1 1
kallend

Biden's VP

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Calling it a racist statement is OK. Implying further down that only racists say racist things, etc crosses is farther down.
As it happens, I think the “Kamala gets an advantage from her slave-owning ancestor “ argument is utterly stupid and partisan whataboutism, but wouldnt call it racist per se.
OTOH, a recent comment about BLM riots as being “like animals” got called out very rightly. So some of this is opinion. 

Wendy P. 

I find it quite informative to learn who among my possible skydiving companions are racist, sexist, homophobes, anti-science, xenophobes, or just plain imbeciles whose motor skills happen to enable them to skydive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

As it happens, I think the “Kamala gets an advantage from her slave-owning ancestor “ argument is utterly stupid and partisan whataboutism, but wouldnt call it racist per se.

Sure, but that's not the racist argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, olofscience said:

Okay, so I've eliminated those possibilities.

So why did you complain about the lack of coverage about Harris' heritage?

My original thought on it was that it would raise the hackles on the viewers that wanted to be shown what they believe in.

I assume it is a lot the same when FNC does that same thing to their viewers.

I ran across it in an obscure forward that I received.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

My original thought on it was that it would raise the hackles on the viewers that wanted to be shown what they believe in.

And is your thought now that you were wrong to assume that? That in fact only racist people would believe this claim because they wanted to be shown it?

21 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I ran across it in an obscure forward that I received.

So that’s why you originally posted it. Why did you then continue to argue the point with your own thought and reason even after it was obvious that nothing but racism could justify it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jakee said:

And is your thought now that you were wrong to assume that? That in fact only racist people would believe this claim because they wanted to be shown it?

So that’s why you originally posted it. Why did you then continue to argue the point with your own thought and reason even after it was obvious that nothing but racism could justify it?

No.  I still think that the media one one side of the politics might bring it up while the other side will definitely avoid it at all costs.  And no - it isn't racism driving everything Jakee.

You keep reaching for that little way to call me a racist over, and over again - trying to skirt the rules- stying just this side of wherever - but you can't win this. 

It's simply not true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

No.  I still think that the media one one side of the politics might bring it up while the other side will definitely avoid it at all costs. 

Sure. The media on one side will bring it up because they will look for any stupid thing to try and bring down their opponent. The other side will avoid it because, as you yourself have admitted, the accusation can't possibly be true.

Of course you will criticise the second group rather than the first because you are a raging partisan.

Quote

And no - it isn't racism driving everything Jakee.

Obviously not everything. This. Duh.

Quote

You keep reaching for that little way to call me a racist over, and over again - trying to skirt the rules- stying just this side of wherever - but you can't win this. 

As long as you keep pushing this particular racist narrative I don't need to say anything to win, you're losing all on your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

My original thought on it was that it would raise the hackles on the viewers that wanted to be shown what they believe in.

I assume it is a lot the same when FNC does that same thing to their viewers.

I ran across it in an obscure forward that I received.

Raise the hackles -- stirring the pot, and getting people all riled up? Post substance. That doesn't pass any smell test of any kind, and desperately looking for some sort of justification for it just looks, well, desperate

Wendy P.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Raise the hackles -- stirring the pot, and getting people all riled up? Post substance. That doesn't pass any smell test of any kind, and desperately looking for some sort of justification for it just looks, well, desperate

Wendy P.

As much as you know I disagree with Turtle, in this instance I can see some small traces of reasoning...I'll give it a shot.

Turtle thinks that people have to be exposed to the opposite views to become more centrist like he claims to be or have a more balanced position. So he claims that left-wing networks should expose their viewers to the "controversy" about Harris' heritage, possibly to widen their worldview?

Basically, he's trying to create his own twisted version of the impartiality guidelines set by the Ofcom in the UK, without any legal training or scientific training whatsoever.

To me it initially just looked like he was being a spokesperson for the racists who were trying to stir that controversy, or just trying to get people riled up - I still haven't completely eliminated that possibility, but my above explanation might be closer to what he's trying to do. But the way he's done it is really, really bad.

So Turtle, if you really want to know how to be more impartial, please, please get some training. Legal training, or scientific training. Learn what kinds of biases exist, and learn how to correct for biases. Learn how to structure questions or experiments to minimise bias. The world needs more people with this knowledge desperately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, olofscience said:

As much as you know I disagree with Turtle, in this instance I can see some small traces of reasoning...I'll give it a shot.

Turtle thinks that people have to be exposed to the opposite views to become more centrist like he claims to be or have a more balanced position. So he claims that left-wing networks should expose their viewers to the "controversy" about Harris' heritage, possibly to widen their worldview?

>>>>And the right wing should be thoughtfully exposed to more than FNC.

Basically, he's trying to create his own twisted version of the impartiality guidelines set by the Ofcom in the UK, without any legal training or scientific training whatsoever.

>>>>Yes its about the conversations.  There is no legal battle going on here.  I do learn from some of the reading i am exposed to and suggested here.  I don't see many others doing the same though.  Perhaps its just my perception though.

The world needs more people with this knowledge desperately.

>>>>I very much agree on this.

 

I had never seen this as an actual thing  It has just mostly been the underlying thought in my head when I come here.

 Thanks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, olofscience said:

As much as you know I disagree with Turtle, in this instance I can see some small traces of reasoning...I'll give it a shot.

Turtle thinks that people have to be exposed to the opposite views to become more centrist like he claims to be or have a more balanced position. So he claims that left-wing networks should expose their viewers to the "controversy" about Harris' heritage, possibly to widen their worldview?

No, he just hates what he sees as the left wing media. He attacks them every chance he gets, even when he has to lie about they've said in order to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jakee said:

No, he just hates what he sees as the left wing media. He attacks them every chance he gets, even when he has to lie about they've said in order to do it.

I'm on your side here you know, and I actually very much agree that the so-called "controversy" is racist as f**k. It actually pissed me off the first time, but I kept my mouth shut and tried to analyse it further instead. It's still racist, but I understand the problem a bit better now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1