End of USA republic imminent?

[_honorentheos]

Mormondiscussions - Litigating whether lawn jockeys are racist.

This...is why you fail.

[_honorentheos]

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. EAllusion, 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?

Lol. I'm saving this one.

Please do.

[_EAllusion]

Mormondiscussions - Litigating whether lawn jockeys are racist.

This...is why you fail.

...displaying a lawn jockey itself is a racist act

simply because you say it is so?!?!? based on what? movie iconography? your white-ness?
Or is it because any image of a black person is currently deemed racist because the Democratic party is getting desperate with every passing moment of decline in Biden's' viability as an actual functioning candidate?

[_Some Schmo]

Yeah, that had to be the worst Sam Harris podcast I've heard. I couldn't finish it. It reminded me of his essay on guns, which also sounded clueless.

[_Some Schmo]

It is a strange phenomenon that people will whine how they don't get to say things right after they just said them. It's almost as though they missed the idea that free speech includes the ability to criticize what other people used their free speech to say.

Here's a rule of thumb: if you can say whatever you want, you have free speech. However, it's not called "consequence-free speech" for a reason. If someone calls you an idiot for what you said, you could still repeat it, if you wanted. If you choose not to, they aren't suppressing your speech, you are. Sometimes, that's a good idea.

[_EAllusion]

Yeah, that had to be the worst Sam Harris podcast I've heard. I couldn't finish it. It reminded me of his essay on guns, which also sounded clueless.

Oh oh. Sounds like someone is driven by emotional reactions and can't handle cold hard facts and logic.

[_EAllusion]

It is a strange phenomenon that people will whine how they don't get to say things right after they just said them. It's almost as though they missed the idea that free speech includes the ability to criticize what other people used their free speech to say.

They mean they should have a right to say what they want without someone else coming along and making them ashamed for having said it. This has nothing to do with "free speech," but that concept has a very positive association, so free speech it is.

[_RockSlider]

It is a strange phenomenon that people will whine how they don't get to say things right after they just said them. It's almost as though they missed the idea that free speech includes the ability to criticize what other people used their free speech to say.

Here's a rule of thumb: if you can say whatever you want, you have free speech. However, it's not called "consequence-free speech" for a reason. If someone calls you an idiot for what you said, you could still repeat it, if you wanted. If you choose not to, they aren't suppressing your speech, you are. Sometimes, that's a good idea.

I don't know if you are referring to me here or not, but I would like to point out where things went south:

Honor first questioned me here about my mentioning the lawn jockey etc. http://mormondiscussions.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1229474

I tried explain my thinking in the very next post

Did you watch that last video I posted of Bret in the congressional meeting? The video had video of the Evergreens President, somewhat kidnapped and giving in to the demands of the protestors. It's not that I'm opposed to the changes per-say, perhaps they are wise in the long run, however they are long held/old traditions/institutions which have positive black culture messages (first millionaire black woman, underground slave railroad etc).

What I'm opposed to is the damage done by a McCarthyism like fear of being branded a racist where the judge and jury of the accused is an irrational out of control crowd. Bret was innocent and yet lynched, with the president providing the rope.

Perhaps Capitalism is it's own worst enemy, where the power is not in the leaderless irrational crowd but in the institutions that fear them.

he further inquired here: http://mormondiscussions.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1229476

where I responded again here: http://mormondiscussions.com/viewtopic. ... 9#p1229479

I made an assumption, perhaps in error that some companies have preemptively made changes in fear of being labeled a racist organization. Is Quaker Oats racist? If they were, because of an image of a black woman, are they not so after this change? If I have a lawn jockey in my front yard am I a racist? Well I sure better lose it anyway least my home is burnt to the ground because the finger of scorn is pointed my way.

Do we now put any images of black people on the same caution list as images of Allah for fear of death? Has Quaker Oats indirectly supported and empowered the mobs entitlement to burn down my house for the new hidden meaning of the lawn jockey in my yard (the people that live here are bigoted racists)?

Hopefully it is clear that I bought these things up not in taking some side as to if they should change or not change but assuming the changes were being made out of fear of the crowd.

It was after this that EA started his personal attacks.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Rockslider,

Can you dumb down what your point and position are? I’m having trouble figuring out just what it is that you’re trying to state, especially given the links (5 hours!) and subsequent thread.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

If you have a lawn display of Nazi memorabilia and intend for it to historical celebration of defeating the Nazis, you have to understand that what your intent is differs significantly from the social meaning of what you've done. It is possible to create a historical celebration of defeating the Nazis using real Nazi memorabilia, but that requires putting it in context so that becomes apparent. Otherwise, your act will naturally be taken to mean what it ordinarily means. It will and should draw social ire.

Al Jolson did blackface performances in a way that sympathized with the plight of blacks in America as analogous to his Jewish experience, but if you don black face and do an Al Jolson impersonation with the intent to say something about expressions of historical shared oppression, unless that is quite explicit and maybe not even then, you're doing something really, really racist. If you ask, "If I'm someone who does blackface routines, am I a racist" the answer is, in fact, "Probably" and "you're doing something super-racist" outside of a real narrow caveat.

Lawn jockeys in your lawn intended as a reference to the underground railroad are like that. The idea that Aunt Jemima needs to persist to celebrate a black woman who financially made it is a thin apologetic to cover maintaining a very dated racial stereotype as a brand. Tissue paper thin. That's not even ballpark how it functions for people in general. Aunt Jemima is particularly egregious because it's historically rooted in the racial stereotyping it evokes rather than just being reminiscent it. It's hard for a business to give up a brand when brand loyalty is the name of the game, and it's not a bad thing when something offensive in the brand has become bad enough that trying to cling to it doesn't make good business sense.

This doesn't mean leftist hordes are coming to tear down society in a Maoist revolution. It's a racist pancake and syrup brand. Take it down a million notches.