We Should be Worried for Our President

@aidan,

It is almost always a good idea to roll with the times aidan.....do you also have the irresistible urge to confront females of a mostly younger bent who go around calling themselves and each other bitches and sluts?

Previously derogatory terms are adopted as a form of empowerment and self acceptance. I think this is good, and should be congratulated rather than held in horror.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

It is almost always a good idea to roll with the times aidan.....

I roll pretty good with the times generally - but I think it's easier to actually do that when its not people you care about being called mutts, bitches, or sluts.
Do I have an irresistible urge to confront females who allow themselves to be called that or call each other that? I wouldn't call it irresistible, but I'd engage in conversation with them about it.
I mean this person is not a mutt, slut, or bitch. Why should she or I stand for anyone using that word to address her?

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k46/aidan_010/oliviaandPearl.jpg

Quote:

Previously derogatory terms are adopted as a form of empowerment and self acceptance. I think this is good, and should be congratulated rather than held in horror.

Right - that's the theory - but in practice it may work out somewhat differently. I asked my teen-agers, both of whom are interracial how they'd feel about being called a mutt and my daughter said that she had been called a mutt by a black girl at her school and she didn't like it at all. My son said, no one had ever called him that. I said, 'What if they did - would you be offended?' And he said, 'Well, I've learned not to get offended too easily...' and I said, 'Well, even if you weren't offended - is it a terms you'd enjoy having applied to you because of your particular mix of racial heritage?' And he very quietly answered, 'No'.
If this terminology is helping them to feel empowered and accepting of themselves - where are the outward manifestations or results of that?
It's sort of like subjecting yourself to small little shocks to inure yourself to big ones - that you shouldn't have to suffer in the first place...
I think it's bullshit.

I'm just happy that me and my kids seem to have been able to avoid living where all this crap seems to be going on. I've literally never heard any of this 'assissinate Obama' **** anywhere except on tv. All the white people I hang out with in the US were crying tears of joy and relief when he was elected and the white people here in England reacted as if America had finally elected a credible leader.

In another thread hawkeye - you were talking about how blacks function in the world as compared to whites and other races and you highlighted their deficiencies. If this terminology is helping them to feel empowered and accepting of themselves - where are the outward manifestations or results of that?

Women and minorities should be treated as individuals, and addressed as they preferred to be addressed. Assumptions should not be made.

If anyone called me a slut or a bitch I'd be like, 'Yo - I don't care how much you think I should roll with that - I'm not having it - you can call me Rebecca.

1 Reply

@aidan,

Quote:

In another thread hawkeye - you were talking about how blacks function in the world as compared to whites and other races and you highlighted their deficiencies. If this terminology is helping them to feel empowered and accepting of themselves - where are the outward manifestations or results of that

what was that? The one were scientific method shows that blacks are for instance more aggressive, which I claim has to do with them getting murdered more often?

For the record I think that people are equal, that the sexes are equal, but we all have strengths and weaknesses. I also don't think that it is productive to hide the weaknesses of a person or a group, the truth should be all out. Saying that Blacks do X poorly is not a racist statement in and of itself. I also say for instance that women tend to be irrational, and overcome with emotion, but I don't consider it to be a weakness. Men tending to lack emotional involvement in their relationships for instance is a weakness of men. The charge that I am sexist and racist I think has more to do with people resisting my refusal to honor their desire to stay ignorant of facts that contradict their belief system, than it does with any indication of my moral fiber. A good offense is a good defense, as it were. Keep away what one does not want to deal with about themselves....most of us are self aware enough to know that we do this.

It is not my job to talk about reality in such a way that anyone else feels empowered or good about themselves. Them having self esteem is their job not mine. When I talk about something my job is to be right as much as possible, and to have some productive aim of going to the trouble to attempt to communicate. If I have done these things then I am in the right, no matter how much you or anyone else hates what I have said, or hates me for saying it.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

what was that? The one were scientific method shows that blacks are for instance more aggressive, which I claim has to do with them getting murdered more often?

The one about the JP refusing to marry the interracial couple.

Quote:

For the record I think that people are equal, that the sexes are equal, but we all have strengths and weaknesses. I also don't think that it is productive to hide the weaknesses of a person or a group, the truth should be all out.

Agreed

Quote:

Saying that Blacks do X poorly is not a racist statement in and of itself.

Agreed

Quote:

The charge that I am sexist and racist I think has more to do with people resisting my refusal to honor their desire to stay ignorant of facts that contradict their belief system, than it does with any indication of my moral fiber. A good offense is a good defense, as it were. Keep away what one does not want to deal with about themselves....most of us are self aware enough to know that we do this

This is interesting. I think it's at least partially true, but the part that's not true is that you meet the resistance from black folks on this thread - you meet it from white folks, primarily- so when you say, 'Keep away what one does not want to deal with about themselves' you'd be mistaken if you were thinking that it's black people (at least here on this forum) who can't deal with what appears to be the reality - it's white people who don't seem to want to hear the statistics. And I wonder why, in what way will it make them uncomfortable with or about themselves?

Because the reality is, what that JP said on the other thread is true. In a two parent intact home, interracial children perform on par with white children - but in a single parent or broken home, their performance in school and life suffers. So yes, we can call him a racist and fire him while we ignore what he gave as his reasoning so that nothing is done for these children, or we can fire the guy and pay attention to the uncomfortable or unfortunate truth he espoused and try to do something about it - but it seems that people are more comfortable negating whatever truth there is in his statement because it's easier to call him a racist and be done with him than to worry about a problem that's evident and harmful to a segment of our society because someone they call a racist brought it up.

My question is - which response is more racist or harmful in the long run?

Quote:

It is not my job to talk about reality in such a way that anyone else feels empowered or good about themselves. Them having self esteem is their job not mine. When I talk about something my job is to be right as much as possible, and to have some productive aim of going to the trouble to attempt to communicate.

Agreed

Quote:

If I have done these things then I am in the right, no matter how much you or anyone else hates what I have said, or hates me for saying it.

I find it impossible to hate people I haven't met. So I don't hate you or anything you've said (that I've read so far).

I would hate it if you continued to call my kids or others like them mutts after I asked you not to.

Because one thing I do know is that a lot of what looks like acceptance and embracing of concepts and terms by people in minority situations - whether by race or gender or sexual preference- is bluster and little more than a defense mechanism. In truth, I think they'd rather just be treated like you and me and not have it necessary for them to wear any label at all - much less a derogatory one. But if people are gonna label them - well by god - they'll throw that label right back at society.

Why do we still find it necessary to call anyone any name? And I would like to see statistics that show that this so called 'nomenclature empowerment' has led to any change in the statistics for success in school completion or a decrease in crime or poverty and an increase in overall functioning in life.

Same with gay kids - now that they call themselves faggots and queers - are any fewer of them committing suicide?

Because if it does seem to work - hell yeah - I'll be happy to roll with it.

2 Replies

Does anyone else find this whole discussion disgusting besides me? I hope so.

What happened to individual character, the rights and responsibilities of the individual, without regard to the color of ones skin or categorization by group? The whole idea that we elected Obama as a black man instead of Obama the individual, that idea is what is wrong with this entire conversation from the very beginning, and frankly it shows what is wrong with a portion of the country.

The Democrats want us to see each other through the prism of race, the prism of gender, the prism of sexuality, the prism of haves and have nots, on and on. Frankly, those of us that recognize the fallacy of this need to stand up and say, enough is enough, get over it, forget it. Divide and conquer, that is the game being played. And one of those that is playing the hardest at this game is the current administration. Americans, wake up.

3 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

This is interesting. I think it's at least partially true, but the part that's not true is that you meet the resistance from black folks on this thread -

I meant to say on this 'forum' - not on this specific thread.

0 Replies

@okie,

What's interesting to me is that once again, it directly negates Obama's own beliefs and statements about himself and his situation.

The man says he's a Christian - everyone doubts his word on that- and essentially say they believe he's wrong - and that he's not. The man says that he believes that the opposition to him in general and his health plan specifically is not based on his race and/or the color of his skin and again - people have to tell him that he's wrong there too.

Does anyone believe he knows anything about his own life and situation? I think that's where a lot of the disrespect lies- constantly second guessing his own words. I mean he's the one who's lived black in the US for 49 years and worked in politics. If everyone believes he's such a prevaricator about his own reality - why the hell did we all vote for him?

I'd rather believe what he says and that as every president has learned to do in the past - trust that he and those around him will take caution with his life and safety.

0 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

This is interesting. I think it's at least partially true, but the part that's not true is that you meet the resistance from black folks on this thread - you meet it from white folks, primarily- so when you say, 'Keep away what one does not want to deal with about themselves' you'd be mistaken if you were thinking that it's black people (at least here on this forum) who can't deal with what appears to be the reality - it's white people who don't seem to want to hear the statistics. And I wonder why, in what way will it make them uncomfortable with or about themselves?

I had not thought of that. I once worked a job where a lot of the guys and gals on the crew were black, and this one black guy and I got along very well. He would invite me to his parties out in the hood where we would drink beer and smoke some pot, almost all of his family and friends at these BBQ's would be black. Now that I think about it the truth telling that went on at these things is one of the things that impressed me. It is rare to be in a no bullshit zone these days, at least in my world, but I felt I had it for a bit. At the time I put it down to him being a cool guy and him having cool friends and family...but you have me wondering if it was a black thing.

Quote:

I would hate it if you continued to call my kids or others like them mutts after I asked you not to

As I have said in PC threads I am not willing to agree that any individual gets to control the language that the others use. If language I use is objected to I will consider if another word or phrase can reasonably be substituted, if not then forget it. Most of the time what is being objected to is what it being said, it is "you cant say that" rather than "you can and should say that differently" If the suggested change does not convey the intended meaning then somebody is trying to shut me up or put me in a box, and that ain't going to happen.

Quote:

Why do we still find it necessary to call anyone any name

the brain works by labeling and categorizing. We need to label people because this is the only way we have to understand people. Since we need to understand the world we live in this is not optional. We can choose not to communicate names, but this gets in the way of coming to a collective consensus, which again hurts the interests of humanity. Individuals and subgroups can and do object to the labels applied to them sometimes, but since the best interests of the collective effort overrides the best interests of the one or few they need to be told to suck it up and drive on. If someone does not like the label they have been assigned then they should work to change it, which will require that they change their behavior. The PC answer that we cant talk about it is an attempt to sweep truth under the rug, in the hopes that it will go away. This is never going to work.

when we take names for yourself we are establishing identity. Obama has taken the identity of black, and some say that is the end of it, we have to take him as what ever he says he is. Hell no. He gets his say, and those he interacts with have a say as well. We can choose to support his version of who he is or not support it, he has no right to control other peoples opinions and reactions to him and the wake he leaves in this world. My opinion is that if Obama wants to be black that is fine with me, I don't care. I don't want to here about it either. I would tell Barack to kindly shut up about his identity choices and get to work.

0 Replies

@okie,

Especially considering how presidency's are about visiblity, and considering the people in the White House are black, you may be feeling a little uneasy about it? I'd say Obama is way more inclusive than G. Bush ever was, and he's considering those who don't have.

1 Reply

@Gala,

It is not the color of the people in the whitehouse that bothers me, it is the politics. If you would read my posts, my main problem is that many of the people are extreme socialists, some even Marxists, and the change they want for this country is not at all good for the country, they want to do things that will limit freedom and liberty. They have the wrong solutions to problems and issues because they do not even diagnose the problems correctly.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Does anyone else find this whole discussion disgusting besides me? I hope so.

What happened to individual character, the rights and responsibilities of the individual, without regard to the color of ones skin or categorization by group? The whole idea that we elected Obama as a black man instead of Obama the individual, that idea is what is wrong with this entire conversation from the very beginning, and frankly it shows what is wrong with a portion of the country.

The Democrats want us to see each other through the prism of race, the prism of gender, the prism of sexuality, the prism of haves and have nots, on and on. Frankly, those of us that recognize the fallacy of this need to stand up and say, enough is enough, get over it, forget it. Divide and conquer, that is the game being played. And one of those that is playing the hardest at this game is the current administration. Americans, wake up.

Heh.

And yet in 2009, in Louisiana, a mixed race couple will try and get married, and elected conservative official will refuse to carry out his job because his bias, and then conservatives will rush in to defend and speak about accommodations.

Hows that for a prism?

T
K
O

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

It is not the color of the people in the whitehouse that bothers me, it is the politics. If you would read my posts, my main problem is that many of the people are extreme socialists, some even Marxists, and the change they want for this country is not at all good for the country, they want to do things that will limit freedom and liberty. They have the wrong solutions to problems and issues because they do not even diagnose the problems correctly.

What utter and ridiculous nonsense.

Have you EVER bothered to educate yourself as to what socialist or Marxist actually mean?

No?

Well, yes, that is absolutely clear.

That is why your comments are so risible.

You have made this ridiculous claim....kindly prove it, with reference to the actual meanings of the terms you so abuse, and with demonstrations of how your paranoid delusions are reflected in the policies of those you piffle about.

Include names and policies of each person you claim to be "extreme socialist or Marxist", with sane definitions, and the exact policies (with references) you make these claims about.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

And yet in 2009, in Louisiana, a mixed race couple will try and get married, and elected conservative official will refuse to carry out his job because his bias, and then conservatives will rush in to defend and speak about accommodations.

Only the first part is established as fact, the rest in conjecture. Has the state supreme court ethics panel decided to take up this case? Only if they do so, and rule that the judge violated the law can you make such claims. It may well be that what he did should be against the law, but it is not at all clear that it was.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

It is not the color of the people in the whitehouse that bothers me, it is the politics. If you would read my posts, my main problem is that many of the people are extreme socialists, some even Marxists, and the change they want for this country is not at all good for the country, they want to do things that will limit freedom and liberty. They have the wrong solutions to problems and issues because they do not even diagnose the problems correctly.

Oh fer cryin' out loud, I get tired of this lemming mentality-- one news outlet or Joe The Plumber says Obama is a socialist and all the minions start hurling themselves over the cliff in agreement.

First of all, we're in this financial mess because free markets proved they cannot regulate themselves. So, could you please at least acknowledge that your view of less government intervention has some fault lines too? It might be a good idea for you to stop listening to what the talking heads say and formulate some of your own thoughts.

Second, I'm not crazy about how much the government has gotten involved in the bailout, however, G. Bush conveniently turned to the government when all this started to fall apart. And, he did so with Henry Paulson, who didn't want to have to disclose how he chose to distribute the money.

Finally, the Bush administration wanting to freely wire-tap without warrants. If you need an explanation of why this is a threat to personal liberty then just turn to China for your answer.

2 Replies

@Gala,

Gala wrote:

Finally, the Bush administration wanting to freely wire-tap without warrants. If you need an explanation of why this is a threat to personal liberty then just turn to China for your answer.

You know that Obama hasn't stopped this right? He's still doing it. Still supports it.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Well, then that sucks if it's true. Can you provide a link? I just went looking for it and do not want to wade through through the hoards of information.

1 Reply

@Gala,

Gala wrote:

....Finally, the Bush administration wanting to freely wire-tap without warrants....

Although I don't like the warrantless wiretap thing, and don't think it was right or a correct interpretation of the Constitution, this description is nonetheless a pretty big distortion. He wanted to freely wiretap only calls with one end-point in another country.

1 Reply

@Gala,

Just did a quick google search.

http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/04/05

He also supported granting the telecom agencies immunity from their role in this whole mess.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Yeah, I found it too, on another google page. Obama's a wimp.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

The issue, and it relates to Obama now as well, is if the government is free to wire-tap, who knows when they'll be listening in on you. The whole thing has a Richard Nixon quality to it.

Obama is a hypocrite, because he touted the Constitution all through his uplifting campaign, and now it's conveniently tossed it out. The guy knew how to get elected. National security is the concern here, but the issue was the same for Bush.

Although, I have to admit, my biased nature says John Ashcroft or Gonzales would more readily snoop on my activities then Eric Holder...but that's just a hostile daydream.

0 Replies

We Should be Worried for Our President

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know