Author Topic: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled  (Read 12468 times)

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #100 on: June 01, 2018, 06:45:51 PM »
The punishment fitting the crime is a very interesting concept.  But, as I've stated repeatedly, this was self interest.  This was ABC reacting to the 'conditions on the ground'. 

Oh, I'm going to repeat that I think ABC has every right to fire Rosanne and that it's between them.  Not sure if it really was in self interest, since it was the 3rd highest rated show on TV, right?  Their #1 probably.  But ABC could fire Rosanne for saying that coke tastes better than pepsi if it really means that much to them.

Agreed, ABC was well within their rights to do what they did, at least, assuming they didn't breach a contract in doing so.

That said, ABC being within their rights to do so still doesn't mean that others who are not ABC are going to be immune from the political fallout of what happens in the aftermath.

ABC didn't start the fire, it is no fault of ABC for what happened, but there certainly are others who are going to reap the proverbial whirlwind for it. I doubt it'll be anything hugely disruptive in its own right, but it might be enough to tip some races in favor of Republicans that would have gone Democrat otherwise.

Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #101 on: June 01, 2018, 07:06:02 PM »

ABC didn't start the fire, it is no fault of ABC for what happened, but there certainly are others who are going to reap the proverbial whirlwind for it. I doubt it'll be anything hugely disruptive in its own right, but it might be enough to tip some races in favor of Republicans that would have gone Democrat otherwise.

It's a long way to November.  And I would encourage Democrats to appraise an action on it's right or wrongness, despite election results, the same as I would a Republican.  There is room for some pragmatism and patience and thought, but it's a dangerous area. 

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #102 on: June 01, 2018, 07:07:18 PM »
I wonder whether the event of her firing wasn't spurred on by the Kevin Spacey phenomenon. And don't get me wrong, eliminating rape and pedophilia from Hollywood would be a crusade worth watching. But it seems that the notion of removing stars who crossed the moral line started with him recently, and perhaps Roseanne could be viewed as being part of the scramble for networks and production companies to find themselves on the wrong side of public opinion. If so, then it does beg Grant's point about proportionate response. To whit, the response to Spacey's problematic sexual history and Roseanne issuing one idiotic tweet seems to have been on the whole similar. Granted, the most a network can actually do is fire you (unless they choose to sue) so perhaps this issue can't handle an apples-to-apples comparison. Maybe Spacey's actions were way beyond firing but that was the most they could do to him, whereas with Roseanne she barely qualified for firing but just crossed the line.

Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #103 on: June 01, 2018, 07:18:45 PM »
I wonder whether the event of her firing wasn't spurred on by the Kevin Spacey phenomenon.

Spacey was accused of crimes.  Some very serious ones.  And while I would caution even more against trial by public opinion than I would mob by public opinion, I would also say that employers that distanced themselves from an individual accused of such crimes is expected and proper. 

Roseanne was accused of the thought crime of racism.  That's a pretty serious crime for some.  But it still wasn't a legal crime.  I think we should differentiate between the two, while reminding ourselves even more that it's the criminal justice system that is responsible for punishment for crimes, not Twitter Joe. 

I wish there was a list of people who got fired for thought crimes or unacceptable speech, but I don't have one.  Not sure if it began with Spacey or Damore or goes further back, and when things started heating up.  The first one I remember on the forum is the firing of Brendan Eich.  Paula Deen lost her job in 2013 I think.  That's just celebrity/CEO firings. 

velcro

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #104 on: June 01, 2018, 09:48:17 PM »
I concede that the Constitution does not explicitly say that slaves are sub-human.

I understand that they are "persons" in the constitution.  And I understand that the laws at the time did not allow women to vote or own property, so that is not a measure of personhood.

But to explicitly say you count for less than another person makes you unquestionably inferior than the other person.

How about this:

The Constitution explicitly states that non-slaves are superior to slaves.  It makes no such statement about superiority of men over women, or landowners over non-landowners.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #105 on: June 01, 2018, 11:45:34 PM »
If all "men" have the inalienable right to liberty, and there exist entities, whose existence is acknowledged legally, who do not have the right to liberty, then those entities are by definition not "men".

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #106 on: June 02, 2018, 02:02:56 AM »
I concede that the Constitution does not explicitly say that slaves are sub-human.

I understand that they are "persons" in the constitution.  And I understand that the laws at the time did not allow women to vote or own property, so that is not a measure of personhood.

This is categorically false, even going back to the Pilgrims for that matter. My 10x great-grandmother is a historical example of this for that matter in colonial Massachusetts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Warren

Quote
In his “Increasings and Decreasings”, Bradford assigns Richard Warren the title of “Mr.” which indicates someone of status, but does not mention him at all in his recording of Plymouth history. And except for a few mentions elsewhere, not very much is known about him in Plymouth, but the Warren family does seem to have been among those with wealth.

During her widowhood, Elizabeth Warren’s name is noted in Plymouth Colony records. She was listed as the executor of her husband’s estate, paying taxes as head of household and as an independent agent in her own right.

In Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1627 no less.

Now granted, such circumstances were by their very nature exceptional, and required a certain specific configuration of events to happen, but they did happen.

I just happen to know about that about that specific one due to a website available to users of the LDS Family Search website to check for "Famous ancestors" and relatives with some degree of (supposedly) documented relationship within up to 16 generations... Assuming somebody did the research and put the work on Family Search at least. So I looked him up on Wiki afterwords. 

Quote
But to explicitly say you count for less than another person makes you unquestionably inferior than the other person.

How about this:

The Constitution explicitly states that non-slaves are superior to slaves.  It makes no such statement about superiority of men over women, or landowners over non-landowners.

Until subsequently changed by way of constitutional amendment, the Constitution in the form initially ratified, specified no requirements for a state to adhere to in regards to who voted or did not vote. States were just required to hold an election every two years for the House of Representatives in accordance with whatever additional instructions Congress may provide(Which have been few to none). So if New Jersey wanted to give 2 year olds the right to vote, they were within their rights to do so. Technically speaking, I think they'd still be within their rights to give 2 year olds the right to vote, they're only currently required to allow citizens of 18 years or older of either gender to vote(unless otherwise restricted by court order).

The constitution simply stated that for the purposes of enumeration in the allocation of House Seats(and electoral votes), slaves would be accounted for at 3/5ths of their true number. The constitution said nothing about landowners or non-landowners being allowed to vote(in most states at the time, only landowners could vote). It also said absolutely nothing about female voters, and most states DO have historical examples of female voters, even in the 1790's. They just often happened to be widows serving in the "head of household" role.

The more operative expression for the era would probably be more accurate to say it wasn't "1 man, 1 vote." It was "1 household, 1 vote." So it wasn't just women who were being disenfranchised, it was men as well, if you weren't "the head of household" you didn't vote, simple as that.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2018, 02:05:08 AM by TheDeamon »

Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #107 on: June 02, 2018, 07:44:12 AM »
If all "men" have the inalienable right to liberty, and there exist entities, whose existence is acknowledged legally, who do not have the right to liberty, then those entities are by definition not "men".

This is true, and is a good example of a conversion contrapositive.  But the defenders of slavery commonly argued that the status of "men" was not extended to those who were not white males.  They were "persons", but not "men".  They argued that Jefferson meant only white men when he stated that all men had these rights.  Personally, given Jefferson's attempt to place a slave clause in the Declaration and his many writings on the subject, I think they were wrong, and it was argued such by the abolitionists.  It was the great contradiction, and was acknowledged by the men of the time. 

Without further ado, I give you the Father of the Consitution:

Quote
In being compelled to labor, not for himself, but for a master; in being vendible by one master to another master; and in being subject at all times to be restrained in his liberty and chastised in his body, by the capricious will of another, the slave may appear to be degraded from the human rank, and classed with those irrational animals which fall under the legal denomination of property. In being protected, on the other hand, in his life and in his limbs, against the violence of all others, even the master of his labor and his liberty; and in being punishable himself for all violence committed against others, the slave is no less evidently regarded by the law as a member of the society, not as a part of the irrational creation; as a moral person, not as a mere article of property.



Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #108 on: June 02, 2018, 07:58:32 AM »
But to explicitly say you count for less than another person makes you unquestionably inferior than the other person.

Obviously.  No argument.  The only argument at the time was whether being a slave made them less or they were slaves because they were less.  Was the inferiority inherent and the natural cause of slavery, or was it slavery itself that degraded the man? 

But the counter argument to the 3/5 compromise will always be that in this particular case, it was the northerners, who were against slavery, who insisted that slaves not be counted towards, representation; and it was the southerners who wanted them counted as full people.  Hence, the very people who would argue that slaves were inherently inferior wanted them to be counted as 5/5 of a person. 

Quote
The Constitution explicitly states that non-slaves are superior to slaves.  It makes no such statement about superiority of men over women, or landowners over non-landowners.

Mmmmmehhh.  I would instead say that the Constitution IMPLICITLY states that non-slaves are superior to slaves.  "Slavery" was, I believe, never explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, only alluded to.  This was generally thought to be purposeful so that the Constitution could not be seen as explictly supporting slavery. 

From the Constitutional Convention Debate Minutes, August 25 1797


Quote
Mr. MADISON thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men. The reason of duties did not hold, as slaves are not like merchandize, consumed, &c

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_825.asp



Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #109 on: June 02, 2018, 05:57:36 PM »
Quote
And I bet that this incident was covered in the contract.

Anyone heard anything like this?

I am certain it was covered. But so what? It may give them legal cover to fire her without repercussion in the sense that she can't sue them for whatever her compensation would have been. But if their loss has been anywhere close to the 1 Billion that was quoted in some of the stories, her compensation and anything she could sue them for would be less than pocket change.

This is a bloodbath for ABC. It is insane to imagine that they wanted this to happen. Even if they sued Roseanne for whatever they lost and won, what would they get out of her? You think Roseanne has $100,000,000 in her bank account. May as well try to take it out of the studio janitor.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #110 on: June 02, 2018, 06:29:16 PM »
Quote
And I bet that this incident was covered in the contract.

Anyone heard anything like this?

I am certain it was covered. But so what? It may give them legal cover to fire her without repercussion in the sense that she can't sue them for whatever her compensation would have been. But if their loss has been anywhere close to the 1 Billion that was quoted in some of the stories, her compensation and anything she could sue them for would be less than pocket change.

This is a bloodbath for ABC. It is insane to imagine that they wanted this to happen. Even if they sued Roseanne for whatever they lost and won, what would they get out of her? You think Roseanne has $100,000,000 in her bank account. May as well try to take it out of the studio janitor.

I think the only thing that was covered under the contract was some flavor of "morality clause" which was promptly executed the moment her Tweet started to get negative attention.

As to the show itself, if you poke around a little more, something I suspected is already "in discussion" as the Producers and everyone else involved in the  show are looking at options as to how they could "reformat" the program without Roseanne as part of the cast. Looking like it'd probably center on her one daughter, under a different title. Same characters, same (general) setting, but at a guess, they'd probably kill off her(Roseanne's) character to ensure that she has no ability to return to the show.

Of course, there could be all kinds of nasty infighting that can happen in regards to that, as I'm sure a lot of the "IP" as it relates that particular sitcom family traces back to her. But she'll probably be more than happy to get money for just sitting back and letting them do all the work, or not, time will tell.

The "real fun" will be when/if other people realize that even though she may no longer be "a participant" in the show, she's still getting paid for it, and what the activists try to do at that point.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #111 on: June 02, 2018, 09:54:11 PM »
The "real fun" will be when/if other people realize that even though she may no longer be "a participant" in the show, she's still getting paid for it, and what the activists try to do at that point.

If that happens I hope they'll do nothing. It's one thing to be upset at an employee of a company making them look bad, but it's another to be upset that someone you don't approve of has a financial stake in a company. It would be equivalent to being upset that she owns stock in ABC, which is none of the fans' business. Try enforcing a regime where people on the social black list are barred from buying financial interest in publicly traded companies.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #112 on: June 03, 2018, 01:54:33 AM »
This happens BECAUSE those people are rich and powerful.  And guess what.  When you are rich and powerful, you are thrust into the minefield.  “Middle America” does not face the same repercussions, let alone possibly worse ones.

This needed to be circled back on as I couldn't immediately bring to mind a good response to this.

This cycles back to "politics often has little to no bearing on the actual reality of the situation." And what you have going on is partially a cultural zeitgeist in play based on other past efforts of a comparable nature.

Grant touched on it briefly but it needs to be re-emphasized:
Roseanne was accused of the thought crime of racism.  That's a pretty serious crime for some.  But it still wasn't a legal crime.  I think we should differentiate between the two, while reminding ourselves even more that it's the criminal justice system that is responsible for punishment for crimes, not Twitter Joe. 

I wish there was a list of people who got fired for thought crimes or unacceptable speech, but I don't have one.  Not sure if it began with Spacey or Damore or goes further back, and when things started heating up.  The first one I remember on the forum is the firing of Brendan Eich.  Paula Deen lost her job in 2013 I think.  That's just celebrity/CEO firings. 

In addition to this, we need to remember the numerous Dox'ing efforts aimed at even the "rank and file" members, one of the most recent examples, with wildly variable accuracy no less, being in the aftermath of the rally in Virginia. And in the case of Brendan Eich, the issue there was the (illegally) leaked Prop 8 donor list, and he just happened to be one of the highest profile people to be targeted because of it, he wasn't the only one negatively impacted by it.

Hobby Lobby, and Chick-Fillet's(SP?) CEO also come to mind as well. (Although those didn't go to plan for the Activists)

Another recent example would be the response to "The Google Manifesto" as well. The list just keeps growing and I know it is anything but complete as it stands. Most of "Middle America" probably will be doing good to even give you vague details on more than two of the above listed events, never mind anything more specific about them. Their "important take away" about them however, was that those events made them feel threatened personally on some level.

They see a pattern, and its one that threatens them, yes the high profile cases involve a number of people who were targeted expressly because they were high profile, but other examples (Prop 8 donor list) exist of "Joe Blow" getting targeted as well.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #113 on: June 03, 2018, 09:15:27 AM »
Quote
Roseanne was accused of the thought crime of racism.
She wrote something, I'd say "most", but ignoring that contentious point, I'll say "ABC", found to be a racist (or at least hazardous to their bottom line because others will) statement.  She didn't just think it.  Heck, she didn't even just say it in a small group.  She posted this in a highly visible public medium.  That is a serious crime offense for some; and obviously for ABC.

Quote
I wish there was a list of people who got fired for thought crimes or unacceptable speech, but I don't have one. 
This is how to better frame the point.  Just wanted to get that off my chest as long as we are circling back...

I'm all for stronger laws to prevent people from online harassment, such as DOXing and death threats, or threats of vandalisim or of inciting people to move from online to physical intimidation. 

People getting fired because a company/brand doesn't want to be associated with them and their expressed views (note:  nothing to do with what they think) is fine by me.  I'm fine with people voicing their opinions that a company/brand SHOULD cut ties with someone or face losing customers.  Whatever my feelings on the war over decency... err sorry, the battle of "P.C.", there is no arguing that P.R. is a real fascet of the busines world.

The question about how this applies to politics is a bit difference.  While I'm against people giving out home addresses and the like, and our voting habbits should be confidential, people are very concerned about there not being enough transparancy in campaign finance. 

My point about the high profile danger is that 'Joe Blow' could have made the same rant, and his friends/family and maybe one ring of association beyond that may have seen it.  They would have wondered what the hell he was on about, and maybe recieved a, "F U Man!" in return.  It would have been chalked up to Joe being an *censored*. 

But he's not a symbol.  (I mean the name is kinda a meme, but that's besides the point.  :P)  Roseanne (and others) are.  They are not JUST individuals, but they are representative of others.  Is it fair?  Probably not.  But Joe's boss, if he ever even saw/heard Joe spout off something racist, is not likely to lose any business because he employs this guy.  Mostly because his customers won't know Joe occasionally spouts off racist remarks. 

This is why the 'punishment fitting the crime" is tricky.  First, it's not often a "crime" as has been pointed out.  And the punishment for Joe Blow would be meaningless and have zero moderating behavior on Roseanne.  The reverse, in some cases when it comes to monetary amounts involved reach the absurd were Joe on the hook for something his life time wages would likely never reach. 

"Famous" or high profile people or those being paid at rates 50, 100 times or more, the rates of the average American are watched more closely and are judged by a different scale.  Sometimes that makes them untouchable.  Sometimes it means their fortune is tied to them navigating the minefield.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #114 on: June 03, 2018, 09:21:41 AM »
Roseanne Barr was not punished, any more than were John Goodman, Laurie Metcalf or Sara Gilbert.  ABC is not in the business of punishing, they are in the business of making money.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #115 on: June 03, 2018, 09:38:14 AM »
I'm all for stronger laws to prevent people from online harassment, such as DOXing and death threats, or threats of vandalisim or of inciting people to move from online to physical intimidation. 

People getting fired because a company/brand doesn't want to be associated with them and their expressed views (note:  nothing to do with what they think) is fine by me.  I'm fine with people voicing their opinions that a company/brand SHOULD cut ties with someone or face losing customers.  Whatever my feelings on the war over decency... err sorry, the battle of "P.C.", there is no arguing that P.R. is a real facet of the business world.

The "issue" here, as the more socially conservative side of the nation can fully attest to, is this scenario is NOT reciprocal. If you hold a socially conservative/more traditionalist point of view, and express it publicly, the current social milieu is such that if you're not careful, you could lose your job, and see your career be seriously damaged by it. "And deserve what you get" when it happens to you.

But if you hold a more socially "liberal" or progressive positions, without regard to how "socially acceptable" those positions/attitudes may be where you are,  and an employer attempts "to cut ties" with you because of your public positions. THAT's protected, and suddenly some sacred cow is under attack and the employer is now under threat of boycotts, multi-million dollar crowd-funded lawsuits, and so forth.

This is the perception, and to an extent, it also is the reality, because it is happening. So once again, it should go without much surprise for someone who is being truly objective, that it is causing a LOT of people to develop "siege mentalities" and feel that "their side" is under attack.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #116 on: June 03, 2018, 09:46:56 AM »
And as to linking "Democrats" to the Roseanne Barr firing/show cancellation:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/03/bernie-sanders-disney-rhetoric-raises-questions-about-his-worker-advocate-credentials.html

Quote
In the same speech, Sanders also praised Disney CEO Bob Iger for canceling ABC's “Roseanne” after its star's recent Twitter meltdown -- even though the sitcom's shutdown reportedly threw hundreds of crew members out of work.

Yes, Bernie technically isn't a Democrat. But a large number of Democrats support him. It certainly is a lot easier "to make the connections" between Bernie and the Democratic party than it is take the "twitter meltdown" mentioned above and turn Roseanne Barr into an unapologetic racist. At least, for many segments of the US Population.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #117 on: June 03, 2018, 10:07:46 AM »
Quote
The "issue" here, as the more socially conservative side of the nation can fully attest to, is this scenario is NOT reciprocal. If you hold a socially conservative/more traditionalist point of view, and express it publicly, the current social milieu is such that if you're not careful, you could lose your job, and see your career be seriously damaged by it. "And deserve what you get" when it happens to you.

But if you hold a more socially "liberal" or progressive positions, without regard to how "socially acceptable" those positions/attitudes may be where you are,  and an employer attempts "to cut ties" with you because of your public positions. THAT's protected, and suddenly some sacred cow is under attack and the employer is now under threat of boycotts, multi-million dollar crowd-funded lawsuits, and so forth.
This is likely going to be a clear cut case of, "But DW you are biased as you ARE the liberal/progressive side." 

Conservative / more traditionalist point of view meaning what?

Liberal / progressive point of view meaning what?

I'm sure you can guess what instantly pops into my brain (as a liberal).  I can take a stab at those, but it's DEEP into the motive speculation land we are suppose to avoid here on Ornery.  It will also, almost certainly, land in territory that will be seen as offensive.  (and be non-conducive to debate)

Quote
This is the perception, and to an extent, it also is the reality, because it is happening. So once again, it should go without much surprise for someone who is being truly objective, that it is causing a LOT of people to develop "siege mentalities" and feel that "their side" is under attack.
I agree.  It IS happening.  The most important point from the perspective of the left/progressive side, (speaking for myself at least) is that if you walk out the gates, the sieging force will welcome you.

I see this like terrorists setting up rocket launchers on top of hospitals and schools.  Yes, that building is going to come under attack.  Yes, that's horrible.  Yes, those targeting the building have a responsibility to avoid collateral damage.  Maybe those inside fear the terrorists more than they fear the sieging force?  Maybe they don't believe the sieging force can tell the difference?  It's a mess to be sure.

The thing is, some of those "concervative/more traditionalist points of view" ARE under attack.  Even I, a decidedly non-active non-crusader who does little more than vote and post on the internet, am attacking those views.  If you are a racist, a mysognist, a bigot, or believe you can force people out of our greater society because of their religion, lack of religion, sexual identiy or sexual preferences or skin color, or country of origin, then I'm attacking you. 

If you are simply not willing to accept the mantle of "liberal/progressive" even if you agree those things are bad, because you have more in common with a different social/political "tribe", that's perfectly fine with me.  I try to aim my slings and arrows carefully.  But from my perspective you are staying in that building surrounding my targets.  You do not seem to be doing enough to cast out those targets.  The battle rages on.  Leaflets have been dropped warning of the siege and potential strikes.

So if you want to understand why things are NOT reciprocal, you need only to look past the red or blue uniforms involved and look at the views themselves.  While there are defiantly liberal/progressive radicals out there, the "unfairness" is pretty easy to see when you look at what is being defended or opposed by each side. 

(end entirely biased analysis)

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #118 on: June 03, 2018, 10:30:20 AM »
Quote
The "issue" here, as the more socially conservative side of the nation can fully attest to, is this scenario is NOT reciprocal. If you hold a socially conservative/more traditionalist point of view, and express it publicly, the current social milieu is such that if you're not careful, you could lose your job, and see your career be seriously damaged by it. "And deserve what you get" when it happens to you.

But if you hold a more socially "liberal" or progressive positions, without regard to how "socially acceptable" those positions/attitudes may be where you are,  and an employer attempts "to cut ties" with you because of your public positions. THAT's protected, and suddenly some sacred cow is under attack and the employer is now under threat of boycotts, multi-million dollar crowd-funded lawsuits, and so forth.
This is likely going to be a clear cut case of, "But DW you are biased as you ARE the liberal/progressive side." 

Conservative / more traditionalist point of view meaning what?

Liberal / progressive point of view meaning what?

I'm sure you can guess what instantly pops into my brain (as a liberal).  I can take a stab at those, but it's DEEP into the motive speculation land we are suppose to avoid here on Ornery.  It will also, almost certainly, land in territory that will be seen as offensive.  (and be non-conducive to debate)

You probably wouldn't be far off the mark for many/most of them. On a racism/bigotry scale of 1 to 10, with 10 rating "foaming at the mouth" most of these people probably rate somewhere between 2 to 4. Largely due to "lack of exposure" to people from those particular groups in general, or lack of (known) exposure to members of those groups who haven't attempted to "weaponize it" in some form.

But this boils down to agreement with the goals, but opposition to the methods being used to achieve those goals. With the 2-4 grouping, the tactics getting media attention are very bad, and horrendously chosen, they're making things worse, not better.

Quote
Quote
This is the perception, and to an extent, it also is the reality, because it is happening. So once again, it should go without much surprise for someone who is being truly objective, that it is causing a LOT of people to develop "siege mentalities" and feel that "their side" is under attack.
I agree.  It IS happening.  The most important point from the perspective of the left/progressive side, (speaking for myself at least) is that if you walk out the gates, the sieging force will welcome you.

See above, in the case of many, "they don't know any better." And as they are, no, they would not be welcomed. You seem to make it fairly clear and self-evident for yourself as well.

Quote
I see this like terrorists setting up rocket launchers on top of hospitals and schools.  Yes, that building is going to come under attack.  Yes, that's horrible.  Yes, those targeting the building have a responsibility to avoid collateral damage.  Maybe those inside fear the terrorists more than they fear the sieging force?  Maybe they don't believe the sieging force can tell the difference?  It's a mess to be sure.

The thing is, some of those "concervative/more traditionalist points of view" ARE under attack.  Even I, a decidedly non-active non-crusader who does little more than vote and post on the internet, am attacking those views.  If you are a racist, a mysognist, a bigot, or believe you can force people out of our greater society because of their religion, lack of religion, sexual identiy or sexual preferences or skin color, or country of origin, then I'm attacking you. 

If you are simply not willing to accept the mantle of "liberal/progressive" even if you agree those things are bad, because you have more in common with a different social/political "tribe", that's perfectly fine with me.  I try to aim my slings and arrows carefully.  But from my perspective you are staying in that building surrounding my targets.  You do not seem to be doing enough to cast out those targets.  The battle rages on.  Leaflets have been dropped warning of the siege and potential strikes.

So if you want to understand why things are NOT reciprocal, you need only to look past the red or blue uniforms involved and look at the views themselves.  While there are defiantly liberal/progressive radicals out there, the "unfairness" is pretty easy to see when you look at what is being defended or opposed by each side.

And this is why "the fight" is going to take much longer to resolve than it needs to. You're causing a large swath of people to "dig in their heels"  because they know you would target them, when they haven't really been given any valid reason(besides threats) to change their views.

No amount of carrot/stick is going to change that, only experience will. And beating them with the freaking stick isn't going to make them view things more favorably, it is far more likely to have the exact opposite effect.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #119 on: June 03, 2018, 10:48:53 AM »
Quote
"they don't know any better." 
This explains my grandma making racist remarks.  It explains my parents generation making less, but still offensive remarks.  It may even explain kids, telling racists jokes they know are wrong, but it's a form of rebellion and they don't know how wrong they are.

But people DO know better.  They are being informed every day.  Those "attacks"?  Those "horrendously chosen" methods?  Those are informing you.  People largely DO know better.  What you are really talking about, is that despite knowing better, they were able to do so anyway.  What has changed, and continues to change, is your ability to do so without repercussions. 

That change is happening fast.  Technology and our changing, ever more connected society, makes those changes far faster than they have ever been.  As such those repercussions are escalating quickly.  THAT is what is terrifying people.  They fear they may be punished for things they've been permitted to do for a long time.

I simply don't buy the, "I didn't know better" defense.  They did.  They just didn't know they were now facing an ever increasing level of personal responsibility for them.

Quote
No amount of carrot/stick is going to change that, only experience will.
This IS that experience.  I've got no stick.  I've got no carrot.  Maybe you can get a virtual carrot in the form of a "Like" click from 8 other Ornery posters here or a virtual stick in the form of a couple people telling you, you are wrong (or worse). 

The thing is I expect people to dig in their heels.  There is no other option.  Actually, what I expect, is for them to swallow their awful impulses and opinions and pretend decency, and maybe, in the process they'll learn some.  If they want to seethe all the more because they can't be awful openly, I'm OK with that.  They're still less likely to pass on that type of thinking or behavior.

Give it time?  How much time?  How many decades or generations is an acceptably comfortable pace for people who claim not to know any better?
« Last Edit: June 03, 2018, 10:51:24 AM by D.W. »

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #120 on: June 03, 2018, 11:26:54 AM »
Quote
"they don't know any better." 
This explains my grandma making racist remarks.  It explains my parents generation making less, but still offensive remarks.  It may even explain kids, telling racists jokes they know are wrong, but it's a form of rebellion and they don't know how wrong they are.

But people DO know better.  They are being informed every day.  Those "attacks"?  Those "horrendously chosen" methods?  Those are informing you.  People largely DO know better.  What you are really talking about, is that despite knowing better, they were able to do so anyway.  What has changed, and continues to change, is your ability to do so without repercussions. 

That change is happening fast.  Technology and our changing, ever more connected society, makes those changes far faster than they have ever been.  As such those repercussions are escalating quickly.  THAT is what is terrifying people.  They fear they may be punished for things they've been permitted to do for a long time.

I simply don't buy the, "I didn't know better" defense.  They did.  They just didn't know they were now facing an ever increasing level of personal responsibility for them.

That's the thing, the change is "happening fast" everywhere, and a LOT of it is fueled by the Internet. Basically, the people who reached adulthood prior to the advent of Social Media and wide-scale use of the Internet, particularly people living in more "isolated", mostly white, communities have "cover" and "an excuse" for "not knowing" heck, there still are rural parts of ("White") America that still don't have reliable high-speed internet. And I'm talking the about the 2007 definition of the term.

Quote
Quote
No amount of carrot/stick is going to change that, only experience will.
This IS that experience.  I've got no stick.  I've got no carrot.  Maybe you can get a virtual carrot in the form of a "Like" click from 8 other Ornery posters here or a virtual stick in the form of a couple people telling you, you are wrong (or worse). 

The thing is I expect people to dig in their heels.  There is no other option.  Actually, what I expect, is for them to swallow their awful impulses and opinions and pretend decency, and maybe, in the process they'll learn some.  If they want to seethe all the more because they can't be awful openly, I'm OK with that.  They're still less likely to pass on that type of thinking or behavior.

Give it time?  How much time?  How many decades or generations is an acceptably comfortable pace for people who claim not to know any better?

Basically, if people hadn't started "poking the bear" like they did, I expect the "last gasp" of it existing in any meaningful way would have died out with my generation, possibly even before its membership had even partially or fully died off. But as it is now, I'd make no such bet.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #121 on: June 03, 2018, 11:35:33 AM »
So, ignore the problem and it will go away?  If it doesn't die out with your/our generation, then... that's the next generation's problem!

Fantastic...   :-\

That this seems acceptable to anyone blows my mind.  I don't want to know the next generation will probably treat each other better than we do.  I want to see that happen now. 

I don't want future generations to learn that ours was one of the last generations that believed this crazy hurtful hateful *censored*.  I want them to learn that we had the bravery to finally face the cancer at the heart of our society.  That we were the ones who did the course correction needed.  That we made the hard choices and said, "no more excuses."

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #122 on: June 03, 2018, 11:43:34 AM »
I try to aim my slings and arrows carefully.  But from my perspective you are staying in that building surrounding my targets.  You do not seem to be doing enough to cast out those targets.  The battle rages on.  Leaflets have been dropped warning of the siege and potential strikes.

I was going to ask other questions and reply to certain comments, but I realized that I really only have one question. Why do you feel you need to have "targets", exactly? What's the situation raging in America that warrants targeting anyone, as such? Why not continue on as liberalism had before, making regular progress without the need for a culture war? The increased intensity in 'targeting' wrong views has been going on for...what...around 10 years? But I don't see what warranted the escalation. There's been no evangelical resurgence, no anti-gay backlash in broader culture, and no apparent increase in hate crimes that I can detect. So what warrants breaking out the slings and arrows and adopting a siege approach?

The one thing I would say that's been different starting around 10-15 years ago is the escalation of police militarization and the disintegration of police-community relations. That's a big one, and came to a head in events like Charlottetown, in NYC (with that guy whose name I forget who was killed), and in other cases. There were marches, body cams began to be a thing, and I do think this has been a serious problem in American culture. The relation between these events and 'racism' is that each case of a black person attacked or killed was linked to possible racist motives, even though based on my observations I don't think the police practices were spawned of racism, so much of fear and bad training. But perhaps the racism narrative snowballed and the enemy appeared to be everywhere after that. Before that I can't recall there being this terror of 'the racists'. I'm sure there were literal racists around, but they were a weak minority and certainly had no significant public voice. The election of Trump seems to have confirmed for many liberals that the racists do, indeed, have a public voice, of which I'm skeptical but I'm sure that many liberals connect A to B directly in that way. Trump as President = racists are winning. And this again goes back into the issue of people buying into a narrative without it being based on factual evidence or documented trends. I never saw a cogent argument that Trump won because of racists, although I certainly think there's a case to be made that he won because of animus against liberal culture (which is an entirely different can of worms).

But here we are, throwing spears, and indeed I have no problem with spear-chucking in the case of a bona fide unacceptable comment or display. You want to step into the right and make a racist remark, get ready for a right cross to the face. My question is more about why there is this perceived "army of racists" out there that need to be hunted down, or battled, or defeated or whatever. I don't think it takes weapons or clashes to 'defeat' whatever racist elements are out there. Why isn't is good enough to continue to help the reconciling of the black and white communities, to build better police/community relations, and to make sure that things like the War on Drugs come to an end? These are steps that would benefit everyone and don't require anyone to be 'the enemy' (other than bad government policies). Like TheDeamon, I don't see what value comes from broadly striking at huge swathes of people, most of whom haven't even entered the right but feel the punches coming anyhow?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #123 on: June 03, 2018, 12:18:14 PM »
Quote
The increased intensity in 'targeting' wrong views has been going on for...what...around 10 years? 
From wiki land
Quote
The presidency of Barack Obama began at noon EST on January 20, 2009, when Barack Obama was inaugurated as 44th President of the United States, and ended on January 20, 2017.

What had the potential to be a nail in the coffin moment on racisim instead fanned flames instead of extinguishing sparks.  I believe you have the whole situation backwards.  It's not that liberals/progressives are inciting people to dig in their heels, there by prolonging racist beliefs.  It's that (to use a term I find irritatingly pretentious) we are finally 'woke' to the fact that we cannot, "wait it out" or look for reasonable excuses for behavior.  We can't just pretend it's something else like 'just politics' or 'partisan dissagreements'. 

This is a chicken or the egg issue and both sides are shouting, no "the other thing came first!"

But hey, at least we both seem to agree on the timeline.

Setting aside the race issue, to answer the broader question, one needs only look at what's going on with our lawmakers.  Public support for, "just let people live their lives as they see fit if they are not hurting others" is pretty much overwhelming.  Yet attempts to create law insuring that does not become reality, or to rewind those slow, incrimental gains is moving at a furious pace.  A "wait and see" approach is preposterous. 

That those pushing this agenda are ALSO the ones doing things that bipartisan condemnation would occur swiftly to stop is no accident.  The interest of middle america go unaddressed while this "culture war" is raging.  The simple truth is that there are people so terrified of losing what little they have, that sharing "equality" is seen as a sacrifice they cannot make.  Ignorant to the fact that as a unified group, there is little they could not solve. 

Those dividing us sure as hell realize this.  So even when the causes are richous, the methods are attacked.  Even when the goal is laudable, the pace of attempting to achieve it is too fast.  Even when our President governs without dignity or respect to even his fellow countrymen, let alone acting respectful on the world stage, his detractors are just partisan hacks pedeling "fake news".

What warranted the escalation?  A black man winning the presidency.  The absurdly wealthy dumping vast resources into convincing the conservative/traditional identifying people that "equality" is un-American and a danger to them greater than the business practices that made them receptive to such a weak deflection of anxiety.  A dream of a better, slowly moving towards improved situations for all was replaced with a regressive nightmare that rewards the abusors and the exploitators at a rate so alarming that you can tell they KNOW their days are numbered and want to rape and pillage the country and secure their ill gotton gains before we decide we've had enough.  What's a little race-war or religious persecution if it gives them another decade to rob us all blind?

If that's not cause for escalation I honestly don't know what is.  I don't want to "fight" the racists.  I don't think there are all that many of them to be perfectly honest.  But there are A LOT of people out there looking to fight anti-racists.  So am I part of the distracted?  Part of the duped?  Ya.  I am.  But again, I vote for my goals, and I argue on the internet.  I just see my self as slightly less manipulated than "the other side" and I'm convinced, that they are my allies, as soon as they wake up and realize it.

It should be noted that I do not suffer the direct ill effects of racism, or sexism, or homophobia and the like.  The issue is both not as urgent to me as it is to others, and my interest is in part, self-serving.  I want to move on to "the real issues" which, I understand is insulting to those suffering from the things I want to "move past". 

There are those on the fringes of the progressive/left camp that would find this an unforgivable sin as well.  And those salivating out there to push this wedge and prolong the issue from ever being resolved...

One big mess.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2018, 12:29:25 PM by D.W. »

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #124 on: June 03, 2018, 01:17:16 PM »
Quote
I can take a stab at those, but it's DEEP into the motive speculation land we are suppose to avoid here on Ornery.  It will also, almost certainly, land in territory that will be seen as offensive.  (and be non-conducive to debate)

You say this as if it's just some technicality that applies on certain internet forums (like Ornery) but that otherwise you feel free to engage in.

Motive speculation isn't allowed on Ornery (and most civilized forums) because it isn't just non conducive to debate, but destroys it;. You can't have a meaningful debate if you don't understand what the other person is saying, and speculating on motive is a one-way ticket to injecting your own bias into the other side's argument. Instead of debating another person, you're debating a straw man you created.

Quote
The absurdly wealthy dumping vast resources into convincing the conservative/traditional identifying people that "equality" is un-American and a danger to them greater than the business practices that made them receptive to such a weak deflection of anxiety.  A dream of a better, slowly moving towards improved situations for all was replaced with a regressive nightmare that rewards the abusors and the exploitators at a rate so alarming that you can tell they KNOW their days are numbered and want to rape and pillage the country and secure their ill gotton gains before we decide we've had enough.  What's a little race-war or religious persecution if it gives them another decade to rob us all blind?

You don't understand anything. I know you don't, because you're incapable of explaining what the other side actually believes. I could explain what they believe, just as I could explain what you believe.

You can't. It's obvious from your postings.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #125 on: June 03, 2018, 01:44:03 PM »
Setting aside the race issue, to answer the broader question, one needs only look at what's going on with our lawmakers.  Public support for, "just let people live their lives as they see fit if they are not hurting others" is pretty much overwhelming.  Yet attempts to create law insuring that does not become reality, or to rewind those slow, incrimental gains is moving at a furious pace.  A "wait and see" approach is preposterous.

It is clear that by whatever  means it happened to occur, you have "lost touch" with a very substantial portion of the American populace, and you have no desire to understand them.

That said, it should also be noted that "support for being left alone" has two approaches that can apply. The "Liberal" approach through legislation(which does the opposite of "leaving people alone" IMO), and "the Libertarian" approach.

The two approaches are mutually exclusive of one another. It also is plainly evident why racists of various different stripes would favor one path over another depending on which course they think "best benefits them."

There is more that can, and probably should be said, but I need to be driving and not posting. So it will have to happen later, if others don't address it earlier.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #126 on: June 03, 2018, 02:25:51 PM »
*Note: I use "you" a lot, and realize that I'm responding to at least two people, and speaking to broader issues.  Sorry about the laziness of writing on that front.
Quote
Motive speculation isn't allowed on Ornery (and most civilized forums) because it isn't just non conducive to debate, but destroys it;. You can't have a meaningful debate if you don't understand what the other person is saying, and speculating on motive is a one-way ticket to injecting your own bias into the other side's argument. Instead of debating another person, you're debating a straw man you created.
How it manifests itself here, or rather, the alergic reaction (or even threats of suspension or banning in the past) IS a bit different.

I frequently, do engage in a process of, "You SAY this, but do you really mean THIS?"  Or I'll say, "You SAY this, but what that means to me is, THIS.  Was that your intention or would you care to convince me it meant something else?"

The simple truth is on internet forums I do not know people well enough to know if I can take topics at face value.  Let alone if I can afford to assume that the best possible light one can take a statement in, is the one I should.

Bad habbits?  Maybe.  But let's not forget that here, in particular, we are discussing politics.  This topic is the embodyment of layered motivations.  It is almost impossible to disentangle motives as we've all clearly demonstrated here.  So yes, I do feel free to engage in it.  I try to avoid crossing lines that lead unambiguously to suspensions or bans.  And to be fair, I haven't seen the threat of moderation wielded so agresively here as of late, but then again our number of partisipants isn't all that high, so maybe I get cut some slack?  I don't know.

Quote
You don't understand anything. I know you don't, because you're incapable of explaining what the other side actually believes. I could explain what they believe, just as I could explain what you believe.

You can't. It's obvious from your postings.
What would you like me to explain?  It's true I trend towards, "here's what I THINK you believe."  I even go so far as to say, "I think you are being dishonest, possibly with yourself, when you say you believe X."  It's aggressive, and impolite, but I AM listening to the responses.  I think years ago I had a discussion with Pete on this issue.  I believe that some level of intentionally provoking people makes them more emotional and gets them to drop their filters.  They move away from "safe" and diplomatic responses and get at what they feel about a topic.  (I know it happens to me more frequently than in the past.)

It is poor sportsmanship when it comes to the rules of debate.  It may even poison opportunities at reaching a consensus.  I get that, and try not to take it TOO far.  But that impulse is strong in me.  I think that's part of why I often enjoyed the posts of some of our other more agressive posters in the past and got upset when they faced repeted moderation. 

Quote
It is clear that by whatever  means it happened to occur, you have "lost touch" with a very substantial portion of the American populace, and you have no desire to understand them.
If I was that disconnected from them, I'd probably not get so worked up about this to be honest.  But I'm not.  They're my aunts, my uncles, my siblings, friends I grew up with, current co workers.  They aren't some mysterious alien group out of sight and out of mind.  It would be so much easier were that the case... 

Quote
The "Liberal" approach through legislation(which does the opposite of "leaving people alone" IMO), and "the Libertarian" approach.
Can you give me some examples?  The only one I can think of that comes close are things like, "you must provide birth control as part of your benefits package."  And again, I fall into:  "You SAY you don't want to be forced to offer birth control, but what you MEAN is you want to force others not to be able to access it easily."  Fighting against that IS a libertarian ideal!  That it apparently requires additional legislation to achieve it, I understand is upsetting to those who honestly believe we are better off with less government.  Am I off the mark here?  Do you have a better illustrative example of the opposite of leaving people alone?

The two examples are mutually exclusive from one another because of packaging.  Both sides want the same thing, but because you have decided that "leaving people alone" cannot be separated from "small government" any solution which requires additional legislation means it is invalid.  And I get that.  If "small government" is the priority over "leaving people alone" that's OK.  I don't share that priority, but I refuse to just leave it alone when I know that either we share a common goal here, and only differ on method, OR people are paying lip service to a 'consensus good' without really caring about, and possibly opposing it.  Of course I'm going to pick at it and see which it is. 

I know people who when picked at fall in both of those camps...  Maybe you're right though.  Maybe I have "lost touch".  It may just be that while my bubble includes A VERSION of both sides, I still don't have a clear picture of a very substantial portion of the American populace. 
« Last Edit: June 03, 2018, 02:30:14 PM by D.W. »

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #127 on: June 03, 2018, 04:20:03 PM »
Anyone else watch The Orville? There was an episode called Majority Rule. Not sure I want to go into it too much because of spoilers but it seems like our society is getting closer and closer to theirs. Well I guess I can talk about it a little after saying SPOILER ALERT. Basically, everyone in their society can be judged by everyone else with likes and dislikes and if you get too many dislikes, which you have to wear openly so everyone can see them in comparison to your likes, that can affect whether or not you can buy a cup of coffee at a coffee shop, for instance. It could affect whether or not you could keep your lease for your business office. That example wasn't in the show, but it was an example in our own society with a New York lawyer who went on a rant in public about people speaking Spanish. I just thought that episode was pretty on point, not so much prescient even as reflective.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #128 on: June 03, 2018, 04:27:09 PM »
There is a Black Mirror episode that's also about that concept.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #129 on: June 04, 2018, 09:56:12 AM »
I don't think we know how social media and 'being connected' 24/7 will impact us and society. The thought that keeps crossing my mind is that we are becoming Borg, all sides attempting to assimilate the others knowing there can only be one (hive mind).

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #130 on: June 04, 2018, 10:16:29 AM »
While I think comparing it to the Borg is a bit alarmist, I don't disagree.

Isolated pockets of conflicting opinions will no longer be able to avoid contact.  Our 'right' to have our views go unchallenged is being rescinded.

It doesn't have to be a horror story / bogyman. 

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #131 on: June 04, 2018, 12:37:32 PM »
What had the potential to be a nail in the coffin moment on racisim instead fanned flames instead of extinguishing sparks.  I believe you have the whole situation backwards.  It's not that liberals/progressives are inciting people to dig in their heels, there by prolonging racist beliefs.

I thought for a while before responding because I was trying to see what you mean, but I'm having trouble. I know you're trying to say that having Obama as President sparked all of this racism or whatever...but did it? I really never saw that or heard anything about it. Are you referring specifically to the birth certificate issue? Or what? What is this fanned flame you speak of? Where was it seen, what evidence do you have that it became suddenly worse or that liberal progress began to go retrograde?

Quote
It's that (to use a term I find irritatingly pretentious) we are finally 'woke' to the fact that we cannot, "wait it out" or look for reasonable excuses for behavior.  We can't just pretend it's something else like 'just politics' or 'partisan dissagreements'.

Again, I don't understand this rationale. I'm very aware that many people felt like they couldn't wait it out. But what real situation suddenly arose making it impossible to wait it out any more? What elicited the need to go to war, as it were? 

Quote
This is a chicken or the egg issue and both sides are shouting, no "the other thing came first!"

Yes, you seem to be saying that the liberal movements as we see them now were merely a reaction to the racists and whatnot having some kind of resurgence. But I've never seen on these boards...ever actually...an argument suggesting there has been a resurgence of racism or that the liberal vs conservative cultural clash suddenly began to swing in the reverse direction. For many years it's been steadily going in the liberal direction and the conservatives have been losing in nearly every quarter. Surely you'd have to be able to demonstrate that this trend began reversing when Obama was inaugurated in order to suppose this position, no?

Quote
What warranted the escalation?  A black man winning the presidency.  The absurdly wealthy dumping vast resources into convincing the conservative/traditional identifying people that "equality" is un-American and a danger to them greater than the business practices that made them receptive to such a weak deflection of anxiety.  A dream of a better, slowly moving towards improved situations for all was replaced with a regressive nightmare that rewards the abusors and the exploitators at a rate so alarming that you can tell they KNOW their days are numbered and want to rape and pillage the country and secure their ill gotton gains before we decide we've had enough.  What's a little race-war or religious persecution if it gives them another decade to rob us all blind?

Let's back this up a bit. Now what you're talking about is the general state of inequality and injustice in America from all quarters. And most of the above list can be situated squarely in the economic system and its ties to lawmaking that enable corporate welfare and exploitation. This is, by the way, the exact stuff Sanders has been railing at for...what...15-20 years? And never did he bring white vs black into it or find the need to paint any bad guy other than corrupt politics. What on Earth does any of this have to do with blogging about how white people are racists and if they deny it then it proves they are? Or what does it have to do with the view that racists and Trump are dominating America? How is any of that a logical response to the things you just mentioned?

Quote
If that's not cause for escalation I honestly don't know what is.  I don't want to "fight" the racists.  I don't think there are all that many of them to be perfectly honest.  But there are A LOT of people out there looking to fight anti-racists.  So am I part of the distracted?  Part of the duped?  Ya.  I am.  But again, I vote for my goals, and I argue on the internet.  I just see my self as slightly less manipulated than "the other side" and I'm convinced, that they are my allies, as soon as they wake up and realize it.

It seems you're saying that your position is more or less that there's all kinds of injustice around, that the system perpetuates it, and that immediate action is needed. I agree. Actually, I couldn't agree more. And this is why I thought (and still think) we're speaking past each other. You seem to insist, no matter what I say, that my position is that we shouldn't be doing anything about these injustices. No. My position is that I don't want radical groups involves in 'helping' to deal with injustice. They make it worse, not better, in my opinion, and yet through branding they've become synonymous with the fight against injustice.

But what's most important is to pinpoint exactly what the fulcrum of the injustice is, and to go after that. Not to go after whoever's a convenient target, or can be lambasted safely (like "the racists"), or other straw man targets. And it's not that fighting racism is itself a straw man, but going after the wrong people, or the wrong cause, ends up being a straw man because you're fighting windmills instead of the very real forces causing injustice. It's often been said in social justice blogs that people who don't recognize their privilege are the problem. That's nice and pat because as a proposition it's (a) untestable, (b) non-falsifiable (since denial is taken as confirmation), and (c) you get to adopt the position of the underdog taking on the majority. But telling white people (for instance) that they're part of the problem doesn't do anything about campaign finance laws, or about legal bribery. In fact it will make them worse, because if the partisan wedge is increased by alienating those who disagree with you they'll be even more prone to accept misdeeds by their politicians as long as it's in the name of defeating your side. The ability to recognize that when any politician is corrupt it hurts all of America will fade away. Do you see what I mean?

I need to reiterate that you would be quite mistaken if you think that what you want is for change and what I want is for us to sit on our laurels. I don't see how my posting history could ever suggest that in the first place. Are you sure you haven't been responding to what you see as a prevalent position you perceive, and just attributing it to me? If I had my way the changes to be made would be radical. Bernie's a moderate compared to what I would like to see. But his ideas were a really good start, especially his longstanding desire to see campaign finance reformed. Find the people who are against that and you'll find the real enemy of change.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #132 on: June 04, 2018, 12:50:33 PM »
Quote
But I've never seen on these boards...ever actually...an argument suggesting there has been a resurgence of racism
I think it is pretty clear that a subset of the US population holds the view that racism is resurgent.  I won't make any claim about the size of that subset.  I question whether you dispute this, or whether you literally simply haven't seen "an argument" supporting this claim on Ornery.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #133 on: June 04, 2018, 01:02:10 PM »
Quote
But I've never seen on these boards...ever actually...an argument suggesting there has been a resurgence of racism
I think it is pretty clear that a subset of the US population holds the view that racism is resurgent.  I won't make any claim about the size of that subset.  I question whether you dispute this, or whether you literally simply haven't seen "an argument" supporting this claim on Ornery.

No, no. What I said was I've never seen a cogent argument showing that there actually was a resurgence. It's obvious that many people think there has been.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #134 on: June 04, 2018, 01:23:04 PM »
I'm not sure why you wrote "no, no", when you really meant "the latter".  Also "cogent" means what in this context, especially since you added it to your clarification, where it was not in your original claim? 

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #135 on: June 04, 2018, 01:32:19 PM »
This is not an argument, but reported statistics seem to support the largely anecdotal evidence. From USA Today last year - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/07/09/kkk-racist-rants-religious-vandalism-us-vs-them-mentality-escalates-leaving-dark-corners-interne/418100001/
Quote
While a patchwork of data means we don't have a complete picture of the problem, the SPLC and the ADL say available numbers show disturbing trends. In its most recent hate crimes report, the FBI tracked a total of 5,818 hate crimes in 2015, a rise of about 6.5% from the previous year, and showed that attacks against Muslims surged. The SPLC documented an uptick of hate and bias incidents after the presidential election, tracking 1,094 in the first month alone. The organization also says the number of hate groups in the U.S. increased for a second year in a row in 2016. In April, the ADL reported anti-Semitic incidents in the U.S. rose 86% in the first quarter of 2017.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #136 on: June 04, 2018, 01:32:55 PM »
I'm not sure why you wrote "no, no", when you really meant "the latter".  Also "cogent" means what in this context, especially since you added it to your clarification, where it was not in your original claim?

I wrote "no, no" because your response of "I think it is pretty clear that a subset of the US population holds the view that racism is resurgent." was non-responsive to my point, hence I assumed you misunderstood it. I am not arguing that no one thinks there's a resurgence, what I specifically said was that no one on Ornery has in the past made a case demonstrating how it's resurgent. I wrote "cogent" as a follow-up because there have been a lot of tacit statements that there's been a resurgence, but the claims have only been of the form of stating it as a fact. But to whit I can't recall anyone here taking some evidence or statistics and demonstrating clearly why they think it's resurgent. And it's not like they've done so and met resistance, as happened on the lengthy thread about Obamacare. There has simply never been an effort of any kind to demonstrate in what way or to what degree there's a resurgence. It's always just been a borderline tautological proposition of "it's resurgent, because everyone knows it is." I don't know that it is, and I've never seen the case made clearly, hence "cogent".

My observation is that at a certain point (which I guessed was ~10 years ago, and I guess I made a lucky guess since D.W. came up with a definite reason why that timing might be accurate) the narrative that racism is resurgent became prevalent, which is completely different than observing that it did become prevalent. Do you see the difference?

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #137 on: June 04, 2018, 01:36:56 PM »
Then last year, the ADL reported the largest single-year increase in anti-semitic incidents in its history (since 1979): https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/27/589119452/anti-semitic-incidents-see-largest-single-year-increase-on-record-audit-finds

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #138 on: June 04, 2018, 01:43:06 PM »

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #139 on: June 04, 2018, 02:06:19 PM »
What had the potential to be a nail in the coffin moment on racisim instead fanned flames instead of extinguishing sparks.  I believe you have the whole situation backwards.  It's not that liberals/progressives are inciting people to dig in their heels, there by prolonging racist beliefs.

I thought for a while before responding because I was trying to see what you mean, but I'm having trouble. I know you're trying to say that having Obama as President sparked all of this racism or whatever...but did it? I really never saw that or heard anything about it. Are you referring specifically to the birth certificate issue? Or what? What is this fanned flame you speak of? Where was it seen, what evidence do you have that it became suddenly worse or that liberal progress began to go retrograde?

Obama as President certainly spiked accusations of racism. It was a meme almost as soon as he became President-Elect "The only reason you disagree with Barak Obama is because he's black and you're a racist." Hell, former President Jimmy Carter flat out said essentially that just a couple months into Obama's presidency.

Honestly, I do think the Obama Presidency did specifically cause "a resurgence" in racial supremacy groups, both for "Whites" and other colors as well. Comparatively, the net change was probably relatively huge for many of those same groups. But we're into the realm of "lies, damned lies and statistics" with that. IIRC, it is claimed the KKK had an estimate membership in the ~100,000 person range in 2015/2016. So for them, picking up for example, twenty thousand people over 8 years would have been a "huge increase" in their numbers. However, twenty thousand people out of a population of nearly 330 million people is practically noise level for a statistics type.

And reality is, I don't think that Obama really was that much of a contributor(although the Obama Admin certainly "went to town" with exploiting "wedge issues" to the maximum extent possible, which once again, probably benefited those racist groups too) all things considered.

When you really drill into this stuff more often than not it tends to come down to a small number of things.
1) Education
2) Economic Opportunity (which tends to cycle back to Education)
3) Personal experience with said groups they're hating.

I think you'd find the largest contributor is item #2. When people cannot find (good) work, they're going to start looking for reasons why they cannot get said work. And as the "grievance industry" so aptly demonstrates, it's far easier to blame others than it is to find fault in ourselves. Ergo, "bad economies" result in more toxic behaviors all around(homicide rates as well as number of other crime indicators also tend to go up in such situations).

Which is part of the problem with the "You said something we find unacceptable, so we're going to destroy you're ability to make a comfortable living." Is just a giant recipe for creating a ticking time bomb. If also doesn't help when, for example on item #2, when people apply for jobs, are even told they're the best qualified candidate for the job, but.... "We're going to hire somebody else because they're going to help us with meeting our EEO goals." So just stick with it, you're clearly a good hire, but we're not hiring you because social justice requires you get left out on the curb.

Quote
Quote
It's that (to use a term I find irritatingly pretentious) we are finally 'woke' to the fact that we cannot, "wait it out" or look for reasonable excuses for behavior.  We can't just pretend it's something else like 'just politics' or 'partisan dissagreements'.

Again, I don't understand this rationale. I'm very aware that many people felt like they couldn't wait it out. But what real situation suddenly arose making it impossible to wait it out any more? What elicited the need to go to war, as it were?

See earlier comment about accusations starting at the onset of Obama's presidency where ALL opposition to him was inherently racist in nature. Seeing Obama get largely stymied for all but the first 2 years of his tenure in office(and being fought tooth and nail even then), was all the "proof" they needed that racism is clearly out of control in America.

That he was in turn followed up by President Trump the Racist, just further cements things in their view.   

Quote
Quote
This is a chicken or the egg issue and both sides are shouting, no "the other thing came first!"

Yes, you seem to be saying that the liberal movements as we see them now were merely a reaction to the racists and whatnot having some kind of resurgence. But I've never seen on these boards...ever actually...an argument suggesting there has been a resurgence of racism or that the liberal vs conservative cultural clash suddenly began to swing in the reverse direction. For many years it's been steadily going in the liberal direction and the conservatives have been losing in nearly every quarter. Surely you'd have to be able to demonstrate that this trend began reversing when Obama was inaugurated in order to suppose this position, no?

Don't you understand, the Tea Party was racist. They opposed Obama, they're racist. They advocated policies that racists agreed with, which makes them racist by association. (Never mind there are racists on the Socialist/Communist side of the spectrum as well that "fully support" many of the programs Democrats advocate for, because of what it "opens doors" to)

Quote
what's most important is to pinpoint exactly what the fulcrum of the injustice is, and to go after that. Not to go after whoever's a convenient target, or can be lambasted safely (like "the racists"), or other straw man targets. And it's not that fighting racism is itself a straw man, but going after the wrong people, or the wrong cause, ends up being a straw man because you're fighting windmills instead of the very real forces causing injustice. It's often been said in social justice blogs that people who don't recognize their privilege are the problem. That's nice and pat because as a proposition it's (a) untestable, (b) non-falsifiable (since denial is taken as confirmation), and (c) you get to adopt the position of the underdog taking on the majority. But telling white people (for instance) that they're part of the problem doesn't do anything about campaign finance laws, or about legal bribery. In fact it will make them worse, because if the partisan wedge is increased by alienating those who disagree with you they'll be even more prone to accept misdeeds by their politicians as long as it's in the name of defeating your side. The ability to recognize that when any politician is corrupt it hurts all of America will fade away. Do you see what I mean?

Amen.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #140 on: June 04, 2018, 02:24:04 PM »
DonaldD,

It's well and good to begin to cite to articles about racist trends, but that's an entire issue that should have its own thread. And I wasn't exactly challenging anyone to prove something to me - or at least that wasn't my main point. What I was saying is that at around the time of Obama's early Presidential years the claims of racist resurgence seemed to precede evidence of any such resurgence. I'm skeptical that there was one to any significant degree but would be interested to learn more and maybe I'd change my mind on that. But what I'm observing is that the public narratives seemed to me to appear sans evidence, even if by happenstance there was some evidence. But getting into the statistics game is a tricky and should require an more in-depth conversation than the parenthetical one we're having in a Roseanne thread. For instance, if I claim that as of 10 years ago race-relations began to be worsened by a needless culture war, and then you show evidence of some unfortunate trends from 3 years ago, are we to surmise that these were merely the long-term result of the alleged resurgence from 2008, or that they were the result of the culture war itself that riled people on both sides up? So that's the kind of parsing that would be required, and my point was just that no one has hitherto even proposed to look at this issue and get to the bottom of it, and yet the "fact" that racism has been resurgent for 10 years seem to be taken for granted as justification to "escalate" (as D.W. put it) and take out the trash. One commenter on one of the articles you cited to asks whether there was a real uptick in hate crime or whether there was an uptick in reporting of it, which is another axis to examine in such things, and then there's the issue of what the cause of the hate crimes supposedly is. Because at around the time of Obama's inauguration another major thing was going on - the big crash. I find it hard to believe that Obama being black should be automatically assumed to be the sole cause of widespread anger at a time when the economy was being wiped out. Can we even measure the social effects that the crash had?

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #141 on: June 04, 2018, 02:29:24 PM »
Which is fine - but you will never find the data if you don't actively look for it.  it shouldn't be the responsibility of your interlocutors to educate you on the statistics that are readily available to everybody.

You think there is no statistical evidence for a particular claim?  Then go ahead and show that there is evidence refuting the claim.  Simply stating "well nobody showed me" is not exactly persuasive.

Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #142 on: June 04, 2018, 03:56:06 PM »
Then there are the general hate crimes as documented by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Sourced from the FBI: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/11/13/fbi-hate-crimes-reach-5-year-high-2016-jumped-trump-rolled-toward-presidency-0
Then there was 2017: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2018/2017-year-hate-and-extremism

It's true there was a 4.6% increase in hate crimes reported to the FBI in 2016 from 2015.  Of course, the incident rate actually only increased by 2.5%, due ot the fact that a larger number of agencies, covering a larger population, participated in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting program.  The theory presented by the SPLC is that Trump is behind the increase in hate crimes. 

I suppose that is possible.  But what would be the cause of the 12.1% rate increase in 2015 from 2014?  Or the 7.1% rate increase in 2012?  A Look back between 2005 to 2016 show a rate variation between 12.1% to 1.4%.  The average rate change +/- between these years is 6.1%.  I'm sure there are reasons, but without more data I can only presume that there is a natural variance in hate crime incidence that has little to do with elections.  Then again, in 2013, the first year of President Obama's 2nd term, there was a 13.7% rate decrease in the incidence of hate crime. I suppose it's possible that he is solely responsible. 

As for the SPLC's hate group list, they manage their own and define it as they wish. 

Quote
it shouldn't be the responsibility of your interlocutors to educate you on the statistics that are readily available to everybody.

You're welcome. 
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 04:02:01 PM by Grant »

Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #143 on: June 04, 2018, 04:08:56 PM »

My observation is that at a certain point (which I guessed was ~10 years ago, and I guess I made a lucky guess since D.W. came up with a definite reason why that timing might be accurate) the narrative that racism is resurgent became prevalent, which is completely different than observing that it did become prevalent. Do you see the difference?

This seems to be the impetus.  If the purpose was to utilize hate crime stats to prove that racism is resurgent over the past 10 years, then I would like to show following document with graph. 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hcv0415.pdf


TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #144 on: June 04, 2018, 04:49:04 PM »

My observation is that at a certain point (which I guessed was ~10 years ago, and I guess I made a lucky guess since D.W. came up with a definite reason why that timing might be accurate) the narrative that racism is resurgent became prevalent, which is completely different than observing that it did become prevalent. Do you see the difference?

This seems to be the impetus.  If the purpose was to utilize hate crime stats to prove that racism is resurgent over the past 10 years, then I would like to show following document with graph. 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hcv0415.pdf

I find it interesting that the cutoff is at age 12. Not that a hate crime committed by, or against an 11 year is more or less excusable than a 13 year old, or a 17/18 year old. But the cutoff point seems a bit odd.

Makes me curious at what the incidence rate is for the 18+ demographic, or more particular, the 22+ grouping.

Methinks many of the reported hate crimes are "teenagers being teenagers" and making piss poor decisions as to how they're demonstrating their "Rebel Status." Doesn't make it ok, and it IS an issue that needs to be addressed, but I'm generally going to place a 14YO "Hate Crime" perpetrator, of any ethnic group, into a completely different category than a 20-something.

The should know better, but they're teenagers, they're immortal, invulnerable, know more than those stupid adults do, and consequences aren't something they seriously consider until/unless somebody they know is killed or seriously injured because of it. It just seems to be how they're wired.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #145 on: June 04, 2018, 04:49:59 PM »
Quote
What is this fanned flame you speak of? Where was it seen, what evidence do you have that it became suddenly worse or that liberal progress began to go retrograde?
Possibly others could point out incidents that were irrefutable. {*started writing before the data links were posted}  I however, cannot.  (at least not this moment, possibly some will come to me later)  Any single incident I could point to could be dismissed.  As I mentioned before, so many things are entangled here.  Republican v Democrat, Conservative v Progressive and so on.  Others have spoken in recent years about dog whistles, but those, by their very nature are meant to be excusable.  You never really saw or heard it, I did.  It’s not like we didn’t see the same things, we just perceived it differently.  Maybe the habit I have of trying to read between the lines or look past an event or statement to get at the motives is the difference.  Possibly this trait is one more common in, or more likely drives more people towards, a liberal/progressive outlook?  I don’t know.
Quote
But I've never seen on these boards...ever actually...an argument suggesting there has been a resurgence of racism or that the liberal vs conservative cultural clash suddenly began to swing in the reverse direction
This boils down to the comfort level of the “extreme” right, (people most Republicans/conservatives would be quick to point out are not representative of them), to proclaim loudly, things that were typically not said in anything but a “safe space” of like minded racists/bigots.  Is that group growing in numbers?  Probably not.  Are they growing in boldness?  Absolutely. 
So why the reaction then?  Because, as my response above, I (we?  As I don’t speak for “the left”) read into things.  They (subjective) appear to be tolerated.  A lot of this behavior is excused.  I don’t support them because they said X (which is naughty) but because of Y, which I agree with.  Then I see someone like Trump stiring things up, and engaging in behavior that these groups see as encouragement if not agreement.  For every person open about their ugly beliefs, I wonder how many more nod quietly where nobody is there to see?  Is it fair?  Hell no.  So I try to keep it to just wondering, and save my words for those who are obvious about it.
Quote
This is, by the way, the exact stuff Sanders has been railing at for...what...15-20 years? And never did he bring white vs black into it or find the need to paint any bad guy other than corrupt politics.
This is true.  Is this a way of asking, “Why do you feel the need to focus on racism as a bad guy when you are really after those other things?”  If so, I suppose one could look at the narratives that were out there that Sanders was less appealing to minority voters than Hillary was, precisely because he failed to focus on them (enough for some).  I don’t know if that’s accurate or not, but it was out there.  As to why I feel the need, it’s because I believe a unified front will be far more effective.  That with this particular divisive issue / tool in use, that battle of corrupt politics is harder to attack head on.
Quote
What on Earth does any of this have to do with blogging about how white people are racists and if they deny it then it proves they are?
If I ever said that, or inferred it, I apologize.  That drives me crazy as well.  What I have said, is that some who deny it, yet act in specific ways, I suspect of lying.  Or at least of having their priorities so different than mine that they are an obstacle towards resolving the issue.
Quote
Or what does it have to do with the view that racists and Trump are dominating America?
I believe they are dominating our attention, not America.  Though their foothold is stronger than I had previously believed.

Quote
How is any of that a logical response to the things you just mentioned?
If we quit arguing about whether or not we are all equally deserving of what it means to be an American and deserving of all the rights and opportunities that entails, then our ability to fix or improve this nation will be (I believe) an awe inspiring thing.  To be clear, I believe we were (and are still) moving that way.  I see the attempts to highlight and magnify all points of contention to be working against that.  I freely admitted I’m part of that distraction, I just believe I’m on the just side of it...

Quote
You seem to insist, no matter what I say, that my position is that we shouldn't be doing anything about these injustices. No. My position is that I don't want radical groups involves in 'helping' to deal with injustice.
And what you want, doesn’t change that they are out there, and will be out there.  That’s just the way it is.  Instigators and radicals come in every flavor.  Are you saying you prioritize dealing with these radicals (on the left) who are ‘helping’ deal with injustice is a higher priority than dealing with the injustice?  If not, then why bring them up?  If you are just pointing out that they are another obstacle towards bridging the divide, then I agree.  Even if I think most of the attention paid to them is blown out of proportion.  (same as the overt, white supremacists radicals)

Quote
But what's most important is to pinpoint exactly what the fulcrum of the injustice is, and to go after that. Not to go after whoever's a convenient target, or can be lambasted safely (like "the racists"), or other straw man targets.
Here’s where we break.  I haven’t mentioned any straw man targets.  I may talk generally, but am referring to specific things.  Roseanne’s tweet WAS racists.  Some excuse it, or rationalize it or dismiss it, but it’s not a strawman.  Is she a “convenient target”?  I guess…  It’s a high profile person who’s made it a point she is trying to represent a demographic.  Are you saying the best path forward is to ignore the bait?  Even if we honestly believe that if ignored such behavior becomes normalized?  What is it you are suggesting? 


What do you mean I’m after “the wrong people”?  How is ending racism “the wrong cause” even if I have others.  Do you mean, “not the biggest problem in our country?”  Depends on who you ask I suppose.  I’d even agree.  I’ve said it a few times.  I think it is the best tactical move towards the larger objectives.  But hey, I’m a white dude.  I may reprioritize were I not.  :P

You see it as fighting windmills and a strawman because you believe that solving other injustices first will cause racism to sort itself out, or at least be an easier task.  That’s fine, but I don’t see us solving those other injustices without solving racism first; (and to a lesser extent bigotry and sexism.) Maybe that’s just it, a tactical difference of opinion?
But when I strip away racism, bigotry, and sexism, and look at just policy, what I see is an awful lot of those “other injustices” when I look across the aisle.  That’s not to say the Democrats/Liberals/Progressives have clean hands, but they pay a lot more lip service to thwarting those things.  With the “culture war(s)” out of the way, it would be far easier to hold their feet to the fire.
Quote
I need to reiterate that you would be quite mistaken if you think that what you want is for change and what I want is for us to sit on our laurels. I don't see how my posting history could ever suggest that in the first place.
I’m not trying to demonize people or you specifically.  If anything I’m trying to demonstrate the line of thinking that your reasoning provokes, or can provoke. 

Quote
Are you sure you haven't been responding to what you see as a prevalent position you perceive, and just attributing it to me?
On the contrary, I AM doing that exact thing.  Or at the very least, sprinkling those into my responses to you.  I even said as much on one replay when I responded to not only two people but a generalized ‘the other side’, all with “you”. 
I even made it a point that context and trust changes how I interpret what people say. 
Even if we both agree on the “real enemy of change” I don’t like our odds against them right now. 
Quote
hat I specifically said was that no one on Ornery has in the past made a case demonstrating how it's resurgent.
Maybe this is an important distinction.  It may not be as much that there is an objectively defined resurgence, but that a common misconception that things were better than they (apparently) are, motivated/angered a lot of people on the left, when they learned different.  /shrug  Just spit-balling there.
Those replying to me are all making some really good points.  I agree with an awful lot of what you are saying.  I’m absolutely guilty of a lot of the accusations and fit many of the theories you are throwing out.  It may seem counter intuitive, but I find these exchanges useful.  Even if they don’t change my views, they can help me to see new nuances of how I’m being manipulated or people are attempting to manipulate me. 

My hope is that I’m helping others achieve the same.  I seriously believe that even if such a discussion only serves to reinforce your own beliefs, it’s helpful to get an idea of how others may perceive what you say.  Life isn’t fair, and neither is how others judge you.  It doesn’t mean you should ignore that.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 04:56:16 PM by D.W. »

Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #146 on: June 04, 2018, 05:20:58 PM »
Makes me curious at what the incidence rate is for the 18+ demographic, or more particular, the 22+ grouping.

Methinks many of the reported hate crimes are "teenagers being teenagers" and making piss poor decisions as to how they're demonstrating their "Rebel Status." Doesn't make it ok, and it IS an issue that needs to be addressed, but I'm generally going to place a 14YO "Hate Crime" perpetrator, of any ethnic group, into a completely different category than a 20-something.

The should know better, but they're teenagers, they're immortal, invulnerable, know more than those stupid adults do, and consequences aren't something they seriously consider until/unless somebody they know is killed or seriously injured because of it. It just seems to be how they're wired.

In 2016 83.8% of offenders were over 18.  https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2016/topic-pages/offenders


DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #147 on: June 04, 2018, 05:29:28 PM »
Quote
You're welcome.
I don't think Fenring actually thanked you.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #148 on: June 04, 2018, 05:40:55 PM »
Quote
While I think comparing it to the Borg is a bit alarmist. I don’t disagree


I didn’t’ intend the observation be to alarmist though it does beg the question of what is the tipping point on when we ought to be concerned and raise an alarm.
I’m struck at how people are becoming more and more dependent on their smart phones as their memory, and of course memory is a trickster.   I wonder what the impact on becoming dependent on such technology will have on intelligence. Not saying it will be bad or good, probably both... it will be different in though

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #149 on: June 04, 2018, 05:51:51 PM »
At least I miss far less birthdays now that Facebook and the like reminds me.  ;)  So in that case, it repairs a deficit rather than atrophying existing talents.  :P