I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What the troll is, and in what way he trolls and for what, has now been said.

When the king is the troll, only the honest brave man says so.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

[*]The idea that people who suffer from relatively less important unequal and unfair treatment--relative to life-threatening issues like police brutality and the existence of police black sites, etc.--should stop their belly-achin' is fucking ridiculous.

I'm not saying they should stop their belly aching. I'm saying it should not be considered alongside the other more acute issues.

It's the same as when I hear people tell me that successful blacks should stop complaining because they have it good when compared to those who are truly suffering. And I hear this shit constantly (e.g., "I'm sick of these black millionaire actors complaining about the lack of roles/nominations/equal treatment in pay. Black people are dying in the streets!" or "Hey, Thurgreed, you have it good. You're a partner at an international law firm. No one wants to hear about your lack of access to clients/leadership positions at the firm/equal treatment in pay! Most black people don't make anywhere near what you do!").

If you think I was saying that, you misread me. (See below).

[*]You have bought in completely to the narrative pushed by small-minded assholes who can't be bothered to treat people with respect and therefore actively lump in the ridiculous instances of the "PC police gone wild" with all other legitimate instances of discrimination so that they can shoo it all away.

No I haven't. Flagging the subtle racism permeating our society is valid. But racism is a unique thing. Nobody in his right mind would begrudge a black person for complaining about the way he's treated. But would I begrudge some spoiled college kid who wants a "safe space" because she cannot bear to hear about domestic violence in a seminar because her aunt was in a verbally abusive relationship? All day long.

I hear very little discussion of microagressions regarding racism. Why? Because that's a real aggression. The microaggressions I read about (in the Times, WaPo; not the Journal, or Fox) are frivolous.

[*]The ridicule of microaggressions is something only people who generally don't give a shit about how people expect to be treated engage in. I went to a small liberal arts school in the Midwest. I was one of maybe 50 black people on a campus of 2,000. And let me tell you something, microaggressions (although we didn't have a word for it back then) is fucking real and it's tiring.

I wouldn't call that microaggression. I'd call that general, societal racism.

Trust me. To this day, where I am one of two black people at a ~200 person firm, having to navigate an environment designed by and for white people is exhausting. The microaggressions I experience are real and they wear on you. Just because I don't complain to you about them doesn't mean they don't exist. So when you hear about them, why not listen and think about what you might do to recognize when you're participating rather than bitch about something else that's too PC.

Maybe I'm just getting hung up on terminology, but again, what you're describing is something I don't think of as microagression. The sort of trivial complaints one hears about in discussions of microagressions are nothing like the substantial complaint you raise: Society is still largely built for whites, and subtly and not so subtly continues to discriminate against blacks.

Anyone who shuts off because they've heard the buzzword too often and thinks it's boring or annoying having to listen to people complain about it needs some perspective. And quite often, it's these assholes who can't fucking deal and throw the biggest fits if they believe they've been overlooked or slighted somehow. It's just amazing.

I've never shut off about racism. But I think there's a need to look at complaints individually and separate the frivolous from the serious. Racism is never frivolous. In that regard, I don't even think it should be considered to fall under a category with a weak name like "microagression."

TM[/QUOTE]

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sebby, you were criticizing her fashion choices. Get real. Could you find something more gendered?

As a bit of really dry sarcasm, this is great.

Jumping off... I have a problem with every politician's fashion choices. And beyond that, DC's fashion choices in general. They're awful. These people have been so guided by trying not to offend anyone that they've developed the most boring, uninspired wardrobes on the planet.

1. Bag the solid blue or red tie. This look should universally banned, under penalty of caning.
2. You can, even as President, wear a suit with a pattern or a stripe. Bush and Obama have worn nothing but solid grey and blue suits for the last 16 years.
3. You can wear a tie with a pattern. Liz Warren will not Twitter troll you for dressing like a banker if you throw on some small Hermes-like patterned neckwear.
4. You can wear a shirt with lines or, god forbid, checks.
5. Get the fucking suits tailored. Obama and Bush looked like they were wearing suits two sizes too big they just yanked off the rack at Macy's. Look at Sarkozy, or Hollande, or even Cameron or Berlusconi. Their suits fit. Even if you're fat, the suit should be snug. Nobody respects a guy rocking the "boxed" look. You're a President, not a low level loan officer.

And as to Hillary, yes -- the North Korean look has to go. Wear those Chanel-looking skirt and top things. You look Presidential. Those tops that button at your neck and flare out over a pair of identically colored pants? Kill it. Yesterday. Nobody wants to vote for a Teletubby.

Oh, and button your jacket, Donald. Embracing "the paunch" does you no favors, particularly given your tendency to slouch like an ape.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

As a bit of really dry sarcasm, this is great.

Jumping off... I have a problem with every politician's fashion choices. And beyond that, DC's fashion choices in general. They're awful. These people have been so guided by trying not to offend anyone that they've developed the most boring, uninspired wardrobes on the planet.

1. Bag the solid blue or red tie. This look should universally banned, under penalty of caning.
2. You can, even as President, wear a suit with a pattern or a stripe. Bush and Obama have worn nothing but solid grey and blue suits for the last 16 years.
3. You can wear a tie with a pattern. Liz Warren will not Twitter troll you for dressing like a banker if you throw on some small Hermes-like patterned neckwear.
4. You can wear a shirt with lines or, god forbid, checks.
5. Get the fucking suits tailored. Obama and Bush looked like they were wearing suits two sizes too big they just yanked off the rack at Macy's. Look at Sarkozy, or Hollande, or even Cameron or Berlusconi. Their suits fit. Even if you're fat, the suit should be snug. Nobody respects a guy rocking the "boxed" look. You're a President, not a low level loan officer.

And as to Hillary, yes -- the North Korean look has to go. Wear those Chanel-looking skirt and top things. You look Presidential. Those tops that button at your neck and flare out over a pair of identically colored pants? Kill it. Yesterday. Nobody wants to vote for a Teletubby.

Oh, and button your jacket, Donald. Embracing "the paunch" does you no favors, particularly given your tendency to slouch like an ape.

Here's the thing, most of these folks get their wardrobe with the advice of media consultants. The way they dress is what appeals to their constituencies. Obama in particular was taught to dress down, and Hillary has to dress in a way that makes her the candidate and not the first lady (of whom more fashion is expected).

Stripes in suits play games in front of cameras. Since the camera operator is often happy to make politicians look silly (as opposed to the actor or actress sporting stripes), no politician should ever wear them. Ever.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm not saying they should stop their belly aching. I'm saying it should not be considered alongside the other more acute issues.



If you think I was saying that, you misread me. (See below).



No I haven't. Flagging the subtle racism permeating our society is valid. But racism is a unique thing. Nobody in his right mind would begrudge a black person for complaining about the way he's treated. But would I begrudge some spoiled college kid who wants a "safe space" because she cannot bear to hear about domestic violence in a seminar because her aunt was in a verbally abusive relationship? All day long.

I hear very little discussion of microagressions regarding racism. Why? Because that's a real aggression. The microaggressions I read about (in the Times, WaPo; not the Journal, or Fox) are frivolous.



I wouldn't call that microaggression. I'd call that general, societal racism.



Maybe I'm just getting hung up on terminology, but again, what you're describing is something I don't think of as microagression. The sort of trivial complaints one hears about in discussions of microagressions are nothing like the substantial complaint you raise: Society is still largely built for whites, and subtly and not so subtly continues to discriminate against blacks.



I've never shut off about racism. But I think there's a need to look at complaints individually and separate the frivolous from the serious. Racism is never frivolous. In that regard, I don't even think it should be considered to fall under a category with a weak name like "microagression."

TM

[/QUOTE]

The problem is most people complaining about people complaining about microagressions are really looking to trivialize complaints they don't like.

Or, to think of it another way, if someone finds themselves agreeing too much with Donald Trump, maybe it's time for them to question their beliefs instead of trying to match his volume level?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

The problem is most people complaining about people complaining about microagressions are really looking to trivialize complaints they don't like.

Or, to think of it another way, if someone finds themselves agreeing too much with Donald Trump, maybe it's time for them to question their beliefs instead of trying to match his volume level?

That's a fair point. A lot of "conservatives" do want to find any basis they can to trivialize real racial issues.

I'm not one of them. I favor slapping the white guy blathering about how we're "focusing too much on race," then turning and slapping the probably white kid whining about how he needs a safe space because certain forms of protected free expression upset him. Call me a reasonable, surly moderate.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Here's the thing, most of these folks get their wardrobe with the advice of media consultants. The way they dress is what appeals to their constituencies. Obama in particular was taught to dress down, and Hillary has to dress in a way that makes her the candidate and not the first lady (of whom more fashion is expected).

Stripes in suits play games in front of cameras. Since the camera operator is often happy to make politicians look silly (as opposed to the actor or actress sporting stripes), no politician should ever wear them. Ever.

The consultants have been spot-on this year, no?

British politicians have historically worn stripes. And higher definition TVs are eliminating that problem.

And none of this excuses the lack of tailoring. Particularly for Bush and Obama, who are both slim.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm not saying they should stop their belly aching. I'm saying it should not be considered alongside the other more acute issues.



If you think I was saying that, you misread me. (See below).



No I haven't. Flagging the subtle racism permeating our society is valid. But racism is a unique thing. Nobody in his right mind would begrudge a black person for complaining about the way he's treated. But would I begrudge some spoiled college kid who wants a "safe space" because she cannot bear to hear about domestic violence in a seminar because her aunt was in a verbally abusive relationship? All day long.

I hear very little discussion of microagressions regarding racism. Why? Because that's a real aggression. The microaggressions I read about (in the Times, WaPo; not the Journal, or Fox) are frivolous.



I wouldn't call that microaggression. I'd call that general, societal racism.



Maybe I'm just getting hung up on terminology, but again, what you're describing is something I don't think of as microagression. The sort of trivial complaints one hears about in discussions of microagressions are nothing like the substantial complaint you raise: Society is still largely built for whites, and subtly and not so subtly continues to discriminate against blacks.



I've never shut off about racism. But I think there's a need to look at complaints individually and separate the frivolous from the serious. Racism is never frivolous. In that regard, I don't even think it should be considered to fall under a category with a weak name like "microagression."

I would go into why microaggressions fall into many different categories, including race, and I could address how and why people trivialize and categorize these things (and purposefully lump them in to this general idea that PC is out of control) in order to dismiss them, but I'm tired of this topic.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The consultants have been spot-on this year, no?

British politicians have historically worn stripes. And higher definition TVs are eliminating that problem.

And none of this excuses the lack of tailoring. Particularly for Bush and Obama, who are both slim.

When I was in politics and rules chair of the state convention, I wore a rather smashing dashiki for the task. Not everyone can carry this off, and so the less adventurous wear "suits". Once they're a stiff in a suit, though, it's all lost anyways, so what does the tailoring matter.

On a separate fashion topic, what do you think of the facial hair of this neo-nazi crazy? I mean, I understand retro, but this seems to take it way too far.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I would go into why microaggressions fall into many different categories, including race, and I could address how and why people trivialize and categorize these things (and purposefully lump them in to this general idea that PC is out of control) in order to dismiss them, but I'm tired of this topic.

TM

I kind of agree with Thurgreed on this one. I have seen far more racism, misogyny and anti-Semitism since Trump has brought them out of the woodwork (see Breitbart headline calling Bill Kristol a "Renegade Jew" for advocating a conservative 3rd party option). I know they were always there, but it is pretty darn hard to miss now.

As to Sebby's point, pandering to college students who need to color and pet kittens to get through finals seems more than a tad counter productive. And I think adults should be able to read and discuss literature without a trigger warning. I am a full advocate of free speech, which is becoming more and more scarce at campuses. It's the view common among millenials that they have the right to not be offended by anything that is worrisome to me, but that is quite apart from racism and sexism, no matter how they are expressed. As offensive as some speech is, or should be to any decent person, the antidote is more speech, not less.

I did vote in the R primary runoff today. In many respects this runoff determines the winner more than the general election, at least for statewide races. Even a dumbass R will win statewide races, as RT has said before (BTW, I voted against Ken Paxton in the primary and his runoff) and RR Commission is a fairly important office.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I kind of agree with Thurgreed on this one. I have seen far more racism, misogyny and anti-Semitism since Trump has brought them out of the woodwork (see Breitbart headline calling Bill Kristol a "Renegade Jew" for advocating a conservative 3rd party option). I know they were always there, but it is pretty darn hard to miss now.

As to Sebby's point, pandering to college students who need to color and pet kittens to get through finals seems more than a tad counter productive. And I think adults should be able to read and discuss literature without a trigger warning. I am a full advocate of free speech, which is becoming more and more scarce at campuses. It's the view common among millenials that they have the right to not be offended by anything that is worrisome to me, but that is quite apart from racism and sexism, no matter how they are expressed. As offensive as some speech is, or should be to any decent person, the antidote is more speech, not less.

I did vote in the R primary runoff today. In many respects this runoff determines the winner more than the general election, at least for statewide races. Even a dumbass R will win statewide races, as RT has said before (BTW, I voted against Ken Paxton in the primary and his runoff) and RR Commission is a fairly important office.

We are seeing some true colors these days. I find myself liking Lindsay Graham more than I ever expected to, while the Johns Huntsman and McCain are falling in my regard.

[notcasesensitive]

I watched Weiner tonight. I missed his short-lived return to politics in 2013. He'll be back to politics again at some point, right? He seems incapable of sitting on the sidelines...

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

I watched Weiner tonight. I missed his short-lived return to politics in 2013. He'll be back to politics again at some point, right? He seems incapable of sitting on the sidelines...

There is a man whose time would be best used shutting up and just supporting his wife.

On another front, can we make the finger wagging stop now? Please? Oregon, Kentucky, I'm lookin at you.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Right. I've burned about 100,000 characters insulting Ted Cruz and Trump. But it's clear my insulting of Hillary is misogyny.

You're being a cultural Timmy here, and a Trump enabler. You know I'm neither sexist nor xenophobic nor racist. We've known each other here quite long enough to establish that. And I know you're not really a "hall monitor" type on these sorts of issues. Yet you flagged me here, and I think the reason you did so is twofold:

1. Score points. It was an easy shot. Fair enough.
2. Because you've fallen a bit into the silly use of all the new "victim language" being thrown around in recent years.

The second thing's important because a good bit of it is causing the nauseating backlash we see embodied in Trump. The more people see misogyny in everything, discrimination everywhere, and rail against things like "microaggressions," the more Trumpkins return the fire with truly offensive responses.

Look, I get that we're at one of these "inflection points" where everybody's a victim, and everybody else has "privilege," etc. These cycles come around every now and again. But throwing around accusations of misogyny, racism, xenophobia too frequently has a "boy who cried wolf" effect. Things like Ferguson and criminal justice reform - serious shit that needs to be addressed - are forgotten, or attacked by the Right (and Middle) as part of a childish "left wing agenda."

Not every nasty comment is sexist, or racist, or xenophobic. And the funniest shit usually walks a fine line with being offensive, or truly stinging the target. Lighten up, and train your fire on the targets worthy of it.

Really? I didn't mind it at all. I assumed it was all just good fun.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

This is bullshit victim blaming. It's literally, "stop standing up for your rights or you're going to make someone bad take them away."

"Victim blaming?"

I'm sorry, when did you stop being a white, upper middle class male?