I AM WHITE/AMERICAN PRIVILEGE

[EvilMonkey]

Why is it when someone disagrees with a specific belief they have to answer for a whole political party who they may or may not agree with or identify with? At the least, why is it someone who disagrees with something has to respond to all of your irrelevant tangents? It's a deflection.

 

It's pretty simple here. I, and many others who have come out of the woodwork to speak out against your's and Reddy's opinions, believe in equality of opportunity. You and Reddy believe there is not equality until the outcome is entirely equal. That will never happen. You and Reddy are not fighting a losing battle, you are fighting for something that has no basis in reality. It's not going to happen. You are looking to get others on your side, but in action, you are just pretentiously arguing an altruistic, utopian dream is attainable (it's not) and the first step in achieving it is putting down others based on their race, gender and orientation is essential to achieving this. This contributes to divisiveness and makes white people who have relevant life experience, we know you two have had most provided for you, very much questionable to their unjust systemic discrimination based on race as opposed to wealth.

 

Unfortunately, institutions have followed suit in contributing to the race and sex based discrimination but at the end of the day, it's a blatant departure from equality. No holier than though standing and personal opinions of yours is going to change that.

Democrats never have to answer for the party. Some low level state rep from a district nobody ever heard of before could make a sexist joke and suddenly the President and every republican has to renounce him and say sorry , but a Democratic president can cigar-f*** an intern and he is just a lone wolf.

[caulfield12]

Why is it when someone disagrees with a specific belief they have to answer for a whole political party who they may or may not agree with or identify with? At the least, why is it someone who disagrees with something has to respond to all of your irrelevant tangents? It's a deflection.

 

It's pretty simple here. I, and many others who have come out of the woodwork to speak out against your's and Reddy's opinions, believe in equality of opportunity. You and Reddy believe there is not equality until the outcome is entirely equal. That will never happen. You and Reddy are not fighting a losing battle. This isn't something that's going to happen. You are looking to get others on your side. But in action, you are just pretentiously arguing an altruistic, utopian dream is attainable (it's not) and the first step in achieving it is putting down others based on their race, gender and orientation is essential to achieving this. The contributes to divisiveness.

 

Unfortunately, institutions have followed suit in contributing to the race and sex based discrimination but at the end of the day, it's a blatant departure from equality. No holier than though standing and personal opinions of yourselves is going to change that.

 

Then why bother bringing up a plethora of hurtful stories like the Seth Rich one that are completely unfounded in fact or the latest conspiracy theory or throw out talking points of the day about the Clintons or Obamas? Those are the definition of tangents. They have real world consequences to grieving families. Or take the Portland, OR, stabbing deaths over the weekend. This is the inevitable conclusion to hateful rhetoric directed at immigrants, Muslims, women, in this case someone who became a target simply for being born black or wearing a hijab on a train (and this has been happening more and more frequently over the past 22 months.)

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/michae...4b0065b20b6b6e5

Former Bush Speechwriter Lashes Fellow Conservatives For Pushing Seth Rich Conspiracy

“The conservative mind, in some very visible cases, has become diseased.”

 

Essentially, these merely serve as deflections from the issue at hand, which is Donald Trump. (And they don't serve the cause well, because 60% are lies, according to Polifact, and another 19% at best are half-truths. Whether it's a Fox News item, or your crusade to defend Trump, although I'd guess the number of times your links were proven to be accurate/based on facts was much less than 21%.)

 

Altruistic, utopian dream? Tell Gandhi, Cesar Chavez, John and Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., all those who fought for the right of women to vote or to have equal rights in the 1970's, or who fought against the Vietnam War, that they were all on the wrong side of history.

 

Don't confuse a handful of posters disagreeing with the idea of white privilege equalling some type of moral victory for the "white guys empowerment movement."

 

 

Martin Schulz, leader of the center-left Social Democrats, told reporters Trump was "the destroyer of all Western values", adding that the U.S. president was undermining the peaceful cooperation of nations based on mutual respect and tolerance.

"One must stand in the way of such a man with his ideology of rearmament," Schulz added.

 

A million times over, I will stand in the way of any 1%er with so much white privilege that he never even took the time to learn such basic subjects as economics, history or geography.

Edited May 30, 2017 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

Democrats never have to answer for the party. Some low level state rep from a district nobody ever heard of before could make a sexist joke and suddenly the President and every republican has to renounce him and say sorry , but a Democratic president can cigar-f*** an intern and he is just a lone wolf.

 

Democrats never took the idiotic position of declaring war against the entire world media and 'deep state.'

 

They also never argued Donald Trump wasn't the rightful president because he wasn't born in America.

 

Republicans spent so much time opposing the Obamas, they actually forgot how to govern with a majority. Heck, they have control of every single branch of government and can't even repeal Obamacare after promising those who voted for them in 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2018. Four separate elections and 23 years (since resisting the Clintons originally) to somehow come up with a bill 50% less popular than the most unpopular president in the history of these United States!!!

Edited May 30, 2017 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

Caulfield how you don't understand how ridiculous and irrelevant and tangential your form of discourse is beyond me. For someone who claims to be such an academic performer I don't get how you don't understand that you start an argument (whether it's on topic to the post you quoted or not), the next sentence will have nothing to do with your initial argument and then you continue to do this multiple times over the same post and create visual diareaah with the links, bolds, italics, inability to use the quote function, etc. I mean, in this case, you never even acknowledge my post or the point of the thread that you started. You just barfed some of your irrelevant beliefs, posted some links that have nothing to do with anything, and of course brought Trump into something that has nothing to do with him.

 

I swear I have a better chance of having a coherent exchange with a freshly stirred bowl of alphabet soup than I do with you.

 

You are the most insightful and mature writer here at SoxTalk, and perhaps we should all just bow down and worship your greatness...a greatness that was wholly earned by you and based 100% on hard work, diligence and persistence.

 

I'm actually quite surprised, shocked might be the better word, that a bevy of national political publications haven't come out of the woodwork and attempted to hire you by now.

 

 

Edited May 30, 2017 by caulfield12

[EvilMonkey]

Democrats never took the idiotic position of declaring war against the entire world media and 'deep state.'

 

They also never argued Donald Trump wasn't the rightful president because he wasn't born in America.

 

Republicans spent so much time opposing the Obamas, they actually forgot how to govern with a majority. Heck, they have control of every single branch of government and can't even repeal Obamacare after promising those who voted for them in 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2018. Four separate elections and 23 years (since resisting the Clintons originally) to somehow come up with a bill 50% less popular than the most unpopular president in the history of these United States!!!

'vast right-wing conspiracy' comes to mind.

[Reddy]

Why is it when someone disagrees with a specific belief they have to answer for a whole political party who they may or may not agree with or identify with? At the least, why is it someone who disagrees with something has to respond to all of your irrelevant tangents? It's a deflection.

 

It's pretty simple here. I, and many others who have come out of the woodwork to speak out against your's and Reddy's opinions, believe in equality of opportunity. You and Reddy believe there is not equality until the outcome is entirely equal. That will never happen. You and Reddy are not fighting a losing battle, you are fighting for something that has no basis in reality. It's not going to happen. You are looking to get others on your side, but in action, you are just pretentiously arguing an altruistic, utopian dream is attainable (it's not) and the first step in achieving it is putting down others based on their race, gender and orientation is essential to achieving this. This contributes to divisiveness and makes white people who have relevant life experience, we know you two have had most provided for you, very much questionable to their unjust systemic discrimination based on race as opposed to wealth.

 

Unfortunately, institutions have followed suit in contributing to the race and sex based discrimination but at the end of the day, it's a blatant departure from equality. No holier than though standing and personal opinions of yours is going to change that.

 

You fundamentally misunderstand my argument. I, too, am fighting for equal opportunity. That does not currently exist in America for the vast majority of marginalized communities.

[Reddy]

Caulfield how you don't understand how ridiculous and irrelevant and tangential your form of discourse is beyond me. For someone who claims to be such an academic performer I don't get how you don't understand that you start an argument (whether it's on topic to the post you quoted or not), the next sentence will have nothing to do with your initial argument and then you continue to do this multiple times over the same post and create visual diareaah with the links, bolds, italics, inability to use the quote function, etc. I mean, in this case, you never even acknowledge my post or the point of the thread that you started. You just barfed some of your irrelevant beliefs, posted some links that have nothing to do with anything, and of course brought Trump into something that has nothing to do with him.

 

I swear I have a better chance of having a coherent exchange with a freshly stirred bowl of alphabet soup than I do with you.

This kid gets all up in arms about my "arrogance" and has the audacity to type things like this. It's just comedic gold.

[southsider2k5]

You fundamentally misunderstand my argument. I, too, am fighting for equal opportunity. That does not currently exist in America for the vast majority of marginalized communities.

 

By marginalizing them as not being able to succeed without your help. How kind.

[Reddy]

By marginalizing them as not being able to succeed without your help. How kind.

Recognizing facts and supporting my black friends and allies (and other marginalized communities) in their fight for these causes is not marginalizing anyone, no matter how hard you try and spin it. Do you seriously not recognize your monumental hypocrisy?

 

Do you think your work (help) is instrumental to helping them succeed? Do they need you? No? Then why do you do it?

Edited May 30, 2017 by Reddy

[southsider2k5]

Recognizing facts and supporting my black friends and allies (and other marginalized communities) in their fight for these causes is not marginalizing anyone, no matter how hard you try and spin it. Do you seriously not recognize your monumental hypocrisy?

 

Do you think your help is instrumental to helping them succeed? Do they need you? No? Then why do you do it?

 

Supporting them by telling they have to get help, because they can't do it on their own. Without you they just end up as drug dealers. To me that is marginalizing them. But reading all of the absurdities and Self-aggrandizement going on here, that would be the obvious conclusion if you accepted certain people's inferiority as fact, I can see how you would view it that way. They have to have your help.

[Reddy]

Supporting them by telling they have to get help, because they can't do it on their own. Without you they just end up as drug dealers. To me that is marginalizing them. But reading all of the absurdities and Self-aggrandizement going on here, that would be the obvious conclusion if you accepted certain people's inferiority as fact, I can see how you would view it that way. They have to have your help.

I have said literally none of those things. You're so ridiculous with this. I am not the movement and the movement is not me. I don't know why or how you magically made this about ME specifically.

 

You didn't answer my question of you, conveniently. Why do you do what you do? Would the kids you work with be just fine without you and the organization you work with?

[Reddy]

Let me TL;DR this...

 

SS2K believes that I'm a white supremacist and that I marginalize marginalized communities because I believe that white privilege is real.

 

Does that about sum it up?

[Middle Buffalo]

The problem with this is the opposite corollary....most Republicans (not ALL) have never walked in the shoes of those poor people whose programs they are gutting, have no first-hand experience with Meals on Wheels, etc.

I would like to see the data that confirms this because I'm certain many Republicans have received and do receive help from the government. There are plenty of poor Republicans.

[Reddy]

I would like to see the data that confirms this because I'm certain many Republicans have received and do receive help from the government. There are plenty of poor Republicans.

Yeah he's off base on this one... Republican lawmakers, yes. Republicans in general? Nah. But the Republicans who fall into that category are just voting against their self-interest in the name of god, guns and gays in the vast majority of instances.

[caulfield12]

I would like to see the data that confirms this because I'm certain many Republicans have received and do receive help from the government. There are plenty of poor Republicans.

 

Actual members of Congress, like Mulvaney was...who seem to posit themselves as experts on poverty solutions and what the poor really need. Not voters from Appalachia, the Deep South or Rust Belt.

 

At any rate, I do find it comical that how many of the members of the House and Senate have children serving in the military today, active duty? Something like 5 or less out of 538? Yet they are always the first to vote to put other parents' children in harm's way. Yet another form of privilege the Trump family enjoys, never having to serve in the "real" military in wartime, and by this I don't mean being sent away by his dad to a fancy military academy. Yet how many minority parents have to send their kids to the military because they can't afford to pay for a higher level education?

 

 

P.S. Rabbit, can you please set up a poll to determine how many "trust" your political and finance diatribes compared to all of your fellow moderators? The number is going to be a LOT lower than 50%, but it's probably best you are spared from having to do any self-reflection on how you come across sometime. At least Reddy is open about wanting to improve and seeks to write with more humility and self-awareness. Can you stand the same amount of heat he has taken and not get rattled? Without making up excuses or rationalizations?

Edited May 30, 2017 by caulfield12

[Reddy]

Good thing they have you to tell everyone why they vote a certain way. It seems like you're already having a world of success in getting your message across here. Instead of generalizing black people as inevitable drug dealers, you're generalizing the country's standalone reigning party one three issues. Amazing that a party can take control of the house, the senate and two-thirds of states governorships just because of their views on gay marriage, religion and the second amendment.

There has been mountains and mountains of research done supporting this concept. Put away your ridiculous bias and partisanship and read a f***ing book.

 

EDIT: So much for humility and improvement

Edited May 30, 2017 by Reddy

[caulfield12]

Just more flippant comments. Biden runs for president, despite his family's personal difficulties, and he beats Trump, we're not having this conversation. Merrick Garland is still probably blocked by the GOP for some other lame excuse, though.

 

Then again, Rabbit investigative journalism on the Biden sons' marital relations might have turned the tide to the GOP.

[southsider2k5]

I have said literally none of those things. You're so ridiculous with this. I am not the movement and the movement is not me. I don't know why or how you magically made this about ME specifically.

 

You didn't answer my question of you, conveniently. Why do you do what you do? Would the kids you work with be just fine without you and the organization you work with?

 

You might not have intended to say them, but you have at various points.

[southsider2k5]

I would like to see the data that confirms this because I'm certain many Republicans have received and do receive help from the government. There are plenty of poor Republicans.

 

And the vast majority of them multi-generational poor white people as well, matching the pattern amongst the black community, hispanic community, etc.

[southsider2k5]

Just more flippant comments. Biden runs for president, despite his family's personal difficulties, and he beats Trump, we're not having this conversation. Merrick Garland is still probably blocked by the GOP for some other lame excuse, though.

 

Then again, Rabbit investigative journalism on the Biden sons' marital relations might have turned the tide to the GOP.

 

That is what this entire thread is about. Looking down on entire groups and races of people.

[Dick Allen]

"Read a f***ing book." That's good stuff.

 

 

DA called and he wants his misquoted talking points back.

LMAO. You posted that about Biden's family, then complained about TMZ type stories about the Trump team. That is just fact.

It is hard to believe you can't see it.

 

 

[Reddy]

You might not have intended to say them, but you have at various points.

Second time you've dodged my question.

[Middle Buffalo]

Yeah he's off base on this one... Republican lawmakers, yes. Republicans in general? Nah. But the Republicans who fall into that category are just voting against their self-interest in the name of god, guns and gays in the vast majority of instances.

I agree that many people vote against what we would perceive to be their best interests, but I think that's only if we consider people's financial best interests to be the sole basis of casting a vote. I know plenty of union members who are staunch Republicans. Doesn't make much sense to me since the Republican platform is pretty much anti-union, but they have their reasons, I'm sure.

 

If they value guns and believe Republican religious values represent them best, and they cast their votes for the Republican. Who am I to question their reasons?

 

Do we question rich people like Bill Gates, Oprah, Warren Buffet or the "liberals" in Hollywood who vote against their personal best financial interests? I don't ever see that (FYI - I'm not even certain Gates & Buffet vote Democratic, but I know they have talked about paying higher taxes).

 

 

[caulfield12]

So you're back to Second Amendment issues, moral/religious reasons (such as abortion and the Supreme Court)...military defense/foreign policy arguments. Obviously, immigration and terrorism as well, this election cycle, not only in the US but all around the world.

 

The funny thing is that most pundits always argue "it's the economy, stupid!" but that was not the case in 2016 or 2000 or Clinton and Gore both would (at least SHOULD) have won quite easily.

 

 

[ptatc]

There has been mountains and mountains of research done supporting this concept. Put away your ridiculous bias and partisanship and read a f***ing book.

 

EDIT: So much for humility and improvement

You may want to look in the mirror. There is plenty of research refuting your views as well. It just depends on which research you prefer to read.