2 2
winsor

Woke is a Joke

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, winsor said:

Okay, so in addition to snark you've further convinced me that CRT is as racist as anything the KKK (who see themselves as a "white civil rights organization) claims. You present CRT racism as good, but I think racism is evil.

So you think that your frequent harping on race in this thread is evil?  Or does that only apply to _other_ people who talk about race?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
4 hours ago, billvon said:

So you think that your frequent harping on race in this thread is evil?  Or does that only apply to _other_ people who talk about race?

 

As far as you could tell, that may as well be true.

Classic advice to the Barrister from the Solicitor: "no case, abuse the plaintiff."

 

BSBD,

Winsor

 

Edited by winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Winsor, racism without power is as irrelevant to something actually happening as a twelve-year-old’s threatening to never speak to their parents again. It would be ludicrous to claim that people aren’t still reluctant to share power outside their group, or that they don’t want their own power recognized. And because of those social dynamics, completely divorced from actual merit, some consideration of the social structure has to take place. 
We had three groups doing similar functions hiring based entirely on qualifications, too. One was quite mixed, one was nearly all white, and the third was heavily dominated by Texas Aggies. What a coincidence!
Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 7/29/2021 at 10:01 PM, sfzombie13 said:

it seems that one in particular is proving this to be very true.  i don't think anything else can come from this discussion.  anything new or relevant that is.

Yet this thread goes on and on. Reminiscent of some climate change denial threads.

Edited by Phil1111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

Winsor, racism without power is as irrelevant…..

By that definition white racism was irrelevant when we has a black President, black AG and black head of Homeland Security.  No wonder Obama never mentioned systemic racism.  He ran the system!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
43 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

He ran the system!

You have an amazing capacity to piss off the entire forum with every post. At some point, you gotta ask yourself if it's me or them. I really tire of your talking head positions on serious matters. You don't take the time to read shit. You don't explore anything other than what the headline says to support your position. It gets really old. I liked it better when you were gone. 

Edited by BIGUN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
22 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

You have an amazing capacity to piss off the entire forum with every post. At some point, you gotta ask yourself if it's me or them. I really tire of your talking head positions on serious matters. You don't take the time to read shit. You don't explore anything other than what the headline says to support your position. It gets really old. I liked it better when you were gone. 

I understand your frustration, folks don’t like it when their world view is threatened.  From systemic racism and man made climate change to the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny, it upsets people when these notions are challenged.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


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

Winsor, racism without power is as irrelevant to something actually happening as a twelve-year-old’s threatening to never speak to their parents again. It would be ludicrous to claim that people aren’t still reluctant to share power outside their group, or that they don’t want their own power recognized. And because of those social dynamics, completely divorced from actual merit, some consideration of the social structure has to take place. 
We had three groups doing similar functions hiring based entirely on qualifications, too. One was quite mixed, one was nearly all white, and the third was heavily dominated by Texas Aggies. What a coincidence!
Wendy P. 

Racism without power?

Right now BLM and CRT hold sway in the body politic to the extent that would make George Lincoln Rockwell and David Duke envious.

The code words "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion," specifically as defined by the BLM/CRT crowd, are like magic throughout businesses, schools and the 24 hour news cycle, and anyone who dares to defy their truth is subject to serious sanctions.

Where do you detect powerlessness?

I don't dispute that implementation of 'fairness' is subjective.  I assure you that my standard of equal rights,  equal responsibilities, no more, no less is hardly universal.

However, I oppose legacy admissions as much as I do any other form of favoritism, and I'd love to separate sports from academics at supposed institutions of higher learning.  It rankles the hell out of me that my department was good for Nobel Prizes, but the hundreds of millions of dollars followed the Heisman Trophy.

When working in Nuke and Lethal Service, some of the best as well as the very worst Engineers with whom I worked in those fields were acknowledged 'affirmative action' hires.  Those that could pass the P.E. exam were top flight across the board.

'Diversity hires' for airlines are similar.  United came up with a group of First Officers, most of whom will never fly left seat.  Those that upgrade are amongst the best, I have seen no indication that anyone gets a pass on that check ride.

I have worked with mixed, white and Aggies, and each group was terrific.  My preference gravitates toward mixed, but in some places the talent pool is skewed one way or another.  I do understand that you are referring to a particular location, and I was in very mixed company working near there.

Trying to actively recruit students for the hard sciences such that a balanced population with equal qualifications results is tough.  Some of the candidates you'd love to have go elsewhere and do quite well.

Mandating any version of 'fairness' has been tried, and the results are often worse than if left well enough alone.  Alcohol was prohibited, and the outcome was disastrous.  Tobacco was made unpopular, and smoking is simply unacceptable in most places.  I prefer the latter approach to having someone's ideas of 'fairness' rammed down my throat.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

You have an amazing capacity to piss off the entire forum with every post. At some point, you gotta ask yourself if it's me or them. I really tire of your talking head positions on serious matters. You don't take the time to read shit. You don't explore anything other than what the headline says to support your position. It gets really old. I liked it better when you were gone. 

When he posts, all I see is a notification that he has posted and that I have chosen to ignore him. Pissing people off is his goal and your reply to him is exactly what he is seeking. It takes two to tango.

Share this post


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

When he posts, all I see is a notification that he has posted and that I have chosen to ignore him. Pissing people off is his goal and your reply to him is exactly what he is seeking. It takes two to tango.

The killfile is a wonderful feature.

Share this post


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

I understand your frustration, folks don’t like it when their world view is threatened.  From systemic racism and man made climate change to the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny, it upsets people when these notions are challenged.

Excatly, that's why Winsor - who clearly fancies himself as an enlightened free thinker - is coming across in this thread as such a credulous, shallow and narrow minded tool of the right wing propaganda machine. It challenges his worldview to think that he might be in any way a beneficiary of systemic racism therefore he's willing to believe anyone that will help him claim otherwise, no matter how obviously spurious their arguments are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, winsor said:

If anyone had a problem with an Officer or NCO, it was because of their personal skills and misdemeanor.  Some of the finest Officers and NCOs I have known were Black, some were Chicano, some were Anglo, some were Navajo... you get the drift.

See, this is the most illuminating thing you've posted in this thread. We know that there is racism in the military. No matter whether you think it's more or less prevalant than in general society it is there and it was there. If you're claiming that you literally never saw anyone behave or talk in a racist fashion towards or about an Officer or NCO that simply proves you wouldn't recognise racism if it punched you in the face.

Quote

When one of our unit got kicked out of a bar in Idar Oberstein, the place was trashed by whoever was there when he got back.  It didn't matter what his race was, he was one of US!

Right. These sound like exactly the kind of reasonable men you'd expect to voluntarily form a miniature post-racial utopia.

Quote

My only criterion in my estimation of a Combat Leader was if I'd follow him out the door of a C-130 in pitch darkness while carrying my weight in weapons and gear.  Whether the answer was yes or no, I don't give a damn what he looks like.

Again, this is an illuminating point. We know it matters less what race people are when it's pitch dark. You can't be racist if you don't know there's someone there to be racist against. Like your example of a cop pulling over a black guy to say 'doctor, you're taillight is out yada yada'. We know that black people are far less likely to get unfairly pulled over at night because the cops can't fucking see black skin in the pitch black. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2021 at 4:11 PM, brenthutch said:

Why would you question the veracity of my claim of service w Lt. West?

I would question the timing, but years start blending together after a while. From what I can see he would not have gotten to Italy until well into '84.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Within LIVING memory in the USA:

Blacks have been lynched.

Blacks have been forcibly sterilized just for being black

Blacks have been excluded from decent schools.

Blacks have been targeted by drug laws that are clearly racially motivated.

Blacks have been incarcerated for victimless "crimes" while far worse offenses committed by arians have received no more than a slap on the wrist.

Blacks have been segregated from transportation, restaurants, restrooms, etc.

Blacks have been redlined out of good housing.

ETC, ETC.

Trying to whitewash this and pretend it didn't happen just continues the bigotry and prejudice.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Trying to whitewash this and pretend it didn't happen just continues the bigotry and prejudice.

Yep.  Whenever I hear that people want to cancel a field of study because it reveals something uncomfortable - I think back to the sort of book burnings and censorship that have been employed throughout the ages when a new and disturbing way of looking at the world is introduced.

When you look at the history of book bannings/burnings, three things are notable:

1) The people doing the burning generally didn't read the book, or say they have not bothered to do anything other than browse it, and that that was enough to see the evil/bad in it.

2) The book is presented as something it's not, based on that superficial understanding of it (i.e. "Catcher in the Rye" is pornograpy, "To Kill a Mockingbird" is about rape.)  This is generally gleaned from some other community leaders who have cause to oppose the concepts in the book, and tells people what their interpretation of it should be.

3) Some horrible societal evil is predicted to result from the work if it is widely available.  (i.e. kids will do drugs, or racism will be increased.)

I note all three in Winsor's condemnation in CRT.

 

Share this post


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

Within LIVING memory in the USA:

Blacks have been lynched.

Blacks have been forcibly sterilized just for being black

Blacks have been excluded from decent schools.

Blacks have been targeted by drug laws that are clearly racially motivated.

Blacks have been incarcerated for victimless "crimes" while far worse offenses committed by arians have received no more than a slap on the wrist.

Blacks have been segregated from transportation, restaurants, restrooms, etc.

Blacks have been redlined out of good housing.

ETC, ETC.

Trying to whitewash this and pretend it didn't happen just continues the bigotry and prejudice.

I agree with all the above (except the suppositions included in the last sentence),  I am not sure who is accusing of whitewashing anything.

Richard Pryor's treatment of recovery comes to mind.   In it he is listing the issues he faces related to his addiction.

His friend, a Football Star as I recall, kept responding "What you gonna do?"

You need to pick a path forward, and responding to racism with racism is a poor choice.

If the goal is EQUALITY (NOT 'equity'), then striving for that goal should be paramount.  Equal rights and equal responsibilities, no more and no less is the key.

"Special treatment" was provided for Jews in Europe some time back.  Be careful what you ask for.

If the goal is to reestablish any societal divides that have served us to badly so far, for whatever lofty reasons, the outcome is predictable.

What I find appalling is that, given the horrific results of racism in our collective past, that anyone should recommend racism to 'correct' the situation.  What could go wrong with that approach?

CRT is all about racism, specifically as it relates to Blacks of African origin (Little Black Sambo was Burmese - tigers are Asian).  Given the ill treatment of Chinese, Japanese, Algonquins, Navajo, Jews, and the Irish, I'd say Blacks are in pretty good company.

My whole point is not to deny that the massacre in Tulsa was ghastly or that Custer had it coming, but that the best approach is to lay off on the racism rather than wallowing in it.

'Good' racism is just as bad as 'bad' racism.  It all sucks.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, billvon said:

Yep.  Whenever I hear that people want to cancel a field of study because it reveals something uncomfortable - I think back to the sort of book burnings and censorship that have been employed throughout the ages when a new and disturbing way of looking at the world is introduced.

When you look at the history of book bannings/burnings, three things are notable:

1) The people doing the burning generally didn't read the book, or say they have not bothered to do anything other than browse it, and that that was enough to see the evil/bad in it.

2) The book is presented as something it's not, based on that superficial understanding of it (i.e. "Catcher in the Rye" is pornograpy, "To Kill a Mockingbird" is about rape.)  This is generally gleaned from some other community leaders who have cause to oppose the concepts in the book, and tells people what their interpretation of it should be.

3) Some horrible societal evil is predicted to result from the work if it is widely available.  (i.e. kids will do drugs, or racism will be increased.)

I note all three in Winsor's condemnation in CRT.

 

Who recommended cancelling anything?

Who burns books?

News flash: what you call "new and disturbing" I call FUBAR.

I don't recommend burning "50 Shades of Grey," but am not interested in reading it.  Given the reviews I can say that the subject doesn't fascinate me.

If someone wants to patent a 'perpetual motion machine,' I don't have to go to any great detail to conclude that it is unlikely to work, though I am not likely to take the approach of the Swiss patent clerk who summarily discarded such applications.

What is presented as something it is not?  CRT is all about race; given its name, that is hardly a stretch.  There is a huge difference between an issue being a factor and it being a prime mover, and CRT posits race as a historical prime mover.

I find it wonderfully ironic that the claim of institutional racism is used to justify institutional racism.  If institutional racism is bad, it's bad.  How could that concept be the slightest bit controversial?

I go down town and walk past burned out buildings from the 'largely peaceful demonstrations' last summer, businesses I used to patronize, and I'm unimpressed.  If the people protesting were attempting to gain sympathy for their plight, it didn't work.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kallend said:

I do wonder, though, what exactly the police are supposed to do in situations like this.

Background for those who don't care to click on the link:

House is up for sale and unoccupied.  A couple of weeks before a squatter was living there, or the house was broken into (I've seen both reported in different stories).  Squatter/burglar was arrested, and homeowner asked a neighbor to keep an eye on the place.  Neighbor sees a black man enter the house and he (or she) calls the police and reports that the same squatter/burglar is back.  Even reports the person is driving the same vehicle as they were when they were previously arrested.  Very explicit that it is the same person back again.  Neighbor then reports that two more people have shown up and entered the house.  Police respond and surround the house.  People inside see the police and come out with their hands up.  They are handcuffed and put in patrol cars for questioning.  It is quickly established that the first person is a realtor and the other two are clients (father and son) who wanted to look at the house (bet they aren't interested any more!).  People are released and an apology is given.

No question that the neighbor who called the police jumped to a conclusion, apparently based on nothing more than skin color.  Even the report that vehicle was the same was wrong.

So how should the police have responded to the neighbor's 911 call, given that the neighbor was very explicit that the squatter/burglar was back and had brought accomplices?

Share this post


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

So how should the police have responded to the neighbor's 911 call, given that the neighbor was very explicit that the squatter/burglar was back and had brought accomplices?

maybe talk to the people in the house instead of just cuffing them?  it is fairly obvious, at least in this area, that homeless people don't usually look like realtors or even drive cars.. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No question that the neighbor who called the police jumped to a conclusion, apparently based on nothing more than skin color.  Even the report that vehicle was the same was wrong.

The car was parked out front. The cops had every opportunity to check that before arresting everyone.

Quote

So how should the police have responded to the neighbor's 911 call, given that the neighbor was very explicit that the squatter/burglar was back and had brought accomplices?

Why did they need to surround the house with guns drawn? Why did they need to handcuff everyone before talking to them?

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.

2 2