We are all Slave now.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Ones before you were born don't count.

I was alive for my team's entire existence and ALL of our 2 and our 3 almosts.

Sure they don't.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

How about just those that a college student can remember.

I hate the Yankees for a bunch of reasons, Bucky Fucking Dent among them.

Looks like you have some remembering going on.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Trump's response to a question about what he thinks of people seeing his rhetoric as emboldening white nationalists and whether he was concerned that Republicans would be seen as supporting white nationalists is exactly what I've been talking about on this board.

"That's a racist question," is not just a dodge. The ability to act as if you are so color-blind that any discussion of race--even in response to something so clearly coded to purposefully and specifically excite racists--is itself racist is the type of shield white people deploy to avoid addressing racism all the time. Not to this ridiculous degree of course, but it is the exact same concept.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Trump's response to a question about what he thinks of people seeing his rhetoric as emboldening white nationalists and whether he was concerned that Republicans would be seen as supporting white nationalists is exactly what I've been talking about on this board.

"That's a racist question," is not just a dodge. The ability to act as if you are so color-blind that any discussion of race--even in response to something so clearly coded to purposefully and specifically excite racists--is itself racist is the type of shield white people deploy to avoid addressing racism all the time. Not to this ridiculous degree of course, but it is the exact same concept.

TM

You credit Trump with thinking there. That's too much credit. His response there is idiotic even for someone trying to dodge. That whole presser was simply... unhinged.

I agree "I'm colorblind" is often a dodge. But you might also consider the intent, which is important:

1. The speaker's attempt to not discuss race simply because he does not wish to discuss that topic. Kind of like when people who don't want to talk about something heavy or potentially divisive will shift the conversation. "So... How about those Mets?"

2. The person is someone like me, who feels the compulsion to demonstrate that he views things entirely logically as much as possible. I'm not afraid of someone calling me a racist because they think I'm actually racist. People who get into a conversation on that topic would quickly realize I'm not. But I am extremely insecure about being seen as someone who'd allow an irrational ethos like bigotry to infect his thinking. You may tell me that I'm unconsciously racist for any number of reasons which have been offered here, and I can accept that. But somebody thinking I'm susceptible to the illogical arguments of intentional racist thinking would infuriate me as he'd be insulting my capacity to reason. I'd be compelled to offer some form of purely intellectual response to that person, along the lines of, "Physical attributes used to categorize people as one 'race' or another are utterly deficient measuring sticks in every conceivable regard." And I can see how that would look like a dodge.

Some of these "dodges" aren't born of insecurity, guilt, or lack of comfort with the subject. It does not undo your point, and is not intended to do so, but I do think it's worthwhile to note the existence of that differentiation.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

It is all genetic programming. We are genetically programmed to form tribes for safety -- which winds up creating hate for the other tribes. Why Boston fans hate Yankee fans.

“People are wonderful. I love individuals. I hate groups of people. I hate a group of people with a 'common purpose'. 'Cause pretty soon they have little hats. And armbands. And fight songs. And a list of people they're going to visit at 3am. So, I dislike and despise groups of people but I love individuals. Every person you look at; you can see the universe in their eyes, if you're really looking.” - Carlin

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Women are not immune to misogyny.

Would one be misdandrist when saying the following to colleagues after dealing with annoying men:

1. "Fucking midget with a Napoleon Complex..."
2. "Typical douche."
3. "Casper Milquetoast... No fucking balls."
4. "Fragile male ego..."
5. "Two assholes seeing who has the bigger dick..."

We all use those quite often, I'm sure, as infuriating men fuck up every decent work week at least to some small extent.

I'm "woke" on the issue of not using "bitch" to describe nasty women as it's unfair. But I am never giving up the right to judge men based on their sex. If there's a #hetoo, I'm moving to South America.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Would one be misdandrist when saying the following to colleagues after dealing with annoying men:

1. "Fucking midget with a Napoleon Complex..."
2. "Typical douche."
3. "Casper Milquetoast... No fucking balls."
4. "Fragile male ego..."
5. "Two assholes seeing who has the bigger dick..."

We all use those quite often, I'm sure, as infuriating men fuck up every decent work week at least to some small extent.

Who is we?

I'm "woke" on the issue of not using "bitch" to describe nasty women as it's unfair. But I am never giving up the right to judge men based on their sex. If there's a #hetoo, I'm moving to South America.

I don't know who is arguing you can't.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Looks like you have some remembering going on.

TM

I remember Enos Slaughter scoring from first in 1946 while Pesky held the ball, and my father was five years old then.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Trump's response to a question about what he thinks of people seeing his rhetoric as emboldening white nationalists and whether he was concerned that Republicans would be seen as supporting white nationalists is exactly what I've been talking about on this board.

"That's a racist question," is not just a dodge. The ability to act as if you are so color-blind that any discussion of race--even in response to something so clearly coded to purposefully and specifically excite racists--is itself racist is the type of shield white people deploy to avoid addressing racism all the time. Not to this ridiculous degree of course, but it is the exact same concept.

TM

Trump doesn't pretend to be color-blind. The real racism is the race consciousness that gets in the way of implicit white supremacy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

If Mueller writes a report and does not share it with the White House, and DOJ then ends his probe, how can DOJ and the White House keep from sharing the report with Congress, assuming a valid subpoena?

Not a rhetorical question, but also I'm not seeing it. Ironically, the efforts that Devin Nunes and other House Republicans made to obtain and release information about the Mueller investigation while it was still pending seem like they become a precedent here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You credit Trump with thinking there. That's too much credit. His response there is idiotic even for someone trying to dodge. That whole presser was simply... unhinged.

I agree "I'm colorblind" is often a dodge. But you might also consider the intent, which is important:

1. The speaker's attempt to not discuss race simply because he does not wish to discuss that topic. Kind of like when people who don't want to talk about something heavy or potentially divisive will shift the conversation. "So... How about those Mets?"

2. The person is someone like me, who feels the compulsion to demonstrate that he views things entirely logically as much as possible. I'm not afraid of someone calling me a racist because they think I'm actually racist. People who get into a conversation on that topic would quickly realize I'm not. But I am extremely insecure about being seen as someone who'd allow an irrational ethos like bigotry to infect his thinking. You may tell me that I'm unconsciously racist for any number of reasons which have been offered here, and I can accept that. But somebody thinking I'm susceptible to the illogical arguments of intentional racist thinking would infuriate me as he'd be insulting my capacity to reason. I'd be compelled to offer some form of purely intellectual response to that person, along the lines of, "Physical attributes used to categorize people as one 'race' or another are utterly deficient measuring sticks in every conceivable regard." And I can see how that would look like a dodge.

Some of these "dodges" aren't born of insecurity, guilt, or lack of comfort with the subject. It does not undo your point, and is not intended to do so, but I do think it's worthwhile to note the existence of that differentiation.

This is not a dodge for Trump, he is singing the White Nationalist liturgy. The idea he espouses is that the refusal of people to accept white nationalists as part of the discussion is bigotry. It is the ultimate extension of "both side-ism", where both sides end up being any lunatic who labels themselves a Republican, no matter whether they literally worship Hitler. Both sides means you have to treat the Charlottesville Nazis and the ACLU as equal, and to do otherwise is racist in its own right.

How do people not see this? His answer is the David Duke answer.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Would one be misdandrist when saying the following to colleagues after dealing with annoying men:

1. "Fucking midget with a Napoleon Complex..."
2. "Typical douche."
3. "Casper Milquetoast... No fucking balls."
4. "Fragile male ego..."
5. "Two assholes seeing who has the bigger dick..."

We all use those quite often, I'm sure, as infuriating men fuck up every decent work week at least to some small extent.

I'm "woke" on the issue of not using "bitch" to describe nasty women as it's unfair. But I am never giving up the right to judge men based on their sex. If there's a #hetoo, I'm moving to South America.

Tough day for you, huh? Look, Hank was just joking when he said those things, you shouldn't worry your little head about it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This is not a dodge for Trump, he is singing the White Nationalist liturgy. The idea he espouses is that the refusal of people to accept white nationalists as part of the discussion is bigotry. It is the ultimate extension of "both side-ism", where both sides end up being any lunatic who labels themselves a Republican, no matter whether they literally worship Hitler. Both sides means you have to treat the Charlottesville Nazis and the ACLU as equal, and to do otherwise is racist in its own right.

How do people not see this? His answer is the David Duke answer.

In general, Trump doesn't have beliefs or principles, he has wants, needs and urges, and what he says reflects the latter, not the former. But this is one subject where he comes pretty close to having actual beliefs. Still, I would say that he is more using things he has heard other people say to avoid a question in the moment, rather than trying to express an idea.

It amazes me that people still look for some deeper principle behind what he says.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You credit Trump with thinking there. That's too much credit. His response there is idiotic even for someone trying to dodge. That whole presser was simply... unhinged.

I disagree. It was a knee-jerk reaction to having to deal with something he said that was clearly racist. It was completely defensive and he used it to side-step the issue completely. Whether or not he is a complete fucking moron is completely beside the point.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I agree "I'm colorblind" is often a dodge. But you might also consider the intent, which is important:

1. The speaker's attempt to not discuss race simply because he does not wish to discuss that topic. Kind of like when people who don't want to talk about something heavy or potentially divisive will shift the conversation. "So... How about those Mets?"

I see. So, "It's just too heavy, man," doesn't read to you as "This is not really my problem. I can avoid it when it feels even slightly inconvenient or uncomfortable for me. You go ahead and hold on to it, why don't you?"

Having the fucking luxury to pick and choose when you feel like dealing with or addressing something that affects other people constantly -- especially when someone is responding to something you just said -- is exactly the problem.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

2. The person is someone like me, who feels the compulsion to demonstrate that he views things entirely logically as much as possible. I'm not afraid of someone calling me a racist because they think I'm actually racist. People who get into a conversation on that topic would quickly realize I'm not. But I am extremely insecure about being seen as someone who'd allow an irrational ethos like bigotry to infect his thinking. You may tell me that I'm unconsciously racist for any number of reasons which have been offered here, and I can accept that. But somebody thinking I'm susceptible to the illogical arguments of intentional racist thinking would infuriate me as he'd be insulting my capacity to reason. I'd be compelled to offer some form of purely intellectual response to that person, along the lines of, "Physical attributes used to categorize people as one 'race' or another are utterly deficient measuring sticks in every conceivable regard." And I can see how that would look like a dodge.

First, I think you are the only person who would describe your take on things as "entirely logical." How you got your fingers to type that is surely no small feat.

Second, I don't understand the entire point of what you just wrote. You have set up a scenario in which someone has mistaken something you said as racist and then crafted a response based on how logical you are. The whole thing is very fucking weird and I don't understand what it has to do with anything I or we have been discussing up to this point.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Some of these "dodges" aren't born of insecurity, guilt, or lack of comfort with the subject. It does not undo your point, and is not intended to do so, but I do think it's worthwhile to note the existence of that differentiation.

I find it amazing that you either cannot or will not see the substance of the points I'm making or simply would rather just talk on the periphery because it's more pleasant to be out there. In any case, this shit is exhausting.

TM