped defeat the Axis.  Unless you were a big fan of theirs, which is new information about you.

Quote:My point is that your diagram is flawed.  Sometimes "strong men" make very "bad times"

I don't consider Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin to be "strong men".  I view them as weak men with power, not the same thing.  Again, your admiration for these three horrible despots is quite the revelation.

[CJD]

(03-05-2019, 12:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Interesting thing to consider...

Bias against Muslims: Islamaphobe
Bias against Jewish: Anti-Semitism
Bias against Christians:

(I'm not religious myself, but it's interesting to think about how certain groups are considered free game while others are really sensitive subjects to criticize.)

I think it's similar to the reasons that a movie like White Chicks can exist and is generally accepted by society but if a college kid wears blackface they are expelled from school (or if a Governor wore  blackface 30 years ago, they are pressured to step down. Or if a talk show host says black face was fine around Halloween when she was a child, she'll get fired).

There's an argument that racism is, in a lot of ways, systemic and based on power. You (arguably) can't be racist towards the group at the top of the totem pole (note: you can be prejudiced towards them. They're different terms). 

Alternatively, people are a lot less sensitive towards racism if your race has never seen significant subjugation at any time in World (or, possibly, your country's) history.  Under this consideration, there is virtually no time in world history where white people were subjugated to racism or oppression, therefore you can't really systematically oppress them.

Well, Christianity is basically the white people of religion. It has been dominant across the globe since (relatively) shortly after its inception and it has done a lot of the religious oppression (or colonization and forcing of religious views on natives etc) throughout the years. There may have been periods where they were oppressed, but for centuries they've been the main religion of America and a large portion of Europe.

I'm not saying that it's correct or just that these are the views a lot of people have with White People and, by extension, Christianity. I also am not 100% sure that whites or Christians have never been oppressed (though I can't think of anything at the moment). They certainly haven't in the last century or two, at the very least. But it is something I've noticed when it comes to those topics.

It's a lot easier to be the butt of a joke when your group has been the "top dog" for centuries or millennia.

[fredtoast]

(03-05-2019, 04:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, you're still not getting it.  The good times were created by the men who helped defeat the Axis.  Unless you were a big fan of theirs, which is new information about you.


I don't consider Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin to be "strong men".  I view them as weak men with power, not the same thing.  Again, your admiration for these three horrible despots is quite the revelation.

Oh I see the problem now.  You think that your opinion defines all discourse, and you simply are not educated enough to realize that many people refer to leaders like Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as "strong men".  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2019, 04:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Oh I see the problem now.  You think that your opinion defines all discourse, and you simply are not educated enough to realize that many people refer to leaders like Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as "strong men".  

No, Fred, I'm an uneducated prole.  I am also completely unconcerned with the opinions of anyone who would define any of those three vile human beings as "strong men".  Lastly, please endeavor to find ways of disagreement that don't involve belittling the intellect of the person you're speaking to.  My thanks in advance.

[CJD]

(03-01-2019, 09:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The Balkanization of the US has a lot to do with the recent advent of opposing political views making a person "evil".  Two prime examples;

1. Abortion: If you are pro choice then you kill children and advocate moral degeneracy.  If you're pro life then you're a misogynist who wants to enact a real life Handmaids Tale.

2. Gun ownership: If you're pro 2A then you're compensating for inadequate manhood, you're a redneck with delusions of grandeur about taking on "tyranny" and you kill children (notice how "the children" comes up a lot on both sides?).  If you're anti-2A then you're anti-American and want to disarm the populace so you can enact your tyrannical rules while you wipe your ass with the Constitution.


I could make a similar list for other hot topics such as illegal immigration, social programs and law enforcement.  Point being, people used to be able to respectfully disagree, now extremism is becoming the norm.  Extremism begets more extremism.  We desperately need a rational, even tempered moderate POTUS, and soon, if we're going to stop this self-perpetuating cycle.

You know, the interesting thing about today's Politics is I think they've improved my view of Republicans.

Not Trump sycophants (or extreme fanatics, I suppose), mind you. But actual Republicans. The pro-life, pro 2nd amendment, pro small government, pro low taxes Republicans.

When I was growing up in the George W Bush years, I was convinced (arguably, propagandized) into thinking that all Republcans were racist. All Republicans were sexist. All Republicans were immoral millionaires who's only concern was keeping their money and to hell with anyone else who may need help in this country (or people tricked into voting that way by immoral millionaires).

I've spoken to many many many Republicans over the last 3 years. And I've learned that, while there are those people and they do exist, there are also a lot of Republicans who vote that way for the aforementioned reasons. I have my reasons for voting Democratic, despite their characteristic flaws. And there are Republicans who are exactly the same in that regard.

A Republican voter may disagree with the lack of corporate tax and increasingly steep tax cuts that are increasing the deficit (along with the inordinate amount of money spent on wars and other imperialistic ventures), but they are also a Catholic and believe that abortion is a hell worthy offense. 

Or there may be a Republican who disagrees that immigrants are the reason our economy is a mess (whether it is or is not) and is not all that concerned with immigration reform, but they really care about their rights to owning a gun.

You don't need to agree with every stance of your party in order to vote with them.

Of course, there are also Republicans who just really really hate black people, gays and trans people. And, to be fair, there are Democrats who feel that way as well.

But my view of Republicans, as a whole, has generally improved over the last few years. All they have to do is say "Trump is a terrible person" and I at least know we're on the same wavelength, as human beings.

[fredtoast]

(03-05-2019, 04:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, Fred, I'm an uneducated prole.  I am also completely unconcerned with the opinions of anyone who would define any of those three vile human beings as "strong men".  Lastly, please endeavor to find ways of disagreement that don't involve belittling the intellect of the person you're speaking to.  My thanks in advance.

Sorry for any offense, but it is just frustrating to try and have any sort of discussion with a person who has his own secret definitions that none of us know.  


How do you expect us to understand anything you try to say when we are used to using commonly accepted definitions that other people use to communicate their ideas?

[Dill]

(03-05-2019, 04:36 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I'm not saying that it's correct or just that these are the views a lot of people have with White People and, by extension, Christianity. I also am not 100% sure that whites or Christians have never been oppressed (though I can't think of anything at the moment). They certainly haven't in the last century or two, at the very least. But it is something I've noticed when it comes to those topics.

You didn't go to Sunday School!

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-05-2019, 07:37 PM)Dill Wrote: You didn't go to Sunday School!

.....or know anything about the coal fields of Appalachia, or prejudice against Scots-Irish.

[CJD]

(03-05-2019, 07:37 PM)Dill Wrote: You didn't go to Sunday School!

Well, to be fair, the Roman empire eventually converted to Christianity haha. I'd say that is a pretty big victory for the Christians

[CJD]

(03-06-2019, 03:11 AM)Wyche Wrote: .....or know anything about the coal fields of Appalachia, or prejudice against Scots-Irish.

You're right that I don't know anything about the coal fields of Appalachia.

I'm not sure how the Scots-Irish prejudice relates to my post though.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-06-2019, 08:40 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: You're right that I don't know anything about the coal fields of Appalachia.

I'm not sure how the Scots-Irish prejudice relates to my post though.

People were shot over wanting safe working conditions and decent pay during the strikes, all the way into the 1970s.  There's a lot more to the story than that, and it's actually very interesting if you're into history. Forced to live in company housing and buy from the company stores, most miners wound up essentially working for room and board, and little else, and the companies got all of that money too. I don't want to seem to be diminishing what happened before the Emancipation Proclamation, but this was essentially legalized slavery in a sense.  Not to mention that the native landowners were ignorant to the value of their land when the coal barons showed up and ripped them off for their mineral rights. It's akin to the European settlers buying native lands for beads. 

Once the industrialists to the north got what they wanted out of the ground, they've abandoned these communities and left them with little from the boom days but debt, pollution, and dwindling opportunity. These people fueled the Industrial Revolution and the WWII war machine, and have largely been left to wallow in poverty and ridicule.

I just threw the Scots-Irish in because you mentioned white folks hadn't seen any oppression or the like. For some odd reason, there was a lot of prejudice and hate towards that group.

[CJD]

(03-06-2019, 08:59 AM)Wyche Wrote: People were shot over wanting safe working conditions and decent pay during the strikes, all the way into the 1970s.  There's a lot more to the story than that, and it's actually very interesting if you're into history. Forced to live in company housing and buy from the company stores, most miners wound up essentially working for room and board, and little else, and the companies got all of that money too. I don't want to seem to be diminishing what happened before the Emancipation Proclamation, but this was essentially legalized slavery in a sense.  Not to mention that the native landowners were ignorant to the value of their land when the coal barons showed up and ripped them off for their mineral rights. It's akin to the European settlers buying native lands for beads. 

Once the industrialists to the north got what they wanted out of the ground, they've abandoned these communities and left them with little from the boom days but debt, pollution, and dwindling opportunity. These people fueled the Industrial Revolution and the WWII war machine, and have largely been left to wallow in poverty and ridicule.

I just threw the Scots-Irish in because you mentioned white folks hadn't seen any oppression or the like. For some odd reason, there was a lot of prejudice and hate towards that group.

I didn't know that. That's tragic. What allowed the coal people to treat them like that? I can't believe they didn't break some sort of law or regulation. Or was it just that the laws had not caught up to their tactics at that time?

As for the Scots and Irish, the point I was making was mostly that whites, as a race, were not oppressed for any significant period of time. Not necessarily that any group of people who were white had never been oppressed. The Irish were oppressed by other whites, so it'd be difficult for white people to claim that oppression as a race related thing. It's more of a heritage based thing (white face like in White Chicks is not heritage specific after all).