Bipartisan Exercise

[treee]

(08-30-2016, 08:09 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Not just Black, but oppositional to authority, completely given over to street culture, no regard for human life black.

Let's get it right..

(08-30-2016, 10:05 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: We should just go ahead and ban all words that have any negative connotation, as they're just going to end up being used by racists.



Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

The use of thug is highly contextual. A black man saying to another black man "what up thug?" is completely different than a non-black person saying "a bunch of thugs out on the streets rioting and causing trouble." The first is used in friendly manner, where as the latter (one could argue) has strong racial undertones. Some even go as far as to say that "thug" is the new N-word. And depending on the context, I think that is a strong point.

To all posters in this thread, it is starting to devolve into something less that what I was hoping for so I'll ask you try your best to avoid partisan remarks and contribute to the discussion on hand. Otherwise I'll probably just ask the mods to delete the it.

[Rotobeast]

(08-31-2016, 12:16 AM)treee Wrote: The use of thug is highly contextual. A black man saying to another black man "what up thug?" is completely different than a non-black person saying "a bunch of thugs out on the streets rioting and causing trouble." The first is used in friendly manner, where as the latter (one could argue) has strong racial undertones. Some even go as far as to say that "thug" is the new N-word. And depending on the context, I think that is a strong point.

To all posters in this thread, it is starting to devolve into something less that what I was hoping for so I'll ask you try your best to avoid partisan remarks and contribute to the discussion on hand. Otherwise I'll probably just ask the mods to delete the it.

My apologies for not sticking to the format of the OP.
I'll attempt a proper post, tomorrow.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[treee]

(08-31-2016, 12:49 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: My apologies for not sticking to the format of the OP.
I'll attempt a proper post, tomorrow.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Appreciate it Roto. Looking forward to your viewpoint.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I like that Gary Johnson wants to legalize marijuana
I like that Hillary Clinton...Hillary Clinton...Hillary...Clinton...Clinton...Hillary...sorry, I can't think of anything.
I like that Donald Trump...Donald...Trump...says he will appoint conservative Justices
I like that Jill...oh who am I kidding on what I like Jill Stein about.

Hell with it, I'm just not going to vote for president. I live in one of the most right wing religious parts of Indiana so my vote will not matter on anything.

[*michaelsean*]

Quote:To all posters in this thread, it is starting to devolve into something less that what I was hoping for so I'll ask you try your best to avoid partisan remarks and contribute to the discussion on hand. Otherwise I'll probably just ask the mods to delete the it.

I think it's a good idea and the thread went along well.  You asked a question about use of the word thug and people responded.  In this instance it's hard to say we were secretly talking about black people when that was the specific topic of the post.  And all I was doing was trying to clarify what Fred was saying. I know what I mean when I say words, and if people want to assign other meanings to my words, that's on them.

[fredtoast]

(08-31-2016, 12:16 AM)treee Wrote: The use of thug is highly contextual. A black man saying to another black man "what up thug?" is completely different than a non-black person saying "a bunch of thugs out on the streets rioting and causing trouble." The first is used in friendly manner, where as the latter (one could argue) has strong racial undertones. Some even go as far as to say that "thug" is the new N-word. And depending on the context, I think that is a strong point.

To all posters in this thread, it is starting to devolve into something less that what I was hoping for so I'll ask you try your best to avoid partisan remarks and contribute to the discussion on hand. Otherwise I'll probably just ask the mods to delete the it.

"Thug" is not nearly the same as "******".

Although many people think of blacks when they hear the word "thug" it is only used to describe the criminal element.  On the other hand "******" is used to describe all black people including the President of the United States.

[treee]

(08-31-2016, 01:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: "Thug" is not nearly the same as "******".

Although many people think of blacks when they hear the word "thug" it is only used to describe the criminal element.  On the other hand "******" is used to describe all black people including the President of the United States.

 Perhaps you'll find this interesting 
http://www.npr.org/2015/04/30/403362626/the-racially-charged-meaning-behind-the-word-thug

[fredtoast]

(08-31-2016, 07:07 PM)treee Wrote:  Perhaps you'll find this interesting 
http://www.npr.org/2015/04/30/403362626/the-racially-charged-meaning-behind-the-word-thug

This makes no sense at all.

 Thug in the black community, for about the past 25 to 30 years, has also meant ruffian, but there is a tinge of affection. A thug in black people's speech is somebody who is a ruffian but in being a ruffian is displaying a healthy sort of countercultural initiative, displaying a kind of resilience in the face of racism etc. Of course nobody puts it that way, but that's the feeling. And so when black people say it, they don't mean what white people mean, and that's why I think Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and Barack Obama saying it means something different from the white housewife wherever who says it.


There is no way in hell Obama or Rawlings-Blake were using the term to show that the "thugs" they were talking about were displaying a healthy sort of countercultural initiative, displaying a kind of resilience in the face of racism .  The ONLY thing they were using "thug" to describe was the criminal element.  Go back and read the quotes from Obama and Rawlings-Blake.  


When back people call each other "n*****" it does not mean "criminal".  Whe black people call each other "Thug" it means "criminal".  The fact that some part of the SAfrican Americab communbity glorify criminal activity does not change the meaning of the word.


I have heard lots of white racists call Obama a "n*****" but I have never heard one call hima  "thug".  The two words have very different meanings.

[SunsetBengal]

(08-31-2016, 10:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This makes no sense at all.

 Thug in the black community, for about the past 25 to 30 years, has also meant ruffian, but there is a tinge of affection. A thug in black people's speech is somebody who is a ruffian but in being a ruffian is displaying a healthy sort of countercultural initiative, displaying a kind of resilience in the face of racism etc. Of course nobody puts it that way, but that's the feeling. And so when black people say it, they don't mean what white people mean, and that's why I think Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and Barack Obama saying it means something different from the white housewife wherever who says it.


There is no way in hell Obama or Rawlings-Blake were using the term to show that the "thugs" they were talking about were displaying a healthy sort of countercultural initiative, displaying a kind of resilience in the face of racism .  The ONLY thing they were using "thug" to describe was the criminal element.  Go back and read the quotes from Obama and Rawlings-Blake.  


When back people call each other "n*****" it does not mean "criminal".  Whe black people call each other "Thug" it means "criminal".  The fact that some part of the SAfrican Americab communbity glorify criminal activity does not change the meaning of the word.


I have heard lots of white racists call Obama a "n*****" but I have never heard one call hima  "thug".  The two words have very different meanings.

You didn't state any facts, you just made that shit up, straight out of your own opinion.  Oddly enough, isn't that exactly what you like to accuse most who choose to differ with you of?

[*michaelsean*]

(08-31-2016, 07:07 PM)treee Wrote:  Perhaps you'll find this interesting 
http://www.npr.org/2015/04/30/403362626/the-racially-charged-meaning-behind-the-word-thug

Nobody needs to post an article explaining why n***** is wrong.  If it has to be explained then odds are most people aren't using it in the context being suggested or it wouldn't need to be explained.  I've used the word thug when speaking with black people, and they didn't react at all.  I can promise you that wouldn't be the case with the other word.

[Belsnickel]

So, I have been holding off on responding to this because my week has been rather busy. Today is probably the calmest of my days so far, and so I have pulled up the GOP platform from this year to find something from their actual stated positions that I can get behind, and it didn't take me long.

Amidst a lot of things I don't agree with, they have a bit that is title "A Winning Trade Policy:"

Quote:International trade is crucial for all sectors of America’s economy. Massive trade deficits are not. We envision a worldwide multilateral agreement among nations committed to the principles of open markets, what has been called a “Reagan Economic Zone,” in which free trade will truly be fair trade for all concerned.

We need better negotiated trade agreements that put America first. When trade agreements have been carefully negotiated with friendly democracies, they have resulted in millions of new jobs here at home supported by our exports. When those agreements do not adequately protect U.S. interests, U.S. sovereignty, or when they are violated with impunity, they must be rejected.

We cannot allow foreign governments to limit American access to their markets while stealing our designs, patents, brands, know-how, and technology. We cannot allow China to continue its currency manipulation, exclusion of U.S. products from government purchases, and subsidization of Chinese companies to thwart American imports. The current Administration’s way of dealing with these violations of world trade standards has been a virtual
surrender.

Republicans understand that you can succeed in a negotiation only if you are willing to walk away from it. A Republican president will insist on parity in trade and stand ready to implement countervailing duties if other countries refuse to cooperate.

At the same time, we look to broaden our trade agreements with countries which share our values and commitment to fairness, along with transparency in our commercial and business practices. In pursuing that objective, the American people demand transparency, full disclosure, protection of our national sovereignty, and tough negotiation on the part of those who are supposed to advance the interests of U.S. workers. Significant trade agreements should not be rushed or undertaken in a Lame Duck Congress.

Now, I'm a bit more in favor of globalism than this section seems to be, but there is no doubt in my mind that we need to be taking a hard look at our trade negotiations. We have been running trade deficits the vast majority of the time since the 1970s, and while we are doing better right now than 8 years ago (has nothing to do with partisanship here, just looking at the trends) we are still well below where we spent the entirety of the 20th century and I would like to see that change.

Just in case anyone is still interested in actually addressing the OP in this thread, here are the links to the various party platforms. I posted the 5 that were on the "I side with" poll.

Republican
Democrat
Libertarian
Green
Constitution

[fredtoast]

(08-31-2016, 10:46 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: You didn't state any facts, you just made that shit up, straight out of your own opinion.  Oddly enough, isn't that exactly what you like to accuse most who choose to differ with you of?

It is a fact that I have seen people call Obama a "n*****" but never a "thug".

That is because the words have different meanings.

[Belsnickel]

Okay, seriously folks, let the whole thug argument die in here.

[*bfine32*]

(09-02-2016, 07:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Okay, seriously folks, let the whole thug argument die in here.

When I was in Mongolia there was a stripper we called Thug Ruggish.

[SunsetBengal]

(09-02-2016, 12:19 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It is a fact that I have seen people call Obama a "n*****" but never a "thug".

That is because the words have different meanings.

Hmm, sounds rather anecdotal.  Have any links to support that assertion?

[*wildcats forever*]

(08-30-2016, 02:34 AM)treee Wrote: I just thought it would be fun to do an exercise with all of you. Now if you hold extreme points of view, you might find it difficult. That said, generally there is at least something to be found.

Name one idea, policy, or set of actions from an opposing ideology, that though they do not align with your worldview perfectly, you like. What are some ideas that you think everyone can get behind? What are some ideas that you suspect might be universally unliked?

This is the original topic, fo those who have forgotten.

(08-31-2016, 12:16 AM)treee Wrote: To all posters in this thread, it is starting to devolve into something less that what I was hoping for so I'll ask you try your best to avoid partisan remarks and contribute to the discussion on hand. Otherwise I'll probably just ask the mods to delete the it.

Last chance to stay on topic - any interest?