Joined: 18 Dec 2015 Posts: 5234 Location: So what's the uh...topic of discussion?
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:15 pm Post subject:
Hector the Pup wrote:
Huey Lewis & The News wrote:
This is why I tried not to go into who or what Antifa is, because in this thread, people will spin it and its motives to whatever they believe or would have others believe.
What can't be denied is that its members have repeatedly inflicted unprovoked violence upon people who were not practicing violence themselves, nor were they threatening violence, and there have been enough of these incidents (most of which are on video) for me to decide that their violence speaks louder than whatever their message might be. I agree with some of the ideas behind antifa, but their virtues fall short when businesses are trashed, bystanders are concussed with blunt objects, and when police are attacked. I hate that their violence is used (by morons) to represent all leftist politics.
So you can't or won't identify who antifa is but people are wrong for denying that they are bad. Got it.
I do not hold our disagreement over this issue against you, not just because I agree with most of what you say on these matters, but also because I know it's a delicate subject and there are many more ways to go "wrong" about it than there are right, hence, no, I don't think you're "wrong" for not condemning antifa. I know what it is and what it claims to "fight" against. I know that Antifa is worldwide, and it existed for quite a while before Trump as President ever came into the picture, before these rallies, before the Nazi neckbeard march on Charlottesville.
But here's my point...
Is this guy a Nazi? An Antifa member cracked his skull with a U-lock
Is this girl a fascist? She got her hair lit on fire by Antifa
Is this guy at the Boston free speech rally a Nazi? He was threatened and harrassed...for carrying an Israeli flag. Irony?
Another guy from the Boston rally knocked out for refusing to denounce white people. Knocked out.
Businesses in Portland destroyed and set on fire
That's a mere 5, relatively recent videos, and there are hundreds more, from a period of 2-3 years, not including ambiguous instances that have been pre-spun and pushed by the white supremacists/republicans/"It's not my job to defend Trump here, but..." pro-Trump crowd.
Is there something other than violence that Antifa has done for its supposed cause, other than the 2 or 3 instances just mentioned here? _________________ "All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers."
http://forums.lakersground.net/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=13018
Most die hard Caucasian conservatives would say that something like affirmative action is "anti-white." Most people who claim a rising "anti-white" sentiment are those who also don't recognize the concept of white privilege. Losing one's "white privilege" is not evidence of a society which is "anti-white," but, rather, a society which simply believes in equality. Still, to those who love their white privilege and see the "color" of America changing, they take that as a threat and point those changes as the rise of "anti-white" ideology.
Perfectly stated.
Couldn't agree more.
Even so, it's crazy to think that they reallybelieve it's a threat to them, when for hundreds of years people of color have been enslaved, hung, denied basic rights, targeted by police and all around treated like animals...but God forbid they have to hear, "press 1 for English" and that's the sign that America is going downhill.
I expect for Trump to say outrageous, ignorant and just plain stupid things, but watching his speech last night, seeing these grown ass adults eat up every word (after he's been nothing but terrible as president) was honestly frightening.
Fwiw, as a minority with no white in me, this is why I am personally opposed to Affirmative Action on the basis of race. I would prefer increasing opportunities for the socioeconomically disadvantaged for things like college.
The problem with basing things on race, is well, you have made it about race.
Anyway, I firmly believe we will always struggle with this issue. IMO, it is the price you pay for allowing for diversity. If you don't want to deal with these issues like we do, then you gotta make like Europe or Asia and go homogeneous.
Being diverse AND having everyone feel they are getting their share has and never will happen IMO.
I'm not saying it's an easy fix by any means, but no one is born hating someone else because of the color of their skin, it's a learned trait most of the time. Generation by generation we're getting better but still have a ways to go.
I don't believe that "that's the price you pay", for what, being human and looking different? Like it was pointed out, the root of the hate is having white privilege, then the fear of losing it which causes this uproar we are seeing. We shouldn't have to pay a price for wanting to be treated equally, it shouldn't be a burden we have to bare.
Well, if you can point me to an ecosystem that has great diversity, rich and poor, black and white, men and women, etc, where all parties feel things are fair, I'd like to see it.
The only people who ever think things are fair, are those who have the scales tipped disproportionately in their favor.
You see this in every system. We're in a basketball forum so I'll use the NBA. Small market teams think the large market teams get all the spoils. Large market teams think the small market teams run the NBA. When the advantages that large market teams enjoy, are handicapped to provide more opportunity for smaller markets, you don't see much rejoicing from the large market fan base. You see revolt. You see greater disdain for the smaller market teams.
What we are seeing is just that on a larger scale.
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:25 pm Post subject:
ringfinger wrote:
lakeshow03 wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
LakerSanity wrote:
Most die hard Caucasian conservatives would say that something like affirmative action is "anti-white." Most people who claim a rising "anti-white" sentiment are those who also don't recognize the concept of white privilege. Losing one's "white privilege" is not evidence of a society which is "anti-white," but, rather, a society which simply believes in equality. Still, to those who love their white privilege and see the "color" of America changing, they take that as a threat and point those changes as the rise of "anti-white" ideology.
Perfectly stated.
Couldn't agree more.
Even so, it's crazy to think that they reallybelieve it's a threat to them, when for hundreds of years people of color have been enslaved, hung, denied basic rights, targeted by police and all around treated like animals...but God forbid they have to hear, "press 1 for English" and that's the sign that America is going downhill.
I expect for Trump to say outrageous, ignorant and just plain stupid things, but watching his speech last night, seeing these grown ass adults eat up every word (after he's been nothing but terrible as president) was honestly frightening.
Fwiw, as a minority with no white in me, this is why I am personally opposed to Affirmative Action on the basis of race. I would prefer increasing opportunities for the socioeconomically disadvantaged for things like college.
The problem with basing things on race, is well, you have made it about race.
Anyway, I firmly believe we will always struggle with this issue. IMO, it is the price you pay for allowing for diversity. If you don't want to deal with these issues like we do, then you gotta make like Europe or Asia and go homogeneous.
Being diverse AND having everyone feel they are getting their share has and never will happen IMO.
socioeconomic status is much more of a discriminatory factor in this country than race or ethnicity. Some will laugh, but compare the problems, complaints, desires, etc. of poor whites that live in a Kentucky trailer park and a group of inner city poor minorities. They may use different words, but most of the root problems they face are very similar. The powerful often love to distract and separate those with little power with ignorant divisive things like race.
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:29 pm Post subject:
tlim wrote:
adkindo wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
adkindo wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
adkindo wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
adkindo wrote:
Huey Lewis & The News wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Huey Lewis & The News wrote:
Antifa is scum. Might not be Nazis, but that's like saying crack isn't heroin.
Out of curiosity, what is the basis that makes them scum as a whole?
Its promotion and use of physical violence along with the refusal to denounce or discourage further violence.
Anitfa hides behind a mission of anti-fascism, but like the left has done for decades, they cloak reality to label anyone they desire to attack as being or representing fascism. It is similar to those that never miss a chance to label someone a racist.....it allows them to smear someone while presenting themselves on the positive platform. It is very difficult to prove you are not something internally within a discussion.
Antifa is not fighting anything for a moral cause, only hijacking a cause to excuse their violence and repulsive behavior. They are simply being used as an attack vehicle and acting as political minions.
LOL.
LOL indeed. The irony is pretty rich there.
there is no irony there, just feeble attempts to deflect what is 100% accurate
Nothing "feeble" about it. Nor is there any deflection at all because there's nothing to deflect. Just a sweeping, incorrect accusation (hence the "irony") part.
which part is incorrect? Which sentence is untrue?
The irony was pointed out quite well by Omar, not that it should have needed pointing out since it was obvious.
I will add the additional irony of someone accusing the left of engaging in the act of ignoring reality to create labels for those they want to attack. Such actions are a trademark of the Right - hence the terms we get like "libtards" etc. or labeling anyone on the left as a "communist/socialist".
As for the incorrect, the idea you float that everyone who is liberal
Violent Leftist Group Plans To ‘Shut Down’ Berkeley March Against Marxism
Quote:
BAMN is organizing to shut down what it claims is a “Neo-Nazi” rally in Berkeley on Saturday. The rally is titled “No to Marxism in America.” The rally organizer, a biological man who identified himself as a transgender woman to media outlets, claims the rally is not a “right-wing” rally, embraces diversity and is meant to oppose the spread of Marxism in Berkeley.
just another example of a leftist group claiming to be anti-fascist, then labeling something they do not like that has nothing to do with fascism....."anti-fascist" so they can engage in violence and attempt to squash free speech. I mean unless you think the neo-nazi's are now using transgender women to carry out their missions. This is only one perfect example of what I stated, and I could provide you an example every week.
Code word and bogus groups. how long did these groups really exist? Marx has been dead for a long time and yet only now with no impetus?
And yet these guys also wouldn't be critical of Trump and Russia?
Fwiw, as a minority with no white in me, this is why I am personally opposed to Affirmative Action on the basis of race. I would prefer increasing opportunities for the socioeconomically disadvantaged for things like college
But if the socioeconomically disadvantaged happen to be from particular minority races, how do you separate the benefactors of AA? While race is not a cause of being poor, it's certainly disproportionately representative in this country.
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:45 pm Post subject:
vanexelent wrote:
Quote:
Fwiw, as a minority with no white in me, this is why I am personally opposed to Affirmative Action on the basis of race. I would prefer increasing opportunities for the socioeconomically disadvantaged for things like college
But if the socioeconomically disadvantaged happen to be from particular minority races, how do you separate the benefactors of AA? While race is not a cause of being poor, it's certainly disproportionately representative in this country.
this is simply not true....yes, there is a higher % of black Americans that live below the poverty line, but around 45% of Americans that live at or below the poverty line are white, while around 28% is black. The socioeconomic poor or impoverished is definitely not even remotely confined to a particular race.
Last edited by adkindo on Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 18 Dec 2015 Posts: 5234 Location: So what's the uh...topic of discussion?
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:55 pm Post subject:
adkindo wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
Quote:
Fwiw, as a minority with no white in me, this is why I am personally opposed to Affirmative Action on the basis of race. I would prefer increasing opportunities for the socioeconomically disadvantaged for things like college
But if the socioeconomically disadvantaged happen to be from particular minority races, how do you separate the benefactors of AA? While race is not a cause of being poor, it's certainly disproportionately representative in this country.
this is simply not true....yes, there is a higher % of black Americans that live below the poverty line, but around 45% of Americans that live at or below the poverty line are white, while around 28% is black. The socioeconomic or impoverished is definitely not even remotely confined to a particular race.
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:00 pm Post subject:
Huey Lewis & The News wrote:
adkindo wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
Quote:
Fwiw, as a minority with no white in me, this is why I am personally opposed to Affirmative Action on the basis of race. I would prefer increasing opportunities for the socioeconomically disadvantaged for things like college
But if the socioeconomically disadvantaged happen to be from particular minority races, how do you separate the benefactors of AA? While race is not a cause of being poor, it's certainly disproportionately representative in this country.
this is simply not true....yes, there is a higher % of black Americans that live below the poverty line, but around 45% of Americans that live at or below the poverty line are white, while around 28% is black. The socioeconomic or impoverished is definitely not even remotely confined to a particular race.
And why do you think so many blacks are poor?
I didn't allude to a reasoning to why anyone lives in poverty, only pointing out that poverty is a widespread problem among all races.
Fwiw, as a minority with no white in me, this is why I am personally opposed to Affirmative Action on the basis of race. I would prefer increasing opportunities for the socioeconomically disadvantaged for things like college
But if the socioeconomically disadvantaged happen to be from particular minority races, how do you separate the benefactors of AA? While race is not a cause of being poor, it's certainly disproportionately representative in this country.
I don't understand this post. Of course, if AA is based on socioeconomics instead of race, it'll still end up helping certain races more than others. So what? The point is that race shouldn't be the criterion of evaluation, not that AA should be race-neutral in effect.
Last edited by tox on Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 18 Dec 2015 Posts: 5234 Location: So what's the uh...topic of discussion?
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:13 pm Post subject:
adkindo wrote:
Huey Lewis & The News wrote:
adkindo wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
Quote:
Fwiw, as a minority with no white in me, this is why I am personally opposed to Affirmative Action on the basis of race. I would prefer increasing opportunities for the socioeconomically disadvantaged for things like college
But if the socioeconomically disadvantaged happen to be from particular minority races, how do you separate the benefactors of AA? While race is not a cause of being poor, it's certainly disproportionately representative in this country.
this is simply not true....yes, there is a higher % of black Americans that live below the poverty line, but around 45% of Americans that live at or below the poverty line are white, while around 28% is black. The socioeconomic or impoverished is definitely not even remotely confined to a particular race.
And why do you think so many blacks are poor?
I didn't allude to a reasoning to why anyone lives in poverty, only pointing out that poverty is a widespread problem among all races.
Fwiw, as a minority with no white in me, this is why I am personally opposed to Affirmative Action on the basis of race. I would prefer increasing opportunities for the socioeconomically disadvantaged for things like college
But if the socioeconomically disadvantaged happen to be from particular minority races, how do you separate the benefactors of AA? While race is not a cause of being poor, it's certainly disproportionately representative in this country.
this is simply not true....yes, there is a higher % of black Americans that live below the poverty line, but around 45% of Americans that live at or below the poverty line are white, while around 28% is black. The socioeconomic poor or impoverished is definitely not even remotely confined to a particular race.
Poverty rates of blacks and Hispanics more than double that of whites.
Fwiw, as a minority with no white in me, this is why I am personally opposed to Affirmative Action on the basis of race. I would prefer increasing opportunities for the socioeconomically disadvantaged for things like college
But if the socioeconomically disadvantaged happen to be from particular minority races, how do you separate the benefactors of AA? While race is not a cause of being poor, it's certainly disproportionately representative in this country.
Think of it this way -- Alzheimers affects women more than men.
If you had a drug that could eradicate it, would you only give it women because that is who suffers from Alzheimers in great numbers?
Taking it back to AA, who needs more help? The poor white kid from wherever or Malia Obama?
I guess it depends on what you're trying to accomplish.
Do you want to help people who don't have access to resources regardless of skin color, or do you want to help people with a certain skin color regardless of resources?
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:27 pm Post subject:
Anyone that thinks that the overwhelming majority of media is not bias, a few graphics from a Harvard Kennedy School related to the tone of media coverage during the first 100 days on the Trump Administration...
Here is the entire study. The authors make an effort to cover for the media, but still have to admit the stark difference in the manner and tone of which the media covers the Trump Administration. It is no coincidence that the media was very negative about the Bush Administration, much more favorably for the Obama Administration, then back to very negative with the Trump Administration.
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29354 Location: La La Land
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:30 pm Post subject:
adkindo wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
Quote:
Fwiw, as a minority with no white in me, this is why I am personally opposed to Affirmative Action on the basis of race. I would prefer increasing opportunities for the socioeconomically disadvantaged for things like college
But if the socioeconomically disadvantaged happen to be from particular minority races, how do you separate the benefactors of AA? While race is not a cause of being poor, it's certainly disproportionately representative in this country.
this is simply not true....yes, there is a higher % of black Americans that live below the poverty line, but around 45% of Americans that live at or below the poverty line are white, while around 28% is black. The socioeconomic or impoverished is definitely not even remotely confined to a particular race.
Confined? no. But disproportionately affected? Yes.
77% of the US population is white. 13% is black. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216
Comparing those %s to the one's you listed above proves my point. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 33474 Location: Long Beach, California
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:35 pm Post subject:
adkindo wrote:
Anyone that thinks that the overwhelming majority of media is not bias, a few graphics from a Harvard Kennedy School related to the tone of media coverage during the first 100 days on the Trump Administration...
Here is the entire study. The authors make an effort to cover for the media, but still have to admit the stark difference in the manner and tone of which the media covers the Trump Administration. It is no coincidence that the media was very negative about the Bush Administration, much more favorably for the Obama Administration, then back to very negative with the Trump Administration.
Lets see. George Bush is universally categorized as one of the worst presidents of all time (who took us into a borderline depression after lying to us about nuclear weapons being in Iraq). Clinton was a very popular president (and, even then, he got more negative coverage than Bush likely because of the Lewinsky scandal). Obama was more divisive, but ended his Presidency with a positive approval rating.
It seems to me that CNN/MSNBC/WAPO/NYTIMES seem to follow the approval ratings of the respective presidents, while Fox is the only one that doesn't. Funny how a conservatives first thought is to blame the media rather than asking if the person deserves the type of media coverage they are receiving. _________________ LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost
Last edited by LakerSanity on Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:41 pm; edited 2 times in total
Fwiw, as a minority with no white in me, this is why I am personally opposed to Affirmative Action on the basis of race. I would prefer increasing opportunities for the socioeconomically disadvantaged for things like college
But if the socioeconomically disadvantaged happen to be from particular minority races, how do you separate the benefactors of AA? While race is not a cause of being poor, it's certainly disproportionately representative in this country.
this is simply not true....yes, there is a higher % of black Americans that live below the poverty line, but around 45% of Americans that live at or below the poverty line are white, while around 28% is black. The socioeconomic or impoverished is definitely not even remotely confined to a particular race.
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 33474 Location: Long Beach, California
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:38 pm Post subject:
ringfinger wrote:
I think there are something like 45M Americans living at or below poverty levels. IMO, those Americans need the most help first.
Actually, most of those white citizens in poverty could very easily help themselves by simply voting for democratic governors and state representatives. The highest congregation of those stuck in poverty belong in red states. That's not a coincidence. _________________ LakersGround's Terms of Service
Anyone that thinks that the overwhelming majority of media is not bias, a few graphics from a Harvard Kennedy School related to the tone of media coverage during the first 100 days on the Trump Administration...
Here is the entire study. The authors make an effort to cover for the media, but still have to admit the stark difference in the manner and tone of which the media covers the Trump Administration. It is no coincidence that the media was very negative about the Bush Administration, much more favorably for the Obama Administration, then back to very negative with the Trump Administration.
The figure you posted indicated there were more negative reports about the Clinton administration than W's. That's 2 negative for Republicans, and 1 positive 1 negative for Democrats. I'd hardly call that conclusive of some underlying trend.
Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 6054 Location: My own little piece of reality
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:42 pm Post subject:
adkindo wrote:
Anyone that thinks that the overwhelming majority of media is not bias, a few graphics from a Harvard Kennedy School related to the tone of media coverage during the first 100 days on the Trump Administration...
Here is the entire study. The authors make an effort to cover for the media, but still have to admit the stark difference in the manner and tone of which the media covers the Trump Administration. It is no coincidence that the media was very negative about the Bush Administration, much more favorably for the Obama Administration, then back to very negative with the Trump Administration.
The coverage is negative because Trump is an ass. What's so hard to grasp? He spews hatred and stupid statements and is unsuited to be president.
Democratic presidents Obama and Clinton were covered more positively than Bush and Trump? They were better presidents. George W. was borderline dumb. What a surprise that Fox "news" is the outlier. _________________ “There is always light if only we're brave enough to see it, if only we're brave enough to be it.” --Amanda Gorman
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:45 pm Post subject:
LakerSanity wrote:
adkindo wrote:
Anyone that thinks that the overwhelming majority of media is not bias, a few graphics from a Harvard Kennedy School related to the tone of media coverage during the first 100 days on the Trump Administration...
Here is the entire study. The authors make an effort to cover for the media, but still have to admit the stark difference in the manner and tone of which the media covers the Trump Administration. It is no coincidence that the media was very negative about the Bush Administration, much more favorably for the Obama Administration, then back to very negative with the Trump Administration.
Lets see. George Bush is universally categorized as one of the worst presidents of all time. Clinton was a very popular president. Obama was more divisive, but ended his Presidency with a positive approval rating.
It seems to me that CNN/MSNBC/WAPO/NYTIMES seem to follow the approval ratings of the respective presidents, while Fox is the only one that doesn't. Funny how a conservatives first thought is to blame the media rather than asking if the person deserves the type of media coverage they are receiving.
wow, you read that study quickly. LS, I say this with a friendly smile, but those that think Bush "is universally categorized as one of the worst presidents of all time" must live in a bubble....simply not true. It will be decades before any meaningful analysis of a presidency today.....we are just now getting to honest and fair evaluations of Kennedy. Bias talking points of the day do not define a presidency. History will treat Bush quite well in my opinion.....he will be somewhere in the middle.
More importantly, you feel it is good journalism to shape the tone of how you cover politicians based on popular opinion? That goes against the very nature of good and unbias jounalism.
Anyone that thinks that the overwhelming majority of media is not bias, a few graphics from a Harvard Kennedy School related to the tone of media coverage during the first 100 days on the Trump Administration...
Here is the entire study. The authors make an effort to cover for the media, but still have to admit the stark difference in the manner and tone of which the media covers the Trump Administration. It is no coincidence that the media was very negative about the Bush Administration, much more favorably for the Obama Administration, then back to very negative with the Trump Administration.
So everyone agrees 2+2=4 except one person, who thinks it equals 5. Clearly the people saying 2+2=4 are the problem; we should be listening to the guy who says 2+2=5.
I think there are something like 45M Americans living at or below poverty levels. IMO, those Americans need the most help first.
Actually, most of those white citizens in poverty could very easily help themselves by simply voting for democratic governors and state representatives. The highest congregation of those stuck in poverty belong in red states. That's not a coincidence.
I could be wrong on this, but I was under the impression CA had a higher rate of poverty than many red states.
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:48 pm Post subject:
AY2043 wrote:
adkindo wrote:
Anyone that thinks that the overwhelming majority of media is not bias, a few graphics from a Harvard Kennedy School related to the tone of media coverage during the first 100 days on the Trump Administration...
Here is the entire study. The authors make an effort to cover for the media, but still have to admit the stark difference in the manner and tone of which the media covers the Trump Administration. It is no coincidence that the media was very negative about the Bush Administration, much more favorably for the Obama Administration, then back to very negative with the Trump Administration.
The figure you posted indicated there were more negative reports about the Clinton administration than W's. That's 2 negative for Republicans, and 1 positive 1 negative for Democrats. I'd hardly call that conclusive of some underlying trend.
The mainstream media (mostly northern elite liberals) was very hard and unfair with Clinton early in his presidency. They treated him as a "dumb southern governor that ate too many cheeseburgers"
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
