MAGA

[*bfine32*]

(07-16-2019, 03:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not feeling attacked by being willing to stand up for those who are is frowned upon also.

(07-16-2019, 04:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: Please stay on topic.  Eventually these personal attacks are going to get someone suspended.  

(07-16-2019, 04:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: Enough with the personal attacks.

(07-17-2019, 09:03 AM)GMDino Wrote: Unless the question of what MAGA means can be answered maybe this thread should go away before it gets "personal".

(07-17-2019, 09:26 AM)GMDino Wrote: The rest is personal attacks...you get numb to it after awhile. 

Rest assured no one is frowning at you.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-16-2019, 09:36 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL I get it. No one's going to stop you from "calling out racism."  My concern is to get you to demonstrate what you are calling out. It does make me "uncomfortable" when you go around calling other MB members racist but can't be troubled to account for your special sight.

Examples have been given.  You're seriously a broken record on endless repeat

Quote:My point about comments added to a picture, or not, was to indicate how context is an important feature of interpretation. Posting a picture of white people is not . . . wait for it . . . inherently racist.  I didn't make up the term "reverse racism," which I agree doesn't exist. It does refer to a kind of behavior which does exist, though, and has been studied, measured and mapped for for several decades now.  And I see no problem with using a poster's past history to decode a present post. Otherwise how would people recognize my parodies for parodies. But you and I see a very different "history" in Dino's past posts for example, one which leads you to egregiously misread them (example below).

Posting a picture using ugly, racial stereotypes is racist.  I wonder if you'd feel the same if someone posted a picture of a muslim family with a 13 year old child bride in a burka, a son with a suicide vest on, the severed head of a journalist on the table and a Yazidi sex slave locked in a cage in the corner?  Somehow I think your response would be different.  Or would such a picture be recognized as "parody"?

Quote:There would be a "special category" that only applies when such behavior is directed at white people in a country where white people have traditionally dominated non-white people, in law and through institutions.  Could be a special category for (non-white) Japanese in Japan, where a transplanted racial criteria have been operative in policy since the Meiji restoration. You've not looked into this, read any definitions, research and yet your heels are all dug in?

Nope.  You're either against racism or you're not.  There is no special category for anyone.  You're an excellent example of why racism will continue to be a problem in this country.  Their are racists who actually believe other races are inferior and their are racists who believe others deserve ill treatment due to historical wrongs.  You land firmly in the latter camp and it's honestly quite sad.

Quote:Making derogatory comments or "mocking and treating others as lesser" is bad when targeted at race. But you don't mind denigrating or mocking or otherwise treating as "lesser" the people on this MB when they disagree with you?

Not in the slightest.  "Targeting" an individual for who they are as a person is fine.

Quote:This leads us to a problem with your "exceedingly simple set of rules":

The example of Dino's gif isn't exceedingly simple. You call him a "racist" for no good reason that I can see. He posts a gif mocking white people who complain they are persecuted as a race by those cruel others--i.e., who complain about reverse racism. That is not mocking "the white race" or treating any race as lesser or whatever. Nor is there a "racial stereotype" involved. It is just a cartoon picture mocking a subset of whiners who define themselves as racial victims in a country where they never have been, and at at time when many white Americans believe they are anyway.

 
Dino's gif wasn't what started it.   What started it was his racist statement about white men.  The gif is merely a later example.  Ohh wait, he was engaging in "parody" huh?

Quote:So NOT racism. In fact the opposite. 

According to you.  As I find your logic in this area to be fatally flawed I utterly repudiate your assertion.

Quote:And so you went wrong applying your exceeding simple set of rules to Dino's gif to produce an example of racism.  "White" plus "race" plus Dino does not automatically equate to racism.

You went wrong when you decided to ignore racist behavior because you believe it somehow rights historical wrongs.  Like I said, I actually feel a bit bad for you.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-17-2019, 09:26 AM)GMDino Wrote: "reverse personal attacks" is just SSF's cute way of saying there is no "reverse racism"

Quote:...only racism since he doesn't like the phrase "reverse racism".

Only a racist would. 

[Belsnickel]

(07-17-2019, 11:07 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

Only a racist would. 

Yeah, I'm with SSF on this. Reverse racism isn't a thing. It's just plain old racism.

[GMDino]

(07-17-2019, 12:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, I'm with SSF on this. Reverse racism isn't a thing. It's just plain old racism.

Yep. But I don't think "only a racist" would use the term.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-17-2019, 12:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yep. But I don't think "only a racist" would use the term.

Who else but a racist would try and mitigate, minimize or downplay racism against a certain group?

[GMDino]

(07-17-2019, 12:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Who else but a racist would try and mitigate, minimize or downplay racism against a certain group?

Republicans defending Trump? 

[Dill]

(07-17-2019, 11:05 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Examples have been given.  You're seriously a broken record on endless repeat

Posting a picture using ugly, racial stereotypes is racist.  I wonder if you'd feel the same if someone posted a picture of a muslim family with a 13 year old child bride in a burka, a son with a suicide vest on, the severed head of a journalist on the table and a Yazidi sex slave locked in a cage in the corner?  Somehow I think your response would be different.  Or would such a picture be recognized as "parody"?

More "just is."  And if the point of your Muslim family example were to denigrate Muslims in general then yes, that would be bad. But not if it were framed as a parody of right wing stereotypes. No.  

I have had to repeat requests for evidence of Dino's racism yes. And I managed to get at least a preliminary definition out of you as well.  But your definition doesn't apply to my image or Dino's, since neither was "denigrating a race."  To make your definition consistent with your critique, you would have to argue that any depiction of white people is in itself racist, regardless of intent or context. That is the definition you are using, not the one you stated.  Bad news for Normal Rockwell.

This appears akin to the logic of many religious fundamentalism which ban images regardless of context or intent. No "parody" in their book.

(07-17-2019, 11:05 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nope.  You're either against racism or you're not.  There is no special category for anyone.  You're an excellent example of why racism will continue to be a problem in this country.  Their are racists who actually believe other races are inferior and their are racists who believe others deserve ill treatment due to historical wrongs.  You land firmly in the latter camp and it's honestly quite sad.

Perhaps one is indeed "against racism or not," but people evidently don't just "see" it or not, however much they may think they do. They disagree about what counts as an example, about what it is.  They define it very differently. In that case, people who research the grounds of these differences are not why "racism will continue to be a problem." 

And now your preliminary definition raises some questions, because the one you gave--belief that other races are inferior--is not really the one you are applying to me and Dino. The extension of "racism" has been expanded now to include people who "believe others deserve ill treatment due to historical wrongs."   Doesn't sound like that has anything to do with race, unless the historical wrongs were based on racism-as-belief-other-races-are-inferior. In that case your extension describes a critique of racism than racism.

So is the claim that Dino and I think others "deserve" ill treatment? And the claim would be based upon images of whites we have posted which were critical of racist-inspired "historical wrongs"?  We are directing racism at whites? But "reverse racism" doesn't exist--so our critique of racism can't itself be racist, even on your terms, can it?   

(07-17-2019, 11:05 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not in the slightest.  "Targeting" an individual for who they are as a person is fine.

Because they are "inferior"? Speechless. almost.  Making ethical arguments, one usually proceeds from individual to group. Bad to mistreat individuals, and so bad to mistreat a whole class of them.  Hard to get to the latter from "targeting individuals for personal attack is fine."

(07-17-2019, 11:05 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dino's gif wasn't what started it.   What started it was his racist statement about white men.  The gif is merely a later example.  Ohh wait, he was engaging in "parody" huh?

According to you.  As I find your logic in this area to be fatally flawed I utterly repudiate your assertion.

You went wrong when you decided to ignore racist behavior because you believe it somehow rights historical wrongs.  Like I said, I actually feel a bit bad for you.

People who personally attack others don't really "feel bad" about the people they target.

Still haven't seen Dino's racist statement about white men, but I suspect it doesn't meet the test of your preliminary definition.

LOL you can "repudiate" my argument, but you cannot refute it. You cannot identify any "fatal flaw."   

Dino and I have decided to critique racist behavior, not ignore it. And you have decided to critique us as "reverse racists"--while claiming there is no such thing as reverse racism.

Looks like progress. We see you are deploying two definitions here, alternating them to suit the moment and the target--one for defense, the other for attack. You cannot refute my argument that Dino's image neither addresses nor denigrates "the white race," but you nevertheless "repudiate" it without giving reasons. 

The question now is, are you going to continue repeating that criticism of racism is itself "racism" without addressing/refuting any of the objections I have raised?  If I reference these new questions of definition/refutation in a future post, will you claim that you have "already addressed them" and you are not going to repeat yourself?

[*bfine32*]

(07-16-2019, 03:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: I never said "such activity does not exist". 

I guess not feeling like a victim but being willing to stand for those who are is frowned upon is some parts.

Not feeling attacked by being willing to stand up for those who are is frowned upon also.

(07-17-2019, 01:48 PM)Dill Wrote: More "just is."  And if the point of your Muslim family example were to denigrate Muslims in general then yes, that would be bad. But not if it were framed as a parody of right wing stereotypes. No.  

I have had to repeat requests for evidence of Dino's racism yes. And I managed to get at least a preliminary definition out of you as well.  But your definition doesn't apply to my image or Dino's, since neither was "denigrating a race."  To make your definition consistent with your critique, you would have to argue that any depiction of white people is in itself racist, regardless of intent or context. That is the definition you are using, not the one you stated.  Bad news for Normal Rockwell.

This appears akin to the logic of many religious fundamentalism which ban images regardless of context or intent. No "parody" in their book.


Perhaps one is indeed "against racism or not," but people evidently don't just "see" it or not, however much they may think they do. They disagree about what counts as an example, about what it is.  They define it very differently. In that case, people who research the grounds of these differences are not why "racism will continue to be a problem." 

And now your preliminary definition raises some questions, because the one you gave--belief that other races are inferior--is not really the one you are applying to me and Dino. The extension of "racism" has been expanded now to include people who "believe others deserve ill treatment due to historical wrongs."   Doesn't sound like that has anything to do with race, unless the historical wrongs were based on racism-as-belief-other-races-are-inferior. In that case your extension describes a critique of racism than racism.

So is the claim that Dino and I think others "deserve" ill treatment? And the claim would be based upon images of whites we have posted which were critical of racist-inspired "historical wrongs"?  We are directing racism at whites? But "reverse racism" doesn't exist--so our critique of racism can't itself be racist, even on your terms, can it?   


Because they are "inferior"? Speechless. almost.  Making ethical arguments, one usually proceeds from individual to group. Bad to mistreat individuals, and so bad to mistreat a whole class of them.  Hard to get to the latter from "targeting individuals for personal attack is fine."

People who personally attack others don't really "feel bad" about the people they target.

Still haven't seen Dino's racist statement about white men, but I suspect it doesn't meet the test of your preliminary definition.

LOL you can "repudiate" my argument, but you cannot refute it. You cannot identify any "fatal flaw."   

Dino and I have decided to critique racist behavior, not ignore it. And you have decided to critique us as "reverse racists"--while claiming there is no such thing as reverse racism.

Looks like progress. We see you are deploying two definitions here, alternating them to suit the moment and the target--one for defense, the other for attack. You cannot refute my argument that Dino's image neither addresses nor denigrates "the white race," but you nevertheless "repudiate" it without giving reasons. 

The question now is, are you going to continue repeating that criticism of racism is itself "racism" without addressing/refuting any of the objections I have raised?  If I reference these new questions of definition/refutation in a future post, will you claim that you have "already addressed them" and you are not going to repeat yourself?

Read your hero's commentary in the OP of the The Carlson thread and tell me that is not degrading a race

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-16-2019, 02:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: Certainly not superior to everyone.  Don't know where you would get that.  

I just don't look for racism in everything.  .

And I certainly don't look for racism against me or my color, religion or sex.  When you are in the majority you can take it a little better since there isn't much that can be done to you as a group.  I don't see white, male christians suffering anything other than some words from people who try to lump us all into a racist group when many of us are not.

But if I see racism against others I'll certainly point it out rather than try to find a way to defend it because of political reasons.

Sure you don't, so then why is it that all Trump Supporters are racists? And you almost always pop blanket statements out there and belittle people a lot?

Just like your little gif about the "don't forget about the white people". That post immediately insults the poster(s) it was directed at and shuts down open communication and starts the personal attacks, however you believe you didn't start it, but you do quite often.

Its really why I don't respond to many of your posts, you're just baiting people so you can call them racists and put them down for no reason other than they are "Trump" supporters or supporters of something you are against.

(07-16-2019, 02:36 PM)jj22 Wrote: I'm still waiting for those stereotypes that reflect on White Americans of all classes...….. Because again, no matter what class, black and brown people aren't immune to ours.

The majority race has to be careful wanting so bad to experience the plight of the minority. But I think everyone should spend a day in black/brown face. It will open some eyes to the struggle (or adopt a black/brown kid and see their experience first hand).

That may be the only way they see it.

I have, I grew up with 2 cousins who were half black half white in the 70's. We lived in a poor section of town and the local blacks wouldn't even accept them cause they weren't black enough. And well me? I had to learn to defend myself fast, They would gang up on me and take my stuff and beat me up for no reason other than that I was a "speck of salt in a pepper shaker". Now you would think that I'd be inherently racist towards black people and have a logical reason, but I'm not. I have really good life long black friends. What I don't put up with is people of any color that are constantly negative about others (race/gender etc).

(07-17-2019, 01:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: Republicans defending Trump? 

Oh surprise hiding your racism as a parody/gif again.

[GMDino]

(07-17-2019, 02:00 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Sure you don't, so then why is it that all Trump Supporters are racists? And you almost always pop blanket statements out there and belittle people a lot?

Did I ever say all Trump supporters are racist without a ? If so please provide that.

(07-17-2019, 02:00 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Just like your little gif about the "don't forget about the white people". That post immediately insults the poster(s) it was directed at and shuts down open communication and starts the personal attacks, however you believe you didn't start it, but you do quite often.

Yes I think white people as a race tend to too easily offended given their power, control and stature in society for centuries so I get a giggle out of people demanding white people get more attention in threads about racism directed at others.

(07-17-2019, 02:00 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Its really why I don't respond to many of your posts, you're just baiting people so you can call them racists and put them down for no reason other than they are "Trump" supporters or supporters of something you are against.

Interesting theory. Wrong, but interesting.

(07-17-2019, 02:00 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Oh surprise hiding your racism as a parody/gif again.

Does anyone have a sense of humor anymore?

[*bfine32*]

(07-17-2019, 02:24 PM)GMDino Wrote: Does anyone have a sense of humor anymore?  

I do. Stop me if you've heard it: A Mexican, a black guy, and a jew walk into a bar.....

[GMDino]

(07-17-2019, 02:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do. Stop me if you've heard it: A Mexican, a black guy, and a jew walk into a bar.....

...go on....



All seriousness aside those jokes were very funny...in their time. So was blackface I hear.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-17-2019, 01:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: Republicans defending Trump? 

You realize that statement infers that those people aren't racist?

(07-17-2019, 01:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Read your hero's commentary in the OP of the The Carlson thread and tell me that is not degrading a race

He's been told several times.  He knows exactly what we're talking about but acknowledging it would be admitting he's wrong, which he will never do.  We probably need to call it a day and realize he's comfortable with something that we are not.

[GMDino]

(07-17-2019, 02:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You realize that statement infers that those people aren't racist?

You realize what means?

(07-17-2019, 02:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: He's been told several times.  He knows exactly what we're talking about but acknowledging it would be admitting he's wrong, which he will never do.  We probably need to call it a day and realize he's comfortable with something that we are not.

All seriousness aside: Why not just SAY what you are talking about instead of going all Zodiac Killer ciphers?

[Belsnickel]

(07-17-2019, 02:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You realize that statement implies that those people aren't racist?

[*bfine32*]

(07-17-2019, 02:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: He's been told several times.  He knows exactly what we're talking about but acknowledging it would be admitting he's wrong, which he will never do.  We probably need to call it a day and realize he's comfortable with something that we are not.

We are all guilty of that from time to time here and it's because there are"sides" in this forum. Then we turn around and curse those whose job it is to take sides

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-17-2019, 03:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: You realize what   means?

Sorry I was too distracted by your attempting to be clever with a jpg or gif.

Quote:

Like clockwork.

Quote:All seriousness aside:  Why not just SAY what you are talking about instead of going all Zodiac Killer ciphers?

I have, several times.  Oddly enough only you and Dill can't seem to find them. 

[GMDino]

(07-17-2019, 05:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sorry I was too distracted by your attempting to be clever with a jpg or gif.





Like clockwork.




I have, several times.  Oddly enough only you and Dill can't seem to find them. 

Quote them. Maybe we're "too distracted" to notice. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-17-2019, 03:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We are all guilty of that from time to time here and it's because there are"sides" in this forum. Then we turn around and curse those whose job it is to take sides

True, it's often hard to admit you're wrong, especially when you've really dug your heels in on an issue.  Amusingly enough, I am accused of engaging in said activity when I've very publicly acknowledged being wrong on more than one occasion.  Some of us appear to have a border line pathological need to deflect.