|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
splashmtn
Star Player
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3961
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | Quote: | | If you don't share the constant state of outrage, you become the enemy. |
Excessive policing/brutality against black/brown folks is something to be outraged about. |
Eh. For the folks in the echo chambers, there is always something to be outraged about. They get up in the morning, turn on the news, and get outraged. It's like a drug. For a time, Fox News gained hegemony in the news industry by peddling outrage. Now MSNBC and CNN are serving it up to the left. And, of relevance to this thread, Nike is joining the circus. |
This is the point I'm getting at. There's a real and fundamental question of whether something is worth being outraged about on the merits, in and of itself. Whether or not there are outrage factories or a culture of outrage or whatever, that doesn't change or answer the question about whether there should be outrage about a specific issue.
I think any reasonable person should be immediately and continuously outraged if a group of people are being murdered and/or otherwise harmed by the very people who are supposed to protect them. And I don't think just saying there is too much outrage is a cogent rebuttal. |
Great, but your point is ultimately irrelevant in this thread, My point is that Nike is using your outrage to sell you a pair of overpriced sneakers made in a sweatshop in Indonesia. Just do it, baby. |
but thats not your real gripe and we know this. but lets play along. you do realize nike doesnt just sell shoes right?
So what you're saying is, the only person that can ever stand up is someone that is of 100% perfect standing? I agree with that except for that rarely happens in real life. which means many people would not be standing up bringing awareness to things that did not have the eyes on them before.
Lastly, what this campaign does is simple. It's not for the racists that would never agree with the message. boohooo for them. cry us all a river of racist tears.
For those few people who dont understand how america works and doesnt understand that the flag itself represents protests, which is what supposedly makes america so great to begin with which is our freedom as citizens to let the country know when we are being mistreated(we being any group of people being mistreated at that point in time.) This is something you can't do in some countries without being murdered or jailed. The fact that some of our own servicemen/women dont understand that is appalling to be honest with you. It means people are making up in their own heads what the flag represents. "what the flag represents to me.." well its not about what it represents to YOU. its what it actually represents. If it's called the American Flag, then it represents America. What does America represent? Freedom to protest. thats one of the many things America represents. period, point blank. there is no room for wavering. if you waver, then I will say you're wavering because you're a racist, or you are one of a few minority groups and you personally are afraid to rock the boat(which I understand, you already deal with enough, why make it worse(because it only gets worse if you never say/do anything about it.)
There isnt a single protest where everyone agreed not even the minority groups that were being harmed and were the reason for the protest. people have that revisionist history thing going on when it comes to the civil rights protests. There were a many of black people who were wishing king wouldnt rock the boat. They were also a many of white racist people that were wishing harm on king. then there were also white (closet racist) people that wished king would just let things be as they are(just dont stir the pot aka dont be divisive.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
splashmtn
Star Player
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3961
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChefLinda wrote: | Court throws out 'mental retardation' - Justices unite over 'intellectual disability.'
| Quote: | The U.S. Supreme Court is often divided, but on one little-noticed point last week, it was unanimous: the term "mental retardation" is no longer appropriate to use. This may seem trivial and way too late. Mental health professionals and most of the rest of us long ago abandoned that phrase, which echoes insulting schoolyard epithets.
But at an institution whose decisions have broad impact, the court's action is a significant sign of society's progress toward treating each other with dignity.
The court's shift came Tuesday in Hall v. Florida, which struck down Florida's method for determining whether a death row inmate who claims intellectual disability should be executed. On that issue, the court split 5-4.
But on the second page of the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy laid down the law on terminology: "Previous opinions of this court have employed the term 'mental retardation.' This opinion uses the term 'intellectual disability' to describe the identical phenomenon." Justice Samuel Alito Jr. adopted the same term in his dissent. As recently as 2013, the court routinely used "mental retardation" in its opinions.
Advocacy groups such as the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and The Arc — both of which once had "retardation" or "stunted" in their names — applauded the shift. In addition to the symbolic importance, they said they can now use "intellectual disability" in legal briefs. Until last week's decision, they used the outdated terminology to track the wording of precedents and avoid confusion.
"Mentally stunted" was once viewed as an improvement over terms such as "feeble minded." But word preferences evolve, and "intellectual disability" is the preferred term now. |
|
there is no difference, we're just moving/shifting words around after X amt of decades of using the same phrase/words to describe the identical same thing. which means this new combination of words will be seen as outdated in a few decades or so.
no matter what you do in order to describe someone that has a lesser mental capacity to either comprehend, or move physically or speak, etc, etc, etc you will have to say something that will make these people feel like they are "different" then the rest of us.
there are people with limbs missing that dont like to be called disabled or handicap for that very reason. but the truth is. based on what we know, on average MOST people are born with a certain number of limbs, and most people are born with a certain intelligence range before we call them either either geniuses or intellectually disabled. I have never once had an issue with the R-word being used and I have a family member with those same issues, my mother worked with children with these same issues and I knew a lot of these kids growing up and as an adult. So even though I feel for them a bit more than the average person since I was so close to them and my family member. I still dont feel this matters at all. But if all of them tell me it does, fine. I'll change the phrase. now the word Crazy. thats different. That word has a complete negative connotation to it. The R word sounds harsh but is only negative when said to those who are not actually mentally disabled. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| splashmtn wrote: | | but thats not your real gripe and we know this. but lets play along. |
I quit reading when I saw this. This is one of the reasons I quit participating in The Political Thread. Some people want me to be a Trumpian white supremacist who watches Fox News and binges on InfoWars. I got tired of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
