I agree with the one on the left, I don't understand how it's a hard question wtf. We aren't going to be told we have to start being accommodating to the "pro-racists" are we?
That's Pro-A-Racist not Pro-racist. You could vote trump and not be racist. You could just hate Hilary for example.A vote for Trump is literally Pro-Racist, which was the original point. If you voted for him, you voted for (pro) a plain and simple lifelong racist, no matter how you want to dress that up otherwise.
It's interesting that you have no issue judging one side and using the not enough information argument for the other. The conversation was about the potential banning of a race curriculum in that particular school, which was allegedly anti racist. The woman refusing to answer the question is seemingly in favor of the banning since she tries to justify her position(and proposition) by claiming that the school shouldn't influence what kids should think on the subject. And she goes as far as suggesting that parents should pull their kids out of the school because of the existence of that curriculum.I mean it's such a stupid question, you have to assume there's more we haven't heard leading up to this. It seems winning an argument is far more important to people, and proposing such simple, pointless questions gives an easy win. We've all watched those stupid interviews on the news where the interviewer "has the politician in a corner" or whatever, and keeps repeating a crap and obvious question which only exists to get a negative answer. We all already know the answer, and I thought for years everyone saw through the bullshit. Then I watched gogglebox and saw halfwits going "he can't answer it, he can't even answer it", and I realised how fecking thick people can be. Even thicker than me, which is really impressive.
I've no idea what this discussion was about, but there is a very real push in society to not discuss these things. It's better to just nod and not discuss difficult things because you'll just have a twat shouting at you otherwise. "It's not a hard question, it's not a hard question" - well no, this particular one isn't, but if you're in a heated discussion with someone and both parties have valid points (which in this case nobody knows anything about), and one person starts trying to "win", you don't always just roll over. In this case it would've been easier to just say "yes, what's your point? Are you a simpleton?" to such a stupid question, but they're obviously emotionally caught up in the moment, so fine.
These simple yes/no questions just undermine real discussion and turn people defensive. We should condemn it for the low brow tactic it is.
I don't understand this mentality. This is part of the problem right here. Attitudes like this. If you can change my mind, do so but you act like its a dictatorship here. You want to talk about current events? What do you add? Unless we all agree, you just want to control the conversation. People act as if it's simple. But you need real analyse and proper discussion. You don't need people like you with attitudes.. I've attacked no one but then I look at things with an open mind. Your post is a disgrace. This is a current events forum and people like you offer nothing. You can disagree with me. But it's not me ...but rather what I say. I get it. What you are really saying is, i'm sure the mods don't want to hear from this person with a different opinion and btw i'm anti racist. The mods do a great job and I've done the job elsewhere so I can say that. My point was, when you talk about race it's not a simple discussion because race is used by people. We live in days of identity politics. That alone should give you a clue.How is he not yet banned probably every mod has him on ignore.
Which is also a really dumb way to approach history.On the flip side a friend of mine in California who teaches HS got into a heated debate with an admin regarding the founding fathers. The admin wanted her to frame the entire conversation around how horrible they were (admittedly some/most likely were) and to eliminate any nuance from the lesson plan as to what the role they played in the revolution and subsequent founding of the country. In terms of this thread it was basically a "if you say anything good about George Washington you are pro-racist".
That's excuses and bs.That's Pro-A-Racist not Pro-racist. You could vote trump and not be racist. You could just hate Hilary for example.
Trump's very public display of those traits justified their own beliefs, which they were forced to keep quiet about during 8 years of Obama. He basically made it ok to be openly racist again.I wonder what Hillary Clinton has done to make her worse than a racist, that campaigned as a xenophobe. It's a bit unsettling to continuously be reminded that for many people being racist, misogynistic and an idiot isn't as bad as being a socialist.
That's true but we still have people that try to pretend otherwise and claim that they didn't vote for Trump but against Hillary Clinton, they somehow don't realize that they are telling us that Trumps character flaws aren't as damaging to them as Clinton's characters flaws. And the worst part is that these people think that they are being smart and doing a good job hiding their true feelings.Trump's very public display of those traits justified their own beliefs, which they were forced to keep quiet about during 8 years of Obama. He basically made it ok to be openly racist again.
Insightful. Excuses for what?That's excuses and bs.
Being stupid doesn't make someone racist though. Like it or not.That's true but we still have people that try to pretend otherwise and claim that they didn't vote for Trump but against Hillary Clinton, they somehow don't realize that they are telling us that Trumps character flaws aren't as damaging to them as Clinton's characters flaws. And the worst part is that these people think that they are being smart and doing a good job hiding their true feelings.
When your moral values include believing that someone being publicly racist is a better option than someone that is not publicly racist then I don't think that the dichotomy is racism vs stupidity.Being stupid doesn't make someone racist though. Like it or not.
For some, who was leader of the party didn't matter. They voted one way their whole life and were never changing. That doesn't make them racist.When your moral values include believing that someone being publicly racist is a better option than someone that is not publicly racist then I don't think that the dichotomy is racism vs stupidity.
It has nothing to do with me and I didn't call them racist, so why you keep bringing me into this or try to determine who is racist a bit of a mystery. The issue here is that you among others keep alluding to some mysterious reasons that would justify the idea that one may justifiably hate Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders more than they would hate a racist and mysogynistic idiot without ever mentioning those reasons.For some, who was leader of the party didn't matter. They voted one way their whole life and were never changing. That doesn't make them racist.
For good reason choosing to vote against Hilary, doesn't make someone racist, irrelevant to who that vote then went to.
Whether someones morals don't sit where you would like them to makes no difference.
People voted for Boris. Boris is a racist. Not every one who voted for Boris is racist.
You can argue about the political and social implications of voting for a party, or voting against Hilary, or trying to just 'change the system' but they were reasons some people did, it doesn't make them racist.
Question their morals all you like.
Or better yet, seek to understand why some people don't view life the way you do, even if you don't agree with them.
Haha, gotta love Trump fans and their tap dances.That's Pro-A-Racist not Pro-racist.
Ohhh that old chesnut. Assume someone is a fan when they challenge you.Haha, gotta love Trump fans and their tap dances.
Agreed. My take away from my few years teaching HS was that Admins, on average, are the absolute worst part of teaching.Which is also a really dumb way to approach history.
Thanks, I will.Ohhh that old chesnut. Assume someone is a fan when they challenge you.
I don't follow American politics, I can't stand the bloke or anything he represents, I'd have voted Hilary or not voted at all rather than vote him.
But feel free to not actually acknowledge anything.
Sorry I don't get what the word hate has to do with you talking about morals?It has nothing to do with me and I didn't call them racist, so why you keep bringing me into this or try to determine who is racist a bit of a mystery. The issue here is that you among others keep alluding to some mysterious reasons that would justify the idea that one may justifiably hate Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders more than they would hate a racist and mysogynistic idiot without ever mentioning those reasons.
And I should remind you that by using the term hate, you are the one who brought morals and feelings into the conversation.
They were ok with it though. Whether or not they are actively and/or outspokenly racist themselves they didn't have a big enough problem with either of those two being racist (and everything else).For some, who was leader of the party didn't matter. They voted one way their whole life and were never changing. That doesn't make them racist.
For good reason choosing to vote against Hilary, doesn't make someone racist, irrelevant to who that vote then went to.
People voted for Boris. Boris is a racist. Not every one who voted for Boris is racist.
For a start, I agree with your premise. Although I think this just becomes some easy way to make anyone who votes different to you 'wrong'. Remember, the party has most the power, particularly in British politics, it's not even close to being a case of because you voted for X who is X you are also X.They were ok with it though. Whether or not they are actively and/or outspokenly racist themselves they didn't have a big enough problem with either of those two being racist (and everything else).
Even if they voted for them specifically for one totally unrelated issue or just because they've voted for the party all their life, the fact they look past so many negatives isn't exactly much better than those that actually are just flat-out racist etc IMO. And they're definitely not "anti-racist".
The following sentence is key and you seemingly struggled with it: " It's a bit unsettling to continuously be reminded that for many people being racist, misogynistic and an idiot isn't as bad as being a socialist."Sorry I don't get what the word hate has to do with you talking about morals?
They aren't mysterious reasons, again perhaps you should seek to understand people that don't think like you rather than condemn them. & whilst you didn't call them racist. you did assume that they must think the same way as he does in order to vote for him.
I've pointed out to you there are reasons why people vote beyond voting for the individual specifically. Many people voted for Boris based on his stance on Brexit. The bloke didn't matter then, it was a means to an end.
Can't you understand why people separate the person from the political party in their judgement? A trump voter doesn't make them even a trump supporter. Some people vote by default, the candidate is irrelevant to other factors.
You seem confused. Again like another poster you're making assumptions on my leanings because you don't like being challenged.The following sentence is key and you seemingly struggled with it: " It's a bit unsettling to continuously be reminded that for many people being racist, misogynistic and an idiot isn't as bad as being a socialist."
That sentence summarizes what you keep using as an excuse, I already knew that it was your excuse which is why I said that in your mind and in other peoples mind Trump character flaws aren't that big of an issue, as long as they can hope to get what they want they will happily support a morally bankrupt individual.
Also don't try bamboozle people, Trump didn't magically appear as a Republican candidate, people actively supported him when he was an outsider and sidelined traditional Republicans. So in an attempt to not hurt your feelings, I'm willing to not call Trump voters bigotted idiots but we both know the truth.
Two things first the bolded part is exactly my point, Trump character flaws weren't that important to them, they put other things above it and I used socialism as an example. Secondly you didn't bring relevant views or opinions outside of their potential hatred of Hillary Clinton, it's the first and only opinion that you brought which is telling.You seem confused. Again like another poster you're making assumptions on my leanings because you don't like being challenged.
I'm telling you that people vote for reasons other than the individual, that to them are extremely important, they affect them and their lives directly. So they vote for that party who to their knowledge will best help them. That makes your original statement void. And like many people on the far left, it is used to dismiss the relevant views and opinions of anyone who disagrees with you.
You're dead right Trump didn't magically appear, but when it comes to voting, many people have to vote between two candidates in theory, before that point they may well have been voting for an alternative to Trump to represent the party as many millions did.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/04/bill-clinton-has-always-been-this-personI wonder what Hillary Clinton has done to make her worse than a racist, that campaigned as a xenophobe. It's a bit unsettling to continuously be reminded that for many people being racist, misogynistic and an idiot isn't as bad as being a socialist.
You see those are the reasons why I personally would have abstained myself and why I don't like Hillary Clinton. But my question is a comparison, why in one case you hate Hillary and on the other you don't hate Trump?https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/04/bill-clinton-has-always-been-this-person
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/the-clintons-had-slaves
https://www.themarshallproject.org/...th-that-demonized-a-generation-of-black-youth
Plus Hilary's role in legitimizing the Iraq War and War on Terror
Plus what the Clinton's have done behind the scenes to subvert the Democrat party to corporate wealth interests
Have to stop talking 2016 though.
Hillary Clinton is a war criminal who should be rotting in a prison cell in The Hague with some former Presidents and Secretaries of State. Trump is a psychopath with at least fascist tendencies and a generally morally corrupt human being. Don't make it sound as if this was an easy choice. At the time I thought Trump would be the lesser of two evils as the main (if not the only) criterion I judge American presidents by is how many innocent people they kill abroad and just about the only thing you can give him a little bit of credit for is being somewhat more restrained in his imperialist endeavors.I wonder what Hillary Clinton has done to make her worse than a racist, that campaigned as a xenophobe. It's a bit unsettling to continuously be reminded that for many people being racist, misogynistic and an idiot isn't as bad as being a socialist.
It wasn't my point, the point was about using the term hate for one but not the other. In one case the character flaws weren't deemed as damaging.Hillary Clinton is a war criminal who should be rotting in a prison cell in The Hague with some former Presidents and Secretaries of State. Trump is a psychopath with at least fascist tendencies and a generally morally corrupt human being. Don't make it sound as if this was an easy choice. At the time I thought Trump would be the lesser of two evils as the main (if not the only) criterion I judge American presidents by is how many innocent people they kill abroad and just about the only thing you can give him a little bit of credit for is being somewhat more restrained in his imperialist endeavors.
I've always enjoyed reading your posts, but reading your posts whilst high is absolutely incredible. Thank youWhen you talk about Racism, it's not a simple conversation because there are different forms of racism. It's difficult from the perspective that often you don't know what perspective someones articulating from or they switch perspectives to 'win' the argument. All the isms however, are from the pit of hell. But I don't believe they're fought against. I believe they're promoted. Personally, i'm against it but I feel a distinction has to be made. Also context. We saw with Edison situation, you need context and understanding of situations. You can encapsulate moments that suit agendas but you always have to try to see the bigger picture I feel.
Take systemic racism for example. That is a very difficult question because you can be 'white' and racist purely because you're white and whites are called lots of names that highlight that agenda. So it's not a simple question. These things never are. What they really want to do, is stop people from giving it much thought and yes discussion.
They can be. When you get good ones you cherish them like your firstborn.Agreed. My take away from my few years teaching HS was that Admins, on average, are the absolute worst part of teaching.
I've always enjoyed reading your posts, but reading your posts whilst high is absolutely incredible. Thank you
It would at least allow the discussion to move on in a meaningful way.The question is stupid though. If she says she's pro-racist then all debate from thereon becomes about character. If she says she's anti-racist then it proves nothing because it's such an easy answer.
That's an absolutely brilliant way of describing it
It's like reading an AI chatbot trying to pass the Turing test but not quite succeeding.
And to put your unabashed stupidity on display and expect it to be valued and unchallenged.Trump's very public display of those traits justified their own beliefs, which they were forced to keep quiet about during 8 years of Obama. He basically made it ok to be openly racist again.
The context of the conversation is important here, she was asked that question because she is actively anti anti-racist. I don't know if you can see the article.It's not a binary question.
The 3 responses are:
Pro-racist
Anti-racist
Not-racist
Being Anti-racist means, at least in my understanding, that you are proactively fighting for equality for all.
“It is a difficult question to answer, because if you don’t say that you’re anti-racist, then you must be a racist, right?” Cohen said. “...I think racism absolutely takes place and there is nothing you can do about it. I think we have made tons of progress since the Civil Rights movement. I think that academia has made racism ‘cool,’ somehow, to talk about it. I think we’ve victimized our whole population, and I think that it’s completely out of control. And the idea that you’re going to be the arbiter of morals and what’s good and what’s not, by demanding that I pick one of two, shows exactly what I’m talking about. This is the problem.”
“I have a history with being called a racist in this community,” Cohen said. “I have teachers that are showing up at the Black Lives Matter [protest] when we’re under the pandemic lockdown to support students who are writing us letters saying, ‘You didn’t do enough to teach us not to be racist, and this is what we demand that the board do,’ and then our president signs it. So I’m supposed to just assume that there’s no way that’s coming into our school? No… It should have been a no-brainer for our board. Our board should have said, ‘We are never going to expose our students to this kind of crap and make them feel guilty about being white.’”
“The cure to racism is not more racism,” Cohen said Thursday. “Anti-racism curriculum is not what you think it is. It is racism personified. Today, it is not enough to not be a racist — you must fight in solidarity against it? How about we teach our kids to stand against it when, where, and if they see it?”
After Roman later noted her belief that most of the district’s curriculum appropriately teaches slavery through a negative lens, Cohen said she believes it should be “taught the way it was written at the time,” that “it should be identified that there’s been slaves since the beginning of time,” and the Constitution and Founding Fathers’ efforts to “set us up to eradicate that” should be highlighted.
“I think that people should appreciate people based on the content of their character and not the color of their skin,” Cohen said. “But somehow, race relations became terrible in this country. As somebody who grew up in southern California, for the first time in my life, once, we elected a black president who constantly rang that bell, and it has deteriorated ever since. I don’t want my grandkids getting on their knees. I don’t want them hating the police. So it’s a little more complicated than, ‘Are you anti-racist or racist?’”
It's like reading an AI chatbot trying to pass the Turing test but not quite succeeding.