User Tag List

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 90

Thread: What the McCain Eulogies Tell Us About the Media and the Regime

  1. #61
    Over 2500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,762
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1,003 Times in 651 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    365542
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
    That's the point of collectivism. All the individuals in a group are given a certain status based on superficial cues. Thus, the outcome you point out here is consistent with what DB said.

    That's why Democrats/progressives/leftists are still more racist than Republicans/conservatives/rightists - as they've been since Andrew Jackson - because intersectionality is at the heart of racism and also Democrat political success. (Please note this is not an endorsement of Republicans, but merely evidence that Democrats have been and continue to be relatively more racist because leftists/liberals/progressives have been and continue to believe in intersectionality more than Republicans/rightists/conservatives).

    So, to bring this back to the OP. McCain was a supporter of intersectional policies and does not deserve praise from conservative/rightist people, while at the same time explains the great praise from Democrats.
    Please define "intersectionality"

  2. #62
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    20,194
    Thanks
    1,828
    Thanked 5,126 Times in 3,824 Posts

    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147723
    this guy does a pretty good job:

  3. #63
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,945
    Thanks
    200
    Thanked 282 Times in 221 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    390438
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    conservative protectors of tradition
    That's just saying that Democrats are conservatives. You work hard to make no sense.

    Once upon a time in the South that more aptly described the Democratic Party. As I've noted prior, that shifted to the Republican Party after LBJ's Great Society left much of the racist South feeling betrayed.
    Since intersectionality is the foundation of racism, and also the main component of democratic success more and more since LBJ, your statement can only be wrong.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  4. #64
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,176
    Thanks
    3,568
    Thanked 7,713 Times in 4,458 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147820
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
    That's just saying that Democrats are conservatives. You work hard to make no sense.
    What I actually said was that in the past the Democratic Party protected the traditions of the South and resisted progressive action in both the legal and social spheres. When that changed the South found a new home in the Republican Party, as it began to transform (and partly with their help) into a much friendlier environment for their concerns.

    Since intersectionality is the foundation of racism
    How so?

    and also the main component of democratic success
    Again, how so? If you're going to argue the points you need to support them with a framework of reason along with the connection to your conclusion in rebuttal.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  5. #65
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,945
    Thanks
    200
    Thanked 282 Times in 221 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    390438
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    What I actually said was that in the past the Democratic Party protected the traditions of the South
    No, what you said was "Racists have always aligned more readily with the conservative protectors of tradition". That's wrong because what "tradition" is changes. If you had said "Racists have always aligned more readily with the conservative protectors of a tradition of slavery", then you would have been more consistent, and correct. The protectors of the tradition of slavery were the democrats.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Since intersectionality is the foundation of racism and also the main component of democratic success
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic
    How so?
    Democrat success is predicated on a coalition of groups of individuals based on superficial traits; non-white races, the have nots, women, homos, and any number of sub-groups within those groups.

    Racism at its foundation decides one race is superior to another based on a superficial trait.

    Once one accepts that a person's status is decided by a superficial trait, their belief about races and politics must be consistent.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  6. #66
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,176
    Thanks
    3,568
    Thanked 7,713 Times in 4,458 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147820
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
    No, what you said was "Racists have always aligned more readily with the conservative protectors of tradition".
    I've actually said both in a number of threads where this has come up before. But they aren't mutually exclusive positions. I've noted the movement away from the Republican Party coincided with the rise of protecting and advancing minority interests on the heels of Johnson's Great Society and what followed.

    Conservatives hold the line on social norms. In the South that meant laws predicated on racial distinctions. And so long as the Democratic Party defended them the South was on board.

    That's wrong because what "tradition" is changes.
    No, because change is the result of progressive social forces. And conservatives hold the new line as the norm moves farther afield. That's why, as I noted in one thread on the topic, that Reagan once famously said, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me."

    If you had said "Racists have always aligned more readily with the conservative protectors of a tradition of slavery", then you would have been more consistent, and correct. The protectors of the tradition of slavery were the democrats.
    I know how much the party part matters to you, but you can't recognize that traditions change then pretend the parties that carried banners in relation can't or haven't, when they clearly have, supra.

    And no, it wouldn't have been more consistent, because the issue of race relations is larger than slavery and at different times in our nation's history different parties have been at the forefront of dealing with them.

    Democrat success is predicated on a coalition of groups of individuals based on superficial traits
    No, it isn't. That's as unfair as suggesting the Republican Party is mostly about white people, because most of its membership is white. As with the Republican Party, the Democratic Party has a philosophical approach reduced to writing, a guiding ideology. Now what's been true for democrats for a while is that it tends to be a larger tent, with a greater diversity of opinion and membership.

    non-white races, the have nots, women, homos, and any number of sub-groups within those groups.
    You should avoid derogatory terms if you're going to mix it in with race, because it invites an ugly interpretation. Else, you just noted the Democratic Party isn't a superficial organization, because it hosts a diversity of interests. The Republican Party rank and file, by contrast, often try to push the less monolithic from their ranks, even creating labels like RINO to help them do that.

    Racism at its foundation decides one race is superior to another based on a superficial trait.
    Right. Race.

    Once one accepts that a person's status is decided by a superficial trait, their belief about races and politics must be consistent.
    The reason for a larger representation of minorities and women in the Democratic Party isn't because one superficial trait controls the mentality, but that minority interests, which are numerous and not always harmonious, dominate their process. It's the same reason you see corporate bosses and businessmen disproportionately within the Republican ranks.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    Rusha (September 10th, 2018)

  8. #67
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,945
    Thanks
    200
    Thanked 282 Times in 221 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    390438
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    minority interests, which are numerous and not always harmonious, dominate their process.
    That's what I said. And each minority is defined by their superficial trait. Go ahead, pick one; you can't do it without describing them by their superficial trait.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  9. #68
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,176
    Thanks
    3,568
    Thanked 7,713 Times in 4,458 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147820
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
    That's what I said.
    No, you didn't. Because you don't recognize that what you call superficial is anything but in terms of its impact on the individual and collective, historically and even to the present day. More on that in a moment.

    And each minority is defined by their superficial trait.
    Spoken like someone who has never had to think of being addressed, judged, restricted, and unfairly treated because of a trait you'd call superficial. And it's that association and treatment, for generations established in law and social restrictions that governed everything from property rights to essential human dignity, that makes what you call superficial something with a much more profound meaning than you appear to realize.

    Go ahead, pick one; you can't do it without describing them by their superficial trait.
    Gender isn't a superficial trait. It's pretty profound, biologically and socially. Race isn't superficial, for the reasons noted above. People who would call being part of a minority a superficial demarcation are almost guaranteed to be white and insulated from the deeper understanding of race, either by time and geography or a willful exclusion of the consideration. Because being white means never really having to address inequity as a part of your racial past and memory. The worst thing that happened to white people related to their race was affirmative action keeping a sliver of them out of certain institutions and opportunities routinely and generationally denied to minorities almost to a man.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    Rusha (September 11th, 2018)

  11. #69
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    12,793
    Thanks
    1,246
    Thanked 8,562 Times in 5,600 Posts

    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147819
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    The worst thing that happened to white people related to their race was affirmative action keeping a sliver of them out of certain institutions and opportunities routinely and generationally denied to minorities almost to a man.
    I don't know about you but it seems to me that what white men are being attacked just because they are white:

    "These matters of race and context arose yet again (as they have almost incessantly in recent years) when tweets by Sarah Jeong, a newly hired member of the editorial board at the Times, resurfaced last week. Jeong tweeted, among other things, “white men are ********”; “basically i’m just imagining waking up white every morning with a terrible existential dread that i have no culture”; “Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men”; and “#CancelWhitePeople.” Jeong said in a statement that the tweets were intended to be an inversion of the racist and sexist trolling that had been a feature of her digital life—an attempt to fight racism by deploying its own language against it. She said, “While it was intended as satire, I deeply regret that I mimicked the language of my harassers. These comments were not aimed at a general audience, because general audiences do not engage in harassment campaigns.” She added that she understood how, out of context, tweeting such remarks was “hurtful,” and that she would not do it again. When the Times opted to stand by Jeong, apparently accepting her explanation, conservatives were quick to declare a double standard, pointing to the demise of Roseanne Barr’s show following her racist Twitter attack upon Valerie Jarrett and other incidents.
    "


    This is clearly a case of racism but despite that the New York Times hired the author of those horrible words. Frankly, I am glad that I am living in Mexico because it won't be long until even more people from the left in the USA declare all out war on white men and white women!

    Today no one dares say anything bad about black men or the Muslims but it has reached a point where it is open season on Christians and white men.

  12. #70
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,176
    Thanks
    3,568
    Thanked 7,713 Times in 4,458 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147820
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    I don't know about you but it seems to me that what white men are being attacked just because they are white:
    I think there's a segment of society that's bitter about white privilege and the time it has taken to make serious inroads into that. I can understand it, but I don't find it productive for anyone.

    "These matters of race and context arose yet again (as they have almost incessantly in recent years) when tweets by Sarah Jeong, a newly hired member of the editorial board at the Times, resurfaced last week. Jeong tweeted, among other things, “white men are ********”; “basically i’m just imagining waking up white every morning with a terrible existential dread that i have no culture”; “Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men”; and “#CancelWhitePeople.” Jeong said in a statement that the tweets were intended to be an inversion of the racist and sexist trolling that had been a feature of her digital life—an attempt to fight racism by deploying its own language against it. She said, “While it was intended as satire, I deeply regret that I mimicked the language of my harassers. These comments were not aimed at a general audience, because general audiences do not engage in harassment campaigns.” She added that she understood how, out of context, tweeting such remarks was “hurtful,” and that she would not do it again. When the Times opted to stand by Jeong, apparently accepting her explanation, conservatives were quick to declare a double standard, pointing to the demise of Roseanne Barr’s show following her racist Twitter attack upon Valerie Jarrett and other incidents."
    I recall that one. I think she got upset and decided, without all that intellectual justification, to essentially give them a taste of it in reverse. To goad and denigrate. It's just rarely going to do anything positive for anyone. I believe that happened a few years ago, when she was early to mid 20s. An age of general foolishness and impetuosity to begin with.

    This is clearly a case of racism but despite that the New York Times hired the author of those horrible words.
    Not as proffered. Now if she had a history of expressing that bias so that it wasn't just an emotional response (however layered in after the fact analysis and justification) it would be more troubling. I'd file it under young and ill considered absent more.

    Frankly, I am glad that I am living in Mexico because it won't be long until even more people from the left in the USA declare all out war on white men and white women!
    Given the demographic it's not a thing I lose sleep over.

    Today no one dares say anything bad about black men or the Muslims but it has reached a point where it is open season on Christians and white men.
    Really? I hear an ongoing attack on Islam, whole cloth, in many a corner, despite the fact (as I tend to point out) that the thing that has so many irate or worse is actually a thing confined to a fairly small portion of Islam. And I hear people slamming BLM pretty consistently. Not sure why not slamming black men outside of particular conduct would be something anyone would want to do. I don't believe it's about being fearful, it's just an issue by issue, action by action thing that isn't necessarily tied to race, a-la Kaepernick. That is, it's not fear but the realization that trying to lump sum black men or any group by gene pool tends to be the business of racists.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  13. #71
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    12,793
    Thanks
    1,246
    Thanked 8,562 Times in 5,600 Posts

    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147819
    You might like it OK but it scares me to death to start to see the New York Times hire people who are clearly racist against white people.

    And it scares me even more to hear people defending them.

  14. #72
    Over 6000 post club rexlunae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The high desert
    Posts
    6,023
    Thanks
    1,344
    Thanked 3,060 Times in 1,926 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1049411
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    You might like it OK but it scares me to death to start to see the New York Times hire people who are clearly racist against white people.

    And it scares me even more to hear people defending them.
    You're such a victim. Look at you, all sad.
    Global warming denialists are like gravity denialists piloting a helicopter, determined to prove a point. We may not have time to actually persuade them of their mistake.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to rexlunae For Your Post:

    Rusha (September 11th, 2018)

  16. #73
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,176
    Thanks
    3,568
    Thanked 7,713 Times in 4,458 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147820
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    You might like it OK
    Like the hire? I'm not a subscriber so it's not particularly important to me who works there. And as I noted in my last, she's offered an explanation. I think it's probably true at the core, that she was aiming at saying as hurtful a thing as she could say to people who offended her by race baiting.

    It's not mature, but it's not necessarily anything else absent a history supportive of the charge. And here's the thing, if she's actually a racist it's only a matter of time before she lets that into her writing for the Times, at which point her career will end. Or, if she's racist but manages to keep it to herself then it's her ignorant business.

    but it scares me to death to start to see the New York Times hire people who are clearly racist against white people.
    I'd be much more alarmed if I was certain she was a racist and she got a job at People. Because, you know, a lot of people actually read People magazine.

    And it scares me even more to hear people defending them.
    You seem remarkably scarable. As of 2014 whites comprised around 77% of the population. So in an average room that would be like thinking almost 8 of 10 people should be scared over the potential that the remaining 2 or 3 folks might be racist. Given history, it's a lot more reasonable for the 2 or 3 to be nervous on the point.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  17. #74
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,945
    Thanks
    200
    Thanked 282 Times in 221 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    390438
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    you don't recognize that what you call superficial is anything but in terms of its impact on the individual and collective, historically and even to the present day
    If it isn't superficial, it's only because there are people that believe in intersectionality. And that would be liberals/left/democrats.

    So, yeah, that proves my point.

    And if you need to look further, just look at who would have the government try and change society based on intersectionality. Think things have changed since slavery? then realize that democrats codified almost all of Jim Crow laws.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  18. #75
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,176
    Thanks
    3,568
    Thanked 7,713 Times in 4,458 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147820
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
    If it isn't superficial, it's only because there are people that believe in intersectionality. And that would be liberals/left/democrats.
    Liberals weren't turning the dogs on blacks in Alabama or fighting the Civil Rights movement tooth and nail. Those people lived and died over the difference you call superficial. The importance of the distinction to the oppressor created its gravitas.

    It will be superficial in truth when people stop investing in hating and being wary of others for their differences and look instead to their character.

    Think things have changed since slavery?
    Of course I do. I'm rational.

    then realize that democrats codified almost all of Jim Crow laws.
    There was a time when the Democratic Party was the instrument of racial injustice, at least in the South. A champion of segregation and the social order that kept blacks disenfranchised. And then the party changed and those Southerners moved over to the Republican Party, where they and their descendents remain to this day.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us