What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Justin Trudeau can’t remember how many times he’s worn blackface. (1 Viewer)

You seem to be the master at mindreading and putting people in groups.  The reason I make a point of it so often on this forum is the hostility level towards people who think this way is through the roof on this forum.  I think it is an unhealthy hositility which divides the country and this large voting block is greatly mischaracterized and misunderstood by the media in the simple-minded explainations.  These people are just good normal people who get villianized.  BTW, if  I was in the second group, I would have voted for Trump, which I would never do.  I just strongly emphathize with how they are treated.  
Regarding the bolded- not necessarily. There are all sorts of reasons why you might not vote for Trump.

As far as the hostility: did it ever occur to you that YOUR posts are almost always hostile? You enter a thread and offer a point of view, which you KNOW is going to be controversial. Nothing wrong with that, especially since I know you're an honest guy and you believe what you're arguing. But when you receive criticism you immediately get hostile. You attack whoever criticized you, complain that this forum is garbage, and paint yourself as a victim. And this happens again and again and again.

Do you get personally insulted sometimes? Of course. Everybody who posts a lot does. I certainly get way more insults than you do. If I wanted to, I could call myself a victim and whine and complain all the time. But what would be the point of that?

 
Some things didn't take laws to make them change.  I am not arguing anyone should be jailed, just that people judging someone by today's morals for past actions is ok with me.
I'm not arguing that someone who wears black face (at a time when it wasn't 100% socially unacceptable, and in a different country) should be jailed. What I'm arguing is that we don't blame early man for dragging his wife around by her hair. Man has evolved.  Today it would be criminal and socially unacceptable. But we don't blame the cavemen for their behavior at that time.

What we are left with, and what I have been told can't be defined, is the specific timeline. If you can't define it, then how do you hold people accountable? Seems somewhat arbitrary. 

 
I don't know the guy but my feeling is this isn't true. His apology and explanation struck me as a repeat of the Virginia governor- admit after being caught, without revelation of more incidents, and then a late admission that "he can't remember" how many times he did this. Which strikes me as appalling.

Like the Virginia governor, his comments about it, even in apology, suggest that he really doesn't get why this is offensive in the first place. I think Canada can do better.
I'm as liberal as anyone and my girlfriend suggested that we go to a Halloween party as Kim Kardashion and Kanye West. I said the only way we could pull that off was if I wore blackface and I certainly can't do that.

Like Trudeau, I know that it's unacceptable but I don't really understand why it would make me a racist.  Any more than my girlfriend padding her butt to make it bigger would make her a size-ist.  So I'm sure there is a little bit  of 'why is this so offensive' in both Trudeau and the Virginia governor's apology. 

 
Some things didn't take laws to make them change.  I am not arguing anyone should be jailed, just that people judging someone by today's morals for past actions is ok with me.
I'm not arguing that someone who wears black face (at a time when it wasn't 100% socially unacceptable, and in a different country) should be jailed. What I'm arguing is that we don't blame early man for dragging his wife around by her hair. Man has evolved.  Today it would be criminal and socially unacceptable. But we don't blame the cavemen for their behavior at that time.

What we are left with, and what I have been told can't be defined, is the specific timeline. If you can't define it, then how do you hold people accountable? Seems somewhat arbitrary. 


"We" don't?  I call them "primitive" for many reasons, that being one of them.  

I am not sure what you are asking me to define.  If a person finds something socially unacceptable I am okay with them judging people based on that behavior (whether it was yesterday, 10 years ago, 100 years ago or 10,000).  

It seems like a pretty simple concept to understand.  No need for all this nuance. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As far as the hostility: did it ever occur to you that YOUR posts are almost always hostile? You enter a thread and offer a point of view, which you KNOW is going to be controversial. Nothing wrong with that, especially since I know you're an honest guy and you believe what you're arguing. But when you receive criticism you immediately get hostile. You attack whoever criticized you, complain that this forum is garbage, and paint yourself as a victim. And this happens again and again and again.

Do you get personally insulted sometimes? Of course. Everybody who posts a lot does. I certainly get way more insults than you do. If I wanted to, I could call myself a victim and whine and complain all the time. But what would be the point of that?
The empirical evidence of the radical shift in the political makeup of this forum over the last several years to the left strongly suggests my hypothesis of of where the hostility rests is far more accurate than your competing hypothesis.  My hypothesis is damn near a theorum at this point.    

 
I know that it's unacceptable but I don't really understand why it would make me a racist.
There's a history with blackface's use in proliferating racial stereotypes that makes it offensive, unlike most other sorts of "costumes" you could choose. Wearing blackface may not mean you're a racist, but it would mean you're uneducated about the racist overtones it bears.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not arguing that someone who wears black face (at a time when it wasn't 100% socially unacceptable, and in a different country) should be jailed. What I'm arguing is that we don't blame early man for dragging his wife around by her hair. Man has evolved.  Today it would be criminal and socially unacceptable. But we don't blame the cavemen for their behavior at that time.

What we are left with, and what I have been told can't be defined, is the specific timeline. If you can't define it, then how do you hold people accountable? Seems somewhat arbitrary. 
Screw you man.  You need to own up to your part in destroying the Neanderthals.

 
"We" don't?  I call them "primitive" for many reasons, that being one of them.  

I am not sure what you are asking me to define.  If a person finds something socially unacceptable I am okay with them judging people based on that behavior (whether it was yesterday, 10 years ago, 100 years ago or 10,000).  

It seems like a pretty simple concept to understand.  No need for all this nuance. 
Has the stigma around pot smokers changed in the last 40 years? 

If a current Presidential candidate admitted to smoking pot in college, most voters would say "meh". But 25 years ago, Clinton said he didn't inhale. And it was a big deal.

Should we stick to the stigma of 40 years ago and hold them accountable today? Or do we let it go because things have evolved.

I see it being the same. Just in reverse. 

 
There's a history with blackface's use in proliferating racial stereotypes that makes it offensive, unlike most other sorts of "costumes" you could choose. Wearing blackface may not mean you're a racist, but it would mean you're uneducated about the racist overtones it bears.
Is white face racist too?  Like in the Wayans Brothers movie?

 
I don't recall anywhere saying I was forced to respond.  It is just the vast majority of the time, that is all I have to respond to.  On occassion there is a poster who is interested in discussing things and respectfully taking issue with portions and maybe actually agreeing with something.  But most threads not so much.

And BTW, it is more challenging and more eye-opening to engage people with different perspectives.  But people on both sides generally are too lazy to attempt an intelligent discussion and instead just engage in the usual rhetoric.  
"have" here being "the option available to respond to" (provided a good word?) and not "required to respond to"...fair enough. :thumbup:   Several posters here have proven, to me, they aren't worth responses so I don't respond to them.  I'd recommend that approach.  The nonsense posts are just that and come from every direction and side.  You are clearly invested in this place, so I recommend not going the path that sho, squis, the people they stalk and the people that stalk them go...you'll be miserable.  ####, I even stuck up for you in the last week on some nonsense post.  I don't normally respond to those but it was so stupid, I felt something had to be said.

ETA:  If you choose to respond to the nonsense expect to get more nonsense.  That's kinda how it works around here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
White people who are annoyed by political correctness, who are tired of being told they should feel guilty all the time about a history of racism that they had nothing to do with and as far as they’re concerned, is over: a large sector of whites, possibly at times a majority. 
I want to talk about this because I think it's important and I bring it up at every opportunity I am provided because it's completely caused by society.  I am of the opinion that the person you describe here is the quintessential "I can't be racist, I have black friends" guy.  Why?  My list:

1.  If its a general conversation they are participating in where the discussion is of the "there's a large group of white people in this country that......(then list the issues with the behavior, belief etc) and they become offended and feel the need to defend themselves, one of two things are true.  #1.  Inside their being they know they are part of the group (even if just a little bit) and are being spoken directly too or #2.  They are lacking in self awareness and falsely assume they are being talked about because they are a white male and they've paid no attention to the other qualifiers of the conversation.

2.  If it's a one on one conversation and they are essentially accused directly of being racist, sexist, xenophobic etc and they become offended rather than simply explain themselves to clear the air it's either because they know there's truth in the accusation and their offense is trying to frame the conversation in a way to ignore that element of truth or they lack the ability to accurately state their position.  Otherwise a simple "no, you have me wrong and here's why" conversation would easily clear things up provided they were self aware enough to show they aren't  the things they appeared to be. 

 
I want to talk about this because I think it's important and I bring it up at every opportunity I am provided because it's completely caused by society.  I am of the opinion that the person you describe here is the quintessential "I can't be racist, I have black friends" guy.  Why?  My list:

1.  If its a general conversation they are participating in where the discussion is of the "there's a large group of white people in this country that......(then list the issues with the behavior, belief etc) and they become offended and feel the need to defend themselves, one of two things are true.  #1.  Inside their being they know they are part of the group (even if just a little bit) and are being spoken directly too or #2.  They are lacking in self awareness and falsely assume they are being talked about because they are a white male and they've paid no attention to the other qualifiers of the conversation.

2.  If it's a one on one conversation and they are essentially accused directly of being racist, sexist, xenophobic etc and they become offended rather than simply explain themselves to clear the air it's either because they know there's truth in the accusation and their offense is trying to frame the conversation in a way to ignore that element of truth or they lack the ability to accurately state their position.  Otherwise a simple "no, you have me wrong and here's why" conversation would easily clear things up provided they were self aware enough to show they aren't  the things they appeared to be. 
Regarding the bolded: my experience is that often they just tune you out at the first mention of one of these terms. That's part of what helped Trump in 2016 (and still today.) He would say something racist, and the experts expected his support to go down. It didn't, not because all of his followers were racist, but because they simply stopped paying attention to the news media whenever the charge of racism came up.

 
Regarding the bolded: my experience is that often they just tune you out at the first mention of one of these terms. That's part of what helped Trump in 2016 (and still today.) He would say something racist, and the experts expected his support to go down. It didn't, not because all of his followers were racist, but because they simply stopped paying attention to the news media whenever the charge of racism came up.
That's on them.  If they don't want to address it and actively support someone behaving like that, it's the very definition of enabling.  They don't get to be offended if they are accused of enabling the behavior.

 
Is white face racist too?  Like in the Wayans Brothers movie?
Maybe? I haven't seen the movie. But I don't think that is necessarily comparable to blackface anyway given the different experiences white people have had throughout U.S. (and much of the world colonized by western Europeans) history vs. black people. There's a much more lengthy and unsavory context behind blackface than "whiteface."

 
Although this topic veered into other arguments one key fact that Americans might not know explains this whole story. 

Trudeau is a dummy. 

Like.....really....really dumb. 

He was a boxer and high school teacher before he realized he could cash in on his family name and become a politician. 

Seriously. Google Justin Trudeau boxer and watch him get punched in the face and beat by a guy 30 years older. 

Four years ago, the left-central (we have three parties in Canada, two on the left) was up against the sitting right leader who had the charisma of a slug.

They knew the way to beat him was to use Trudeau’s charisma and name, it worked.  The right has put another dud up against him so the dummy will get another 4 years.

Really.  The guy is dumb.

 
KCitons said:
toshiba said:
"We" don't?  I call them "primitive" for many reasons, that being one of them.  

I am not sure what you are asking me to define.  If a person finds something socially unacceptable I am okay with them judging people based on that behavior (whether it was yesterday, 10 years ago, 100 years ago or 10,000).  

It seems like a pretty simple concept to understand.  No need for all this nuance. 
Has the stigma around pot smokers changed in the last 40 years? 

If a current Presidential candidate admitted to smoking pot in college, most voters would say "meh". But 25 years ago, Clinton said he didn't inhale. And it was a big deal.

Should we stick to the stigma of 40 years ago and hold them accountable today? Or do we let it go because things have evolved.

I see it being the same. Just in reverse. 
And you have every right to see it that way.  I see it as me not having an issue with judging people on today's values for past actions.  You are free to judge people's actions today on old values, I won't stop you.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Duff Man said:
Although this topic veered into other arguments one key fact that Americans might not know explains this whole story. 

Trudeau is a dummy. 

Like.....really....really dumb. 

He was a boxer and high school teacher before he realized he could cash in on his family name and become a politician. 

Seriously. Google Justin Trudeau boxer and watch him get punched in the face and beat by a guy 30 years older. 

Four years ago, the left-central (we have three parties in Canada, two on the left) was up against the sitting right leader who had the charisma of a slug.

They knew the way to beat him was to use Trudeau’s charisma and name, it worked.  The right has put another dud up against him so the dummy will get another 4 years.

Really.  The guy is dumb.
Lol

 
The Duff Man said:
Although this topic veered into other arguments one key fact that Americans might not know explains this whole story. 

Trudeau is a dummy. 

Like.....really....really dumb. 

He was a boxer and high school teacher before he realized he could cash in on his family name and become a politician. 

Seriously. Google Justin Trudeau boxer and watch him get punched in the face and beat by a guy 30 years older. 

Four years ago, the left-central (we have three parties in Canada, two on the left) was up against the sitting right leader who had the charisma of a slug.

They knew the way to beat him was to use Trudeau’s charisma and name, it worked.  The right has put another dud up against him so the dummy will get another 4 years.

Really.  The guy is dumb.
seriously in a world of Trumps, Trudeau is  basically einstein.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top