(04-16-2019, 08:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Other posters don't seem to be inhibited in such a manner. I made a point earlier, which apparently confused some here, about the Holocaust being referred to as "some people did something to some people". If anyone did this they would be, correctly, castigated, for minimizing what happened during the Holocaust. What Omar said is no different. Also, as I've already pointed out, this woman is far beyond getting the benefit of the doubt IMO.
But when people bring up slavery for example, we constantly hear it wasn't all white people. And there was many who "treated their slaves good" or fought to end it.
Same with Christians who were pretty much absent during all this, and used the bible to justify slavery. And even after slavery abided by the Jim Crow laws. Should we lump all Christians together?
Should black people take that as a shot?
Do you agree then all white people should bare the burden?
Minorities should be (we are unfortunately) the only people who bare the burden of others in our race (or in this case a minority religion).
People in the majority seems to be the only ones who get away with not carrying this burden.
Quote:"Success doesn’t mean every single move they make is good" ~ Anonymous "Let not the dumb have to educate" ~ jj22
(04-17-2019, 12:24 PM)jj22 Wrote: But when people bring up slavery for example, we constantly hear it wasn't all white people. And there was many who "treated their slaves good" or fought to end it.
You should hear that because it's true. Just as it would be equally true to say that not all Muslims committed a terrorist act on 9/11. However, this isn't what we're discussing.
Quote:Same with Christians who were pretty much absent during all this, and used the bible to justify slavery. And even after slavery abided by the Jim Crow laws. Should we lump all Christians together?
Should black people take that as a shot?
If a white person was discussing slavery and referenced it by saying, "some people did something to some people" then they would deserve the condemnation Omar is currently receiving for trivializing or minimizing what actually happened. I also tend to think the backlash would be at least as intense, if not more so.
Quote:Do you agree then all white people should bare the burden?
Minorities should be (we are unfortunately) the only people who bare the burden of others in our race (or in this case a minority religion).
People in the majority seems to be the only ones who get away with not carrying this burden.
You're making a point that no one else has made in this thread and defending a position no one has assailed. Trivializing or minimizing an event is the topic at hand, not a burden of guilt based on ethnicity for the sins of the past.
(04-17-2019, 12:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: She did not call for a ban by the government. Instead she supports a free market boycott.
Personally i think a boycott is the best way to address her grievance. What would you suggest?
That she publicly denounce the article with calling for a boycott simply because she doesn't like the content.
My opinion on this matter is unchanged. I was equally adamant about Trump making calls to ban/boycott/don't listen to/ line birdcage with,....a media outlet. Unless that outlet advocates violence. This article did no such thing.
(04-17-2019, 09:05 AM)Benton Wrote: It's not a public media. It's a privately held agency.
Nothing like a good semantics argument to avoid addressing the point.
You agree with an elected public official advocating a boycott of a media outlet, because they disagree with the content. I do not, we simply differ in this matter.
(04-17-2019, 09:25 AM)GMDino Wrote: "okay with it"? Well, she didn't call them "the enemy of the people" but I'm still not in favor of it. Even Obama didn't say for people to stop believing Fox news...he just said they were biased. I am "okay" with an elected official (or anyone) pointing out that a business did something in poor taste (their personal opinion).
But as Benton pointed out you changed boycott to ban which has a different connotation. "Banning" brings to mind images of forced closed down, book burning, etc.
What did you think of the front page in question? (Free speech/freedom of the press aside). Was it in poor taste?
An actual reasoned response and I changed it to boycotting. The difference in the 2 words meant far less to me than most. Hell you go to dictionary.com and look for synonyms for ban and tell me the first word that appears. https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/ban?s=t . Of course Benton changed advocating to calling for. But semantics often get in the way of things.
I think the front page was in poor taste and have 0 problem with private citizens calling for a boycott; I'm a free-market kind of guy. Turning the tragedy into a political tool is as bad as Omar trivializing the event
(04-17-2019, 01:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If a white person was discussing slavery and referenced it by saying, "some people did something to some people" then they would deserve the condemnation Omar is currently receiving for trivializing or minimizing what actually happened. I also tend to think the backlash would be at least as intense, if not more so.
You're making a point that no one else has made in this thread and defending a position no one has assailed. Trivializing or minimizing an event is the topic at hand, not a burden of guilt based on ethnicity for the sins of the past.
First paragraph. That's what you just did making sure to dig in and say we should be told it was some people and not all (that's what people do all the time, but you don't see blacks reacting like Republicans and Trump are to the notion). "some people did something not all people" is exactly what you are saying, and proves my point on the hypocrisy of the majority. The majority hates to be lumped together but lumps minorities together all the time.
Second paragraph is what Trump and Republicans are spinning it as. Her point was that you can't blame all Muslims (like Republicans and Trump do) for what a small minority in the grand scheme of things did on 9/11. No one disagrees with what she is saying. Republicans just think it's ok, while minorities don't like to be lumped together all the time, and so Republicans and Trump attack, because they want you to fear (and hate) all Muslims.
Take illegal immigrants for example. Less than 5%of all crime in America is committed by illegal immigrants. You want to guess who commits the most crime? Exactly. But we don't lump them all together as rapist, drug dealers, etc.
And good. Anyone arguing they should be (attacking Omar) I think should be chastised. Or "castigated"
Quote:"Success doesn’t mean every single move they make is good" ~ Anonymous "Let not the dumb have to educate" ~ jj22
(04-17-2019, 02:09 PM)jj22 Wrote: First paragraph. That's what you just did making sure to dig in and say we should be told it was some people and not all (that's what people do all the time, but you don't see blacks reacting like Republicans and Trump are to the notion). "some people did something not all people" is exactly what you are saying, and proves my point on the hypocrisy of the majority. The majority hates to be lumped together but lumps minorities together all the time.
No, you're literally making a nonsensical point here.
Quote:Second paragraph is what Trump and Republicans are spinning it as. Her point was that you can't blame all Muslims (like Republicans and Trump do) for what a small minority in the grand scheme of things did on 9/11. No one disagrees with what she is saying. Republicans just think it's ok, while minorities don't like to be lumped together all the time, and so Republicans and Trump attack, because they want you to fear (and hate) all Muslims.
Her point isn't in dispute, the way she made it is.
Quote:Take illegal immigrants for example. Less than 5%of all crime in America is committed by illegal immigrants. You want to guess who commits the most crime? Exactly. But we don't lump them all together as rapist, drug dealers, etc.
And good. Anyone arguing they should be (attacking Omar) I think should be chastised. Or "castigated"
Omar's statement trivialized one of the worst single events in this nation's history. She then compounded this error by failing to acknowledge it or own it and further minimized it. I get it, you disagree, which is fine.
(04-17-2019, 01:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nothing like a good semantics argument to avoid addressing the point.
You attempted to make a different point, I addressed what was incorrect (public media v. privately owned media).
No deflection. I agree with her in that one of the best ways to address stories by privately owned media is to not partake in their product. Readership drives ad revenue, and ad revenue drives all things. Most corrections in partisan media comes when advertisers speak up.
That isn't the same as a ban. The difference is pretty obvious, so I don't see the need to keep rehashing it.
(04-17-2019, 02:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Omar's statement trivialized one of the worst single events in this nation's history. She then compounded this error by failing to acknowledge it or own it and further minimized it. I get it, you disagree, which is fine.
Well you did the same about slavery when you highlighted the need for blacks to be told all white people didn't treat their slaves bad (they did. THEY WHERE SLAVES! They couldn't not show up for to the cotton fields, or take a sick day. They couldn't keep their kids from being sold, wives from being raped).
Christian Churches wouldn't allow blacks in until the 1970's. Blacks had to establish their own Churches. But I'm not advocating blaming all White people or Christians, I'm highlighting why Omar was correct in her assessment. Which we all agree with, but politics and hate of Muslims has some attacking her.
You just don't like when the shoe is on the other foot. But just like you feel when all of one race get associated with Slave owners, that's how Muslim's feel and it's a legit feeling. Trump and Republicans just think it's fine to lump them all together. It isn't right. If it's not good for some, it's not good for others.
That's my philosophy. I don't do it. And don't like for it to be done either. There's bad people in every race/religion. Everyone in that race/religion shouldn't have to carry the burden.
But yea, let's ban all Muslims country's from entering U.S while Trump supporters have committed the most terrorist attacks here the last 2 years. Shouldn't we ban them?
Quote:"Success doesn’t mean every single move they make is good" ~ Anonymous "Let not the dumb have to educate" ~ jj22
(04-17-2019, 02:38 PM)Benton Wrote: You attempted to make a different point, I addressed what was incorrect (public media v. privately owned media).
No deflection. I agree with her in that one of the best ways to address stories by privately owned media is to not partake in their product. Readership drives ad revenue, and ad revenue drives all things. Most corrections in partisan media comes when advertisers speak up.
That isn't the same as a ban. The difference is pretty obvious, so I don't see the need to keep rehashing it.
So that we agree: you support Elected Officials advocating the boycotting of media outlets, of which, they don't like their content. I disagree with that position.
I am unsure what "different point" I've been trying to make. Nor, what you've continued to rehash; seems you've just been occupied with parsing words.
Do we care this time if an elected official advocates banning a news outlet?
Personally, I've always had issue with it.
(04-17-2019, 12:26 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Didn't say she called for it; said she advocated "to support or argue for (a cause, policy, etc.) : to plead in favor of".
But your good with it in this case. So we disagree.
(04-17-2019, 12:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: First you had issue with word advocate and now it's ban.
Boycott "To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, dealing with, or participating in as an expression ofprotest or disfavor or as a means of coercion:"
So can we quit pulling teeth and say you're ok with an elected official urging the act of abstaining from using a public media because they don't like what it says?
(04-17-2019, 01:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That she publicly denounce the article with calling for a boycott simply because she doesn't like the content.
My opinion on this matter is unchanged. I was equally adamant about Trump making calls to ban/boycott/don't listen to/ line birdcage with,....a media outlet. Unless that outlet advocates violence. This article did no such thing.
(04-17-2019, 01:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nothing like a good semantics argument to avoid addressing the point.
You agree with an elected public official advocating a boycott of a media outlet, because they disagree with the content. I do not, we simply differ in this matter.
(04-17-2019, 01:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: An actual reasoned response and I changed it to boycotting. The difference in the 2 words meant far less to me than most. Hell you go to dictionary.com and look for synonyms for ban and tell me the first word that appears. https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/ban?s=t . Of course Benton changed advocating to calling for. But semantics often get in the way of things.
I think the front page was in poor taste and have 0 problem with private citizens calling for a boycott; I'm a free-market kind of guy. Turning the tragedy into a political tool is as bad as Omar trivializing the event
(04-17-2019, 04:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So that we agree: you support Elected Officials advocating the boycotting of media outlets, of which, they don't like their content. I disagree with that position.
I am unsure what "different point" I've been trying to make. Nor, what you've continued to rehash; seems you've just been occupied with parsing words.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(04-17-2019, 04:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So that we agree: you support Elected Officials advocating the boycotting of media outlets, of which, they don't like their content. I disagree with that position.
What would you do if you were an elected official and there was a media outlet that was promoting hatred? Just sit on your hands?
Instead of trying to use the government I would suggest a free market tactic like a boycott.
(04-17-2019, 04:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So that we agree: you support Elected Officials advocating the boycotting of media outlets, of which, they don't like their content. I disagree with that position.
I am unsure what "different point" I've been trying to make. Nor, what you've continued to rehash; seems you've just been occupied with parsing words.
Boycott, sure. Ban, no.
You're position is baffling. You were in favor of the POTUS being able to ban reporters and prevent them from doing their job, but you're against a free market approach of letting readership dictate what's acceptable.
And I'm not sure how you don't understand the "different point." You referred to "public media." That publication is privately held. That's a completely different topic than 'boycott versus ban.' As I don't see the need to keep going over 'boycott versus ban,' I'm not going to. Let's face it, AOC said boycott, so there's not going to be much wiggle room with you. Boycott is now a bad thing.
You're position is baffling. You were in favor of the POTUS being able to ban reporters and prevent them from doing their job, but you're against a free market approach of letting readership dictate what's acceptable.
And I'm not sure how you don't understand the "different point." You referred to "public media." That publication is privately held. That's a completely different topic than 'boycott versus ban.' As I don't see the need to keep going over 'boycott versus ban,' I'm not going to. Let's face it, AOC said boycott, so there's not going to be much wiggle room with you. Boycott is now a bad thing.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(04-17-2019, 04:15 PM)jj22 Wrote: Well you did the same about slavery when you highlighted the need for blacks to be told all white people didn't treat their slaves bad (they did. THEY WHERE SLAVES! They couldn't not show up for to the cotton fields, or take a sick day. They couldn't keep their kids from being sold, wives from being raped).
Christian Churches wouldn't allow blacks in until the 1970's. Blacks had to establish their own Churches. But I'm not advocating blaming all White people or Christians, I'm highlighting why Omar was correct in her assessment. Which we all agree with, but politics and hate of Muslims has some attacking her.
You just don't like when the shoe is on the other foot. But just like you feel when all of one race get associated with Slave owners, that's how Muslim's feel and it's a legit feeling. Trump and Republicans just think it's fine to lump them all together. It isn't right. If it's not good for some, it's not good for others.
That's my philosophy. I don't do it. And don't like for it to be done either. There's bad people in every race/religion. Everyone in that race/religion shouldn't have to carry the burden.
But yea, let's ban all Muslims country's from entering U.S while Trump supporters have committed the most terrorist attacks here the last 2 years. Shouldn't we ban them?
This entire post is silly and doesn't remotely address either what I said or the thread's topic.
(04-17-2019, 05:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What would you do if you were an elected official and there was a media outlet that was promoting hatred? Just sit on your hands?
Instead of trying to use the government I would suggest a free market tactic like a boycott.
You most likely meant to ask what would I do if I felt there was a media outlet that was promoting hatred. And my answer would be to speak out against the content.
If you're Ok with elected officials calling for boycotts of businesses they do not like, so be it; to me it's a slippery slope and one that I as an Elected Official would not like to traverse.
You're position is baffling. You were in favor of the POTUS being able to ban reporters and prevent them from doing their job, but you're against a free market approach of letting readership dictate what's acceptable.
And I'm not sure how you don't understand the "different point." You referred to "public media." That publication is privately held. That's a completely different topic than 'boycott versus ban.' As I don't see the need to keep going over 'boycott versus ban,' I'm not going to. Let's face it, AOC said boycott, so there's not going to be much wiggle room with you. Boycott is now a bad thing.
Seems you're trying to make a "different point." and you bafflement aside; you'd have to show me where I supported POTUS preventing any news agency from doing their job. I have 0 issue with an administration banning any individual they felt were violating the privileges associated with his/her press pass.
Forgive me; I meant media made available to the public; as opposed to confidential, ect... information.
To be honest I'd probably better support a publicly elected official calling for boycotting a publicly owned entity. I have conceded that boycott is the correct term a long time ago, but only one of us keeps referring to ban' in some attempt "to educate" on a point that has been conceded.
And yes, but it's not a "now" thing for me. I'm not sure I've ever been in favor of public officials advocating the boycotting of a business.
Are you in favor of Trump calling for boycotting the NFL if players continue to disrespect the flag? I'm not; I feel it's up to the private citizen to urge for boycott and the elected official to simply give their views on the matter.
(04-17-2019, 06:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems you're trying to make a "different point." and you bafflement aside; you'd have to show me where I supported POTUS preventing any news agency from doing their job. I have 0 issue with an administration banning any individual they felt were violating the privileges associated with his/her press pass.
You're welcome to read the waffling at your leisure. You started with 'there's no proof the POTUS did anything' and transitioned to "POTUS is trying to host the President of the EU and work out a possible trade deal. Why the hell would we want someone interrupting this by asking questions about Russia?" and then "My desperation aside. I clearly stated in post #8 of this thread my opinions on him banning her; I cannot speak to Trump's motivation. I just introduced a recent news story germane to the topic of the OP. But how liberal of you to attack me instead of the words the lady said. "
Quote:Forgive me; I meant media made available to the public; as opposed to confidential, ect... information.
That's not what you meant. Unless you're trying to pass off the 9/11 attacks as confidential info.
Quote:To be honest I'd probably better support a publicly elected official calling for boycotting a publicly owned entity. I have conceded that boycott is the correct term a long time ago, but only one of us keeps referring to ban' in some attempt "to educate" on a point that has been conceded.
And yes, but it's not a "now" thing for me. I'm not sure I've ever been in favor of public officials advocating the boycotting of a business.
Are you in favor of Trump calling for boycotting the NFL if players continue to disrespect the flag? I'm not; I feel it's up to the private citizen to urge for boycott and the elected official to simply give their views on the matter.
For a POTUS? Yeah, I would hope we'd have a cooler head and a better guide than someone who doesn't really even speak to the issue, just criticizing a peaceful protest of something he ... judging by comments like "they make a fortune doing what they love"... doesn't understand.
I've got little to no issue with Gaetz or Cruz calling for boycotts (although in Cruz's case I'm not sure he has), other than the fact that I don't think boycotting the NFL is fair in regard to how some teams handled the situation. Penalizing teams that didn't have kneelers would be as unfortunate as penalizing all media for partisan propaganda agencies.
End of the day, reps like Gaetz are representative of their people. If his people don't like what he says, they can vote him out. The POTUS is a different entity. Hell, the majority of people didn't even vote for the guy, but he still speaks for everyone. That's much different than speaking for a (relatively) tiny minority.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif?cid=790b76115cb787676f3243307756cf94]](https://media1.giphy.com/media/GYJJQIUUuyEmY/giphy.gif?cid=790b76115cb787676f3243307756cf94)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
