Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

“Cancel Culture” and “Woke”


Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

A person in congress? I swear to God.  First it was a small portion of people, and you guys blew it off.  Now it is a person in congress, and you STILL blow it off.    It's laughable.

Sorry I don't adhere to this slippery slope, sky is falling thinking.   There are elected officials that are open Q supporters.  I think that is scary and nuts, but I also don't believe that means that is what "the right" is coming to, or that will lead it to be a majority position.   

Like I said I get it if it's coming from a position of trying to have our government reflect the ideas and demographics of our country.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KarmaPolice said:

Sorry I don't adhere to this slippery slope, sky is falling thinking.   There are elected officials that are open Q supporters.  I think that is scary and nuts, but I also don't believe that means that is what "the right" is coming to, or that will lead it to be a majority position.   

Like I said I get it if it's coming from a position of trying to have our government reflect the ideas and demographics of our country.  

Sooooo....let me get this straight.  If a white man said  "I will not vote to nominate a black candidate, ever" you're OK with that as long as it's what the majority of the people want?  Seriously?  That's OK?

The hypocrisy police are charging you with a capital offense with this one.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2021 at 8:08 AM, AAABatteries said:
On 3/13/2021 at 7:03 PM, NorvilleBarnes said:

Pretty good rant by Sarah Silverman LINK

I’ve ranted on and off again around here against the 2 party system but too many people are too far gone.  The candidates we had in 2016 just cemented things for me.

I've said this for a few years now.  Politics has become a "sport" in this country.  It's "my side" against "your side" and most "fans" are die hard.

I don't want to be on either "side".

Glad some are finally getting it.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Sooooo....let me get this straight.  If a white man said  "I will not vote to nominate a black candidate, ever" you're OK with that as long as it's what the majority of the people want?  Seriously?  That's OK?

The hypocrisy police are charging you with a capital offense with this one.    

Cue the usual back and forth about arguing about a word or a definition, but from your link:

“I am not going to be voting for any nominee from the White House, other than diversity nominees, probably a no on everyone until they figure this out,” said Duckworth, one of only two Asian Americans in the Senate.

Duckworth said she informed the White House of her decision Tuesday morning but said she has been advocating on the issue for months.

“Hopefully they figure it out, but I’m a no on everything other than the diversity candidates,” she said, citing her opposition to the nomination of Colin Kahl to be assistant secretary of Defense for policy.

 

Until they figure it out <> never.   My interpretation of that is similar to what we are seeing in companies and the like.  A push to make them representative of the make up of the U.S.   I don't have a problem with that, but I get that you guys see that as anti-white discrimination and something more nefarious.  

Edited by KarmaPolice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

Cue the usual back and forth about arguing about a word or a definition, but from your link:

“I am not going to be voting for any nominee from the White House, other than diversity nominees, probably a no on everyone until they figure this out,” said Duckworth, one of only two Asian Americans in the Senate.

Duckworth said she informed the White House of her decision Tuesday morning but said she has been advocating on the issue for months.

“Hopefully they figure it out, but I’m a no on everything other than the diversity candidates,” she said, citing her opposition to the nomination of Colin Kahl to be assistant secretary of Defense for policy.

 

Until they figure it out <> never.   My interpretation of that is similar to what we are seeing in companies and the like.  A push to make them representative of the make up of the U.S.   I don't have a problem with that, but I get that you guys see that as anti-white discrimination and something more nefarious.  

There is a bright line with being a proponent of diversity, encouraging diversity and creating merit based systems to support that...and then saying you are not going to hire white people.

You may not have a problem with that, which is ok, but I don't understand how it can be described as anything other than anti-white discrimination.  Whats missing? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

Cue the usual back and forth about arguing about a word or a definition, but from your link:

“I am not going to be voting for any nominee from the White House, other than diversity nominees, probably a no on everyone until they figure this out,” said Duckworth, one of only two Asian Americans in the Senate.

Duckworth said she informed the White House of her decision Tuesday morning but said she has been advocating on the issue for months.

“Hopefully they figure it out, but I’m a no on everything other than the diversity candidates,” she said, citing her opposition to the nomination of Colin Kahl to be assistant secretary of Defense for policy.

 

Until they figure it out <> never.   My interpretation of that is similar to what we are seeing in companies and the like.  A push to make them representative of the make up of the U.S.   I don't have a problem with that, but I get that you guys see that as anti-white discrimination and something more nefarious.  

Yeah all good.  I would love to see the reaction if a white guy said that about a muslim.  

I cant come close to rolling my eyes hard enough at how ridiculous you are coming off as right now.

Discrimination against any minority= bad

Discrimination against white straight men = OK until figured out (whatever that means)

Good stuff.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, djmich said:

There is a bright line with being a proponent of diversity, encouraging diversity and creating merit based systems to support that...and then saying you are not going to hire white people.

You may not have a problem with that, which is ok, but I don't understand how it can be described as anything other than anti-white discrimination.  Whats missing? 

I guess it just needs to be figured out.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

Sorry I don't adhere to this slippery slope, sky is falling thinking.   There are elected officials that are open Q supporters.  I think that is scary and nuts, but I also don't believe that means that is what "the right" is coming to, or that will lead it to be a majority position.   

Like I said I get it if it's coming from a position of trying to have our government reflect the ideas and demographics of our country.  

When you blindly defend stuff like this, you start to take on a sho nuff quality and really lose credibility.  It is not ok to have this position.  Just as there is no reason for a white person to take a position that he or she wont hire a minority.
It's just wrong.  And defending it is equally as wrong.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am thinking about the last couple posts.   

Just curious - where was the line in the sand that some of you drew for affirmative action, etc.. ?  Has it always been bad for you, has it crossed a line now because of what you think has gone to far in general.    I guess I am trying to pick apart why this is different from a company saying they need more diversity and are going to bring in minorities to fill positions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I am thinking about the last couple posts.   

Just curious - where was the line in the sand that some of you drew for affirmative action, etc.. ?  Has it always been bad for you, has it crossed a line now because of what you think has gone to far in general.    I guess I am trying to pick apart why this is different from a company saying they need more diversity and are going to bring in minorities to fill positions.  

Man what's wrong with you today.

Affirmative action is not nearly the same as a US Congress person saying "I will not hire a white straight person"

Why are you doing this?   

I will never understand how you can sit there and say this is OK.  I won't.  I've said my peace on it so I will leave it be from here on in, but the blind loyalty is just absolutely mind numbing to me at times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I am thinking about the last couple posts.   

Just curious - where was the line in the sand that some of you drew for affirmative action, etc.. ?  Has it always been bad for you, has it crossed a line now because of what you think has gone to far in general.    I guess I am trying to pick apart why this is different from a company saying they need more diversity and are going to bring in minorities to fill positions.  

"I think we should make a more concerted effort to recruit minorities" is fine.  I strongly oppose affirmative action, and even I don't have a problem with something like that.

"I won't hire any white applicants" is (I think -- I'm not a labor lawyer) a straightforward violation of Title VII of the 1964 CRA.  Obviously members of congress are free to vote however they want and you can't sue them for racist voting practices, but if Duckworth were a hiring manager and applied that standard, she would be exposing her firm to legal liability on any search she was involved with.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

"I think we should make a more concerted effort to recruit minorities" is fine.  I strongly oppose affirmative action, and even I don't have a problem with something like that.

"I won't hire any white applicants" is (I think -- I'm not a labor lawyer) a straightforward violation of Title VII of the 1964 CRA.  Obviously members of congress are free to vote however they want and you can't sue them for racist voting practices, but if Duckworth were a hiring manager and applied that standard, she would be exposing her firm to legal liability on any search she was involved with.

I have a hard time not landing here.  I think the spirit of affirmative action is good.  I think there are many other ways to encourage diversity and inclusion without discriminating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

"I think we should make a more concerted effort to recruit minorities" is fine.  I strongly oppose affirmative action, and even I don't have a problem with something like that.

"I won't hire any white applicants" is (I think -- I'm not a labor lawyer) a straightforward violation of Title VII of the 1964 CRA.  Obviously members of congress are free to vote however they want and you can't sue them for racist voting practices, but if Duckworth were a hiring manager and applied that standard, she would be exposing her firm to legal liability on any search she was involved with.

 

1 minute ago, djmich said:

I have a hard time not landing here.  I think the spirit of affirmative action is good.  I think there are many other ways to encourage diversity and inclusion without discriminating.

Like I posted above, I took the article mike linked as her saying she has been advocating for diversity for a while, didn't feel that's being delivered on, so she won't vote that way.   She is one vote, one opinion, and this all started by me suggesting that still doesn't mean it's a majority opinion or that all this is what the slippery slope is leading to.  

That said, I reread that article linked, and the first time through I didn't catch that 7 of the 15 Dept Secretaries would meet that criteria that she is pushing for, so I am not sure what the issue is then, or how Biden hasn't attempted to have a diverse cabinet.  

 

I know this isn't the affirmative action thread, but I am curious for you two against it - how do you avoid making choices like that - ie we need to hire a minority over a white person all things being equal, if the goal is to get a diverse cabinet, board, employee force, whatever?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

I know this isn't the affirmative action thread, but I am curious for you two against it - how do you avoid making choices like that - ie we need to hire a minority over a white person all things being equal, if the goal is to get a diverse cabinet, board, employee force, whatever?  

Its a good question.  Personally I hire the best, regardless of these factors (race, gender, religion, etc).  So while there is risk that any group is not diverse and that runs counter to an ideal goal, I personally think falling short is acceptable when weighed against the costs of well meaning discrimination (in this case reverse discrimination).

In my experience the best way to achieve a goal of diversity while still maintaining the integrity of selection is to recruit as many candidates as possible with diverse backgrounds.  Diversity of opportunity...and from there its on the candidate.

In practice when you look at diversity objectives applied in a hard manner like "must have 20% black" I'm not sure the results are good.  For example I have seen datapoints that raises questions if "over accepting" kids at colleges is in their best interest.  Its not hard to think about why that may not be putting the kid in the best position...a setup to fail. 

Edited by djmich
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sticking my (white) nose it this. IMO Duckworth is just grandstanding and taking an opportunity to grab headlines. I think the bigger thing here (that someone mentioned before) is that she is only 1 vote as opposed to an HR manager or business owner who creates a corp policy to only hire certain minorities. 

Her stubbornness on individual appointments will either win her votes or lose her votes. We'll have to see who is appointed and how qualified they are and if she still votes now. 

IMO, many of Biden's appointments have had some form of "woke slant" to them. However it is still a party that election after election has old rich white men running at their candidate (Hillary aside, but Bernie was their guy for a long part of that cycle and many think he should have had the ticket)

Edited by glvsav37
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, djmich said:

Its a good question.  Personally I hire the best, regardless of these factors (race, gender, religion, etc).  So while there is risk that any group is not diverse and that runs counter to an ideal goal, I personally think falling short is acceptable when weighed against the costs of well meaning discrimination (in this case reverse discrimination).

In my experience the best way to achieve a goal of diversity while still maintaining the integrity of selection is to recruit as many candidates as possible with diverse backgrounds.  Diversity of opportunity...and from there its on the candidate.

In practice when you look at diversity objectives applied in a hard manner like "must have 20% black" I'm not sure the results are good.  For example I have seen datapoints that raises questions if "over accepting" kids at colleges is in their best interest.  Its not hard to think about why that may not be putting the kid in the best position...a setup to fail. 

Good post.  Thanks again for the back and forth.  

Honestly, I don't think we are that far off.  I fully realize that sometimes the thoughts swirling in my head don't come across well.  Not sure if this will come off any better, but I will try again. ;) 

My gut reaction is that at if we stepped back and look at the landscape, and IF we thought there was an imbalance - at some point of the chain we have to make those choices.  I've said multiple times that as we attempt to do that there is a period of overcorrection, but it will balance out in the end.   What I mean by that is if we say (and I am just making #s up here) that wait - there are only 2% minorities who are CEOs, and that probably isn't reflective of the population.   I would guess something is askew at some point in process.  Are we not hiring/interviewing enough?   Are not enough in business school?  Are not enough in college? etc..   What I mean by overcorrection is I think at some point along there we might need to make that choice to kick start the process.    I like the phrase you used - at some point we have well meaning discrimination to kick start the process.  

I am also not saying that across the board each big company has to have X whites, X Minorities, etc.   There is differences of interest and desires across industries and businesses.   But IMO if we look at the overall landscape as a whole we would want to create the path and opportunity to get there and reach that balance.   

I also think politics are a little different and we should want even more for that population of people speaking for us and making decisions on our behalf to be representative of us.  That is why I initially understood where Duckworth was coming from, but as I later said I also think it's hard to ##### too much if 7/15 appointments met her criteria.  

Just curious - what type of business are you in? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, glvsav37 said:

sticking my (white) nose it this. IMO Duckworth is just grandstanding and taking an opportunity to grab headlines. I think the bigger thing here (that someone mentioned before) is that she is only 1 vote as opposed to an HR manager or business owner who creates a corp policy to only hire certain minorities. 

Her stubbornness on individual appointments will either win her votes or lose her votes. We'll have to see who is appointed and how qualified they are and if she still votes now. 

IMO, many of Biden's appointments have had some form of "woke slant" to them. However it is still a party that election after election has old rich white men running at their candidate (Hillary aside, but Bernie was their guy for a long part of that cycle and many think he should have had the ticket)

There for sure is a bit of hypocrisy from the left as they keep trotting out old white dudes as well, but I think the point is if we get more and more diverse in Congress, the Senate, Cabinet appointments and get more experience for everybody, hopefully we start breaking out of that cycle soon.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Good post.  Thanks again for the back and forth.  

Honestly, I don't think we are that far off.  I fully realize that sometimes the thoughts swirling in my head don't come across well.  Not sure if this will come off any better, but I will try again. ;) 

My gut reaction is that at if we stepped back and look at the landscape, and IF we thought there was an imbalance - at some point of the chain we have to make those choices.  I've said multiple times that as we attempt to do that there is a period of overcorrection, but it will balance out in the end.   What I mean by that is if we say (and I am just making #s up here) that wait - there are only 2% minorities who are CEOs, and that probably isn't reflective of the population.   I would guess something is askew at some point in process.  Are we not hiring/interviewing enough?   Are not enough in business school?  Are not enough in college? etc..   What I mean by overcorrection is I think at some point along there we might need to make that choice to kick start the process.    I like the phrase you used - at some point we have well meaning discrimination to kick start the process.  

I am also not saying that across the board each big company has to have X whites, X Minorities, etc.   There is differences of interest and desires across industries and businesses.   But IMO if we look at the overall landscape as a whole we would want to create the path and opportunity to get there and reach that balance.   

I also think politics are a little different and we should want even more for that population of people speaking for us and making decisions on our behalf to be representative of us.  That is why I initially understood where Duckworth was coming from, but as I later said I also think it's hard to ##### too much if 7/15 appointments met her criteria.  

Just curious - what type of business are you in? 

Thanks...enjoying the discussion.

I have to do more research but I think the diversity problem is an interesting one, I have seen many datapoints that really question the "diversity" issue we have as a nation and more importantly the unintended consequences often of trying to "help".

The data we are given usually has no context, its simpletons data...for a simpleton nation that somebody is looking to manipulate or monetize.  For example (because its one I saw recently), we hear all the time how women make less than men.  Kamala Harris just just called for national attention to equal pay....this must be a huge issue.  Have you seen the data adjusted for factors beyond gender?  Age?  Experience?  Field?  According to THIS STUDY women earn 98 cents for every dollar.  At what point is this random error and other differing factors not picked up?  Are we solving the the remaining 0.5%

Are you going to force more women to be scientists?  Are you going to make pharmaceutical companies hire less qualified ones to "over-correct"?  Over-correct sounds like what I do when I am skidding out in my car on a wet surface and I over-steer and run into the guardrail.  I have two daughters.  There is not an expectations problem, I hear that all the time...or we steer our daughters way from science and technology or tell them they can't or they don't have enough role models....or...or....or.  My daughters have no damn desire to take the coding classes I'm force feeding them lol.  How are you going to solve that...whats the real problem and is it really a problem.

So for race.  Ok, not enough CEO's.  And yes, you can go down the line to where does it start.  Lots of factors, but the one that matters the most is the one we're not talking about...its expectations and the amount of work that needs to go in.  Expectations...government will take care of you.  Amount of work...why arent we talking about THIS

I gotta run, will continue at another time and interested in your thoughts.  I work in fintech, have worked in other industries.  This usually gets laughed out, but there is no reason a black professional is not today making more than a comparably situated white professional.  One is in demand, the other is a commodity.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/25/2021 at 9:47 AM, KarmaPolice said:

Cue the usual back and forth about arguing about a word or a definition, but from your link:

“I am not going to be voting for any nominee from the White House, other than diversity nominees, probably a no on everyone until they figure this out,” said Duckworth, one of only two Asian Americans in the Senate.

 

 

Duckworth is a combat veteran, so I'll always give her credit for that.

That being said, here's an interesting sidebar in terms of demands for diversity

Duckworth - Married a white guy

Kamala Harris - Married a white guy

Nikki Haley - Married a white guy

AOC - Has a white boyfriend, but to run for POTUS in 2024, she'll have to marry him for optics

Mazie Hirono, who is the most certifiably insane of all minority women in professional politics, is the only one out of the group with a minority husband.

You argue in terms of "mating/sexual politics" there are clear inherent struggles for Asian men, Indian men and some black men compared to many white men. Are there exceptions to this, of course, but we are looking across the average.

So diversity is demanded, but not in the bedroom or in the wedding chapel?

Pick anyone other than the white guy! (But I picked the white guy to spend the rest of my life with, well, in theory...)

And if anyone thinks this isn't relevant, there is no damaging optics on Nikki Haley. At all. If there was any, it would have come out by now. That means the DNC will need to dig hard to attack her husband. Family off limits? Whatever the old rules to politics that existed, it seems both sides have given up trying to hold those lines anymore.

Had Kamala Harris married a black man, there would be a backdoor media campaign to point out her natural rivals, Haley and AOC, should be branded traitors to their own culture for marrying white men or going to marry white men. Internally, in the Indian and East Asian culture and some segments of the Latino culture, these kind of things can be big deals.

I've said this before, the problem with purity tests is they never stop. The other issue is if you dig hard enough, nearly everyone will fail them.

That Duckworth carried rank and command in the military and has taken this stance is disappointing. This is not the true application of actual leadership. True leaders look at merit. If Duckworth was not a combat veteran, I'd call this entire stance much worse, but I'll honor her sacrifice.

You can't bridge divide unless you communicate and identity politics are as such that there is no reason to ever speak to anyone who poses a potential legal "woke" threat to you. There's a reason why many people would rather stare into a phone all day or play a video game rather than deal with the exhausting psychotic cancel culture manlets around them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GordonGekko said:

Had Kamala Harris married a black man, there would be a backdoor media campaign to point out her natural rivals, Haley and AOC, should be branded traitors to their own culture for marrying white men or going to marry white men. Internally, in the Indian and East Asian culture and some segments of the Latino culture, these kind of things can be big deals.

No, there wouldn't be any media campaign either backdoor or frontdoor. That is an absurd supposition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, squistion said:

No, there wouldn't be any media campaign either backdoor or frontdoor. That is an absurd supposition. 

That's absurd.  Of course there would be.  You been living in a cave?  The race hustlers have grown in size, not shrunk.  It's big business now.   It's absolutely a possibility that is not far-fetched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BladeRunner said:

That's absurd.  Of course there would be.  You been living in a cave?  The race hustlers have grown in size, not shrunk.  It's big business now.   It's absolutely a possibility that is not far-fetched.

Only if you are living is some fantasy world, not the reality of life in this country in 2021. Anyone who thinks this could be a legitimate issue that would actually seriously discussed or raised is being delusional from my perspective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, squistion said:

Only if you are living is some fantasy world, not the reality of life in this country in 2021. Anyone who thinks this could be a legitimate issue that would actually seriously discussed or raised is being delusional from my perspective. 

This is like saying that racists are not the reality of life of this country in 2021.  Sure, people don't seriously discuss the merits of racism...but you don't think race and racism is an undercurrent in politics?  I mean doesn't that basically describe how the left thought Trump operated?

But you're going to say the left is impervious from any subversive racial undertones?  Cmon man!

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Help me understand this.  Or is it simply a lost cause.  I have no dog in this fight and probably dont like any of the parties involved.  But walk me through this.

 

Sharon Osbourne and Piers Morgan are friends.

Sheryl Underwood on "The Talk" calls Morgan racist and Osbourne takes offense and asks for examples of what he has done that is racist

Underwood doesnt respond.

Osbourne is placed on leave and then ultimately fired from her job.

 

What in the holy hell is going on these days?  We cannot even talk about race or ask someone to clarify wtf they are talking about when spewing allegations?  Something is wrong here man really wrong and its time for the pendulum to start swinging back the other way

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sharon-osbourne-is-out-at-the-talk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, pantherclub said:

Help me understand this.  Or is it simply a lost cause.  I have no dog in this fight and probably dont like any of the parties involved.  But walk me through this.

 

Sharon Osbourne and Piers Morgan are friends.

Sheryl Underwood on "The Talk" calls Morgan racist and Osbourne takes offense and asks for examples of what he has done that is racist

Underwood doesnt respond.

Osbourne is placed on leave and then ultimately fired from her job.

 

What in the holy hell is going on these days?  We cannot even talk about race or ask someone to clarify wtf they are talking about when spewing allegations?  Something is wrong here man really wrong and its time for the pendulum to start swinging back the other way

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sharon-osbourne-is-out-at-the-talk

All of a sudden Osborne has had a "number of previous racial incidents" on CBS and this was the final straw.  I call BS on this as cancel culture doesn't allow it to get to several, they just wanted her out.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it's important to keep in mind that right-wingers play this game too, here's the . . . interesting . . . governor of my state getting triggered over a pair of satanic shoes.  I wish I was kidding, but no that's really what she's talking about apparently.

This reminds me when I was a kid and church-lady types used to say that KISS stood for Kids In Satan's Service and AC/DC = Anti-Christ Devil Cult.  Which is deplorable because AC/DC is one of the top 5 rock bands of all time while KISS is just a particularly memorable example of a whole slew of talentless hair bands.  No way should these two groups be lumped together like that.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Because it's important to keep in mind that right-wingers play this game too, here's the . . . interesting . . . governor of my state getting triggered over a pair of satanic shoes.  I wish I was kidding, but no that's really what she's talking about apparently.

This reminds me when I was a kid and church-lady types used to say that KISS stood for Kids In Satan's Service and AC/DC = Anti-Christ Devil Cult.  Which is deplorable because AC/DC is one of the top 5 rock bands of all time while KISS is just a particularly memorable example of a whole slew of talentless hair bands.  No way should these two groups be lumped together like that.

You, sir, sound like you have never listened to the merits of "Gold Gin" as an impetus to drink after having run out of tonic and been too drunk (and aware of being too drunk) to go to the store in zero degree weather (though I'm sure you're aware of zero degree weather). This is pump up music for the fainting hearts.

Ooh it's cold gin time again
You know you'll always win
Cold gin time again
You know it's the only thing...that keeps us together!

Just so it's in keeping with the woke theme, the YouTube video that precedes the link is a black Captain America. I have no real trouble with racial casting, it just seems apropos.

Edited by rockaction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Because it's important to keep in mind that right-wingers play this game too, here's the . . . interesting . . . governor of my state getting triggered over a pair of satanic shoes.  I wish I was kidding, but no that's really what she's talking about apparently.

 

Some on the right oppose this nonsense even (or in my case, especially) when it comes from the right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Because it's important to keep in mind that right-wingers play this game too, here's the . . . interesting . . . governor of my state getting triggered over a pair of satanic shoes.  I wish I was kidding, but no that's really what she's talking about apparently.

This reminds me when I was a kid and church-lady types used to say that KISS stood for Kids In Satan's Service and AC/DC = Anti-Christ Devil Cult.  Which is deplorable because AC/DC is one of the top 5 rock bands of all time while KISS is just a particularly memorable example of a whole slew of talentless hair bands.  No way should these two groups be lumped together like that.

Black Sabbath and Judas Priest were taboo also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, squistion said:

No, there wouldn't be any media campaign either backdoor or frontdoor. That is an absurd supposition. 

 

Direct Headline: Don't Trust Kamala! Nikki Haley says VP's 2018 comparison of ICE to the KKK means she is the WRONG person to fix Biden's border crisis

Conservatives were quick to hop on attacking Kamala Harris' immigration stance after she was put at the helm of the White House response to the border crisis

Nikki Haley asked how 'we' could trust Harris because of her comments in 2018 comparing ICE to the KKK

'An undocumented immigrant is not a criminal,' Harris tweeted in 2017

Joe Biden announced Wednesday Harris would take on immigration within the administration, saying: 'She speaks for me. She knows what she's doing'

Immediately, Republicans blasted the decision as Biden signaling he is not serious about addressing the growing crisis at the southern border

By Katelyn Caralle,  12:50 EDT, 27 March 2021

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9408477/Nikki-Haley-says-VPs-comparison-ICE-KKK-means-shes-wrong-person-fix-border-crisis.html

 

******

Sure thing, there is no way POTUS 2024 contenders Nikki Haley and Kamala Harris would spar over racial issues. It would never happen. Clearly.

VP Harris went as far as to label ICE ( ALL OF IT ) as being just like the KKK but would never have DNC operatives backdoor hammer Haley on race anywhere else for political gain! It would never happen. Clearly.

Your position is politics would never get that ruthless. My position is first prize is a Cadillac. Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired.

Put down your cup, son. Coffee is for closers.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Because it's important to keep in mind that right-wingers play this game too, here's the . . . interesting . . . governor of my state getting triggered over a pair of satanic shoes.  I wish I was kidding, but no that's really what she's talking about apparently.

This reminds me when I was a kid and church-lady types used to say that KISS stood for Kids In Satan's Service and AC/DC = Anti-Christ Devil Cult.  Which is deplorable because AC/DC is one of the top 5 rock bands of all time while KISS is just a particularly memorable example of a whole slew of talentless hair bands.  No way should these two groups be lumped together like that.

OMG I totally forgot about the KISS thing.  Wow did that hit me in the memory button

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, GordonGekko said:

VP Harris went as far as to label ICE ( ALL OF IT ) as being just like the KKK but would never have DNC operatives backdoor hammer Haley on race anywhere else for political gain! It would never happen. Clearly.

She didn't exactly say that, she asked the ICE Director if he could see any parallels between ICE and KKK and public perception of ICE. 

https://www.the-sun.com/news/2584374/kamala-harris-slammed-comparing-ice-kkk/

In 2018, when speaking to former ICE Acting Director Ronald Vitiello, Harris asked if he could see parallels between the agency and the white supremacist hate group.

"Are you aware of the perception of many about how the power and the discretion at ICE is being used to enforce the laws and do you see any parallels [with the KKK]?" Harris asked.

She went on: "Are you aware that there is a perception that ICE is administering its power in a way that is causing fear and intimidation, particularly among immigrants and specifically among immigrants coming from Mexico and Central America?"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2021 at 5:56 PM, KarmaPolice said:

Then people around here will be doubly upset - now not only are all the headlines about white guys, but so are the jokes!  ;) 

Pretty much every commercial that needs a buffoon fits this now.  It's the only safe group that can be portrayed as idiots.

Doesn't bother me - humor is humor.  But that cat is out of the bag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2021 at 4:48 AM, GordonGekko said:

Had Kamala Harris married a black man, there would be a backdoor media campaign to point out her natural rivals, Haley and AOC, should be branded traitors to their own culture for marrying white men or going to marry white men. 

Oh, I'm sure they can find 1/1024th of something to change this designation.

 

On 3/28/2021 at 4:48 AM, GordonGekko said:

I've said this before, the problem with purity tests is they never stop. The other issue is if you dig hard enough, nearly everyone will fail them.

:goodposting:    Some seem to be able to skate, though - Northam and Cuomo come to mind immediately. 

 

2 hours ago, Jayrod said:

Just saw an article that a local Christian university is now changing their mascot from the Crusaders to something to be decided later.

My HS has this mascot.  Like GG said, this is a purity test and that name has a complex history.  Complexity = has holes that can be poked at.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, rct said:

She didn't exactly say that....

 

Harris was going for a headline and she got it. If you want to split hairs on a some semantic distinction, go ahead, it's your free speech.

If you are a professional politician, esp if you are a minority, and you invoke the KKK into the conversation, it's plainly clear what kind of headline you are trying to push. That's on both sides of the aisle.

Let me take this back to political strategy

1) If Nikki Haley married an Indian, instead of Doug Haley, the RNC would pull no punches in using a  backdoor narrative that Harris a race traitor and "not really black". Would they use Tucker Carlson to push this narrative? No. They'd use someone like the Hodge Twins/Conservative Twins or Diamond & Silk, for a targeted audience.

What's the pathway? Those mostly like to be swayed are older voters. Younger voters are simply more progressive in nature. Older voters however impact fundraising. If you lose older voters, you lose their fundraising pathways.

Trump got quite a few black male votes in the last cycle. Actually, he got them at unprecedented rate. The RNC would push the race/spouse narrative to try to wipe out black female voters for Harris

2) If Kamala Harris married a black male instead of Doug Emhoff, the DNC would pull no punches, as stated before, in using a backdoor narrative that Haley is a race traitor. They'd use a Maxine Waters or a Don Lemon type.

What's the pathway? There is literally nothing on Haley in her current political narrative to cancel her. I mean nothing. I haven't seen a bizarrely clean profile like this since David Souter went through his SCOTUS confirmation hearing. The DNC would take this shot, if it was available, because Haley has given them nothing else to use. She is the most dangerous type of rival - Someone who is so boring, that she offers a natural counterbalance to the previous Trump image. Of course the DNC is terrified of her, she is a minority woman with foreign affairs experience, a storybook narrative with big money support that can potentially reel in Trump's base (Notice when she criticized Trump, he didn't lash out back at her. How often does he do something resembling restraint like that?)

3) Harris Vs AOC is more complicated. AOC has a very young base, who are less likely to care if her future husband is a white guy. But she doesn't have old money support. The Squad is fortunate they can fall back on Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren for fundraising ops. Harris is going to have a hard time using a racial narrative against AOC since the border crisis will make it look like the Obama/Biden/Harris camp is doubling down to burn the entire leftist Latino vote into the ground. But still, the aim would be to get AOC to lose some of the older Latino vote. Hard line old school geriatrics who might be swayed at AOC being too progressive against tradition. If AOC can't get her mother to do some campaign ops for her, this could be a pathway of attack from Harris. It's limited but it's there.

When Haley announced her Super PAC, she put a target on her back. The DNC will hunt her actively for the next four years. They are bracketing her because, as of today, she's actually the front runner for 2024, no matter what the leftist MSM says otherwise.

All Kamala Harris has ever had in her ammo pouch is identity politics. Not going to be surprised if a one trick pony keeps hammering away at their one trick. This is Chubby Checker doing The Twist level one trick-itis.

Live by the woke sword, fall by the woke sword.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, djmich said:

Woke / Cancel Band-aids

My kids are always looking for band-aids to stand out, its sort of like a 💪 or tattoo for kids.

I actually think its cool to have different shade band-aids.  But how are we going to solve for milk mustaches

:lmao:  

Just get some ####### Ninja Turtles Band-Aids or something, you loon.  (the teacher, not you djmich) 

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...