Oh, so displaying any image of Jews is now anti-semitic? Are you going to call for my execution like a fundamentalist Muslim? Is that it? Are you gonna cancel all episodes of Seinfeld because the show depicts Jews? Huh?
What is it about this image that I should find offensive?
I don't know. Your link doesn't work. If you need an explanation for why corporate branding of a mammy stereotype inspired by a blackface performance might have some problems, I'm sure there's an article or two that can address the issue for you. You seem to have an awfully strong opinion for someone who doesn't seem to be aware of why people think what they do.
EAllusion seems to have self identified as belonging to the "McCarthyist-lite segment of the left". It's made for great conversation.
If me calling displaying a lawn jockey (!) super-racist, which you apparently do (?), is what you think is the new McCarthyism that is spelling the fall of the Republic, that really puts into context what your concerns are and how they should be interpreted.
I have a poster of this hanging in my window.
Seems anti-semitic.
Oh, so displaying any image of Jews is now anti-semitic? Are you going to call for my execution like a fundamentalist Muslim? Is that it? Are you gonna cancel all episodes of Seinfeld because the show depicts Jews? Huh?
You've just made my point again (if the driving factor of the crowd was jews, or indians, or mexicans, or ... ). Thanks.
If facing written criticism of proudly displaying racist iconography counts as an attack on your "free speech" and demanding a "safe space" then I don't think you know what those terms mean and you probably should stop being such a precious snowflake.
I don't think those words mean what you think they do.
I'm not offended by "all lives matter" but the term implies the argument that black lives matter as a concept is saying only black lives matter when it is obviously an assertion that black lives matter too. Insofar as almost deliberate stupidity is offensive it's offensive to me, but I don't get worked up about it. People generally say it as a way of trolling or expressing general opposition to the legitimacy of calls for reforms to end police misconduct that disproprotionately affect blacks, so as an intended political signifier it's noxious. That doesn't make it hurt my fee fees like being criticized for attached to racist symbolism from ages ago apparently does to some people.
I will say the people who confuse free speech with the right to express bigotry free from criticism end up besmirching the reputation of free speech as a concept and do damage to the idea that they incorrectly think they are defending.
To me, "all lives matter" === we need to replace the current King of the Mountain status pro and to do that, like honorentheos suggests is going to require being able to discuss the issues, not bury them under PC safe spaces where those who violate the PC are personally attacked like you have done to me here.
It used to be the case that "politically correct" as a pejorative could refer to overzealous censorious behavior of a wing of the political left. But it eventually was co-opted by people who just used it to express contempt for people daring to criticize them for their bigoted comments or behavior. It was even co-opted to just disagree with standard academic positions as in, "I guess I don't share your politically correct views on global warming." Identifying with being "politically incorrect" or opposing "political correctness" then carried a strong association with someone who who wants to do bigoted or stupid things without others shaming them for it.
The upshot is this phenomenon was localized to one sad term. Until recently, that is, where it seems to have metastasized into a whole range of related concepts like "safe spaces" and so forth. Kinda sucks.
Anyway, you probably should take down that lawn jockey Rock. I mean, Jesus Christ. You're out here trying to re-litigate issues that were settled before I was born.
You continue to make my point. You have clearly declared me a bigoted stupid obviously racist scumbag because I have tried to discuss a possible phenomenon Bret Weinstein has suggested. What violence would you like to see happen to me for my bigotry? Would you like to apply that justice to me personally?
Do you actually have anything of value to add to the op?
So here's a good example of what happens when discussion that involves listening takes a backseat to social media #winning.
In that sense I agree with Rock. EA, you don't seem to have any other mode than attack and put down. And that's akin to McCarthy. Instead of talking through it with Rock which could have been productive, you chose to miss the opportunity.
Why? My running assumption is you are an anarchist. More than a libertarian. That's based in what you do more so than what you say. But maybe it's something else?
I mean, it seems pretty clear Rock is reacting to what he sees being reported on in social media or the news or whatever. Maybe he really does care about Aunt Jemima or Uncle Bens and he can explain the association he has with them that is being lost with the change. Or maybe he really has a lawn jockey. I'm assuming the fact I had no idea what that was but it's now trending means it's part of this change resistance that, if examined honestly and with discussing with people affected by the tropes they represent why they may need to be replaced with something better. well. I think that's where the promise of a better way is to be found. Certainly not in put downs and online attacks. I think rock is more likely to be persuaded through respecting his views and helping him understand why there is an issue he doesn't recognize because it's not him being kicked in the teeth by it. But I think he would understand if you'd stop trying to kick him in the teeth here.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jun 22, 2020 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
