Renaming Negress Wall ORG

PRRosewrote:

This Black woman disagrees:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/opinion/confederate-monuments-racism.html

There's no use trying to debate someone who thinks RT is a legit news source.

PRRosewrote:

This Black woman disagrees:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/opinion/confederate-monuments-racism.html

It's a good article.  Like I said: I personally can understand tearing down Confederate statues.  I also never claimed that the black Billionaire represents all black people's opinions.  He is making a very important point. I would also argue there is a big downside to removing statues.  Did Germany remove the buildings at the World War II Jewish concentration camps?  No.  You can still visit those sites from the Holocaust.  The genocide that happened was far more horrifying than slavery.  It's important to know history, because those who don't are doomed to repeat it.  So, erasing history won't change it, nor will it make the future any better.

ubuwrote:

There's no use trying to debate someone who thinks RT is a legit news source.

Obviously, you're not educated enough to know who Chris Hedges is, or Scott Ritter.  RT has become far legit than the New York Times.  See my previous long post about RT and the shows and articles I linked to.

Mark Rolofsonwrote:

Obviously, you're not educated enough to know who Chris Hedges is, or Scott Ritter.  RT has become far legit than the New York Times.  See my previous long post about RT and the shows and articles I linked to.

Obviously, you don't understand how RT works.  They are a font of selective misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, and conspiracy theories mixed in with real news.  They count on people like you not being able to tell the difference between the real and the fake.  They are a state-owned and state-run entity that has no parallel in the Western world.  The fact that you think they are more legitimate than the NYT is laughable.

I don’t know. It’d be hard to get “less legit” than The NY Times.

Salamanizer Skiwrote: I don’t know. It’d be hard to get “less legit” than The NY Times.

Proof that Trump's hit job on the media has been wildly successful.

ubuwrote:

Proof that Trump's hit job on the media has been wildly successful.

Proof that people will always “prefer to believe what they prefer to be true”. Despite overwhelming evidence. 

Salamanizer Skiwrote:

Proof that people will always “prefer to believe what they prefer to be true”. Despite overwhelming evidence.

Are you not a people?

Salamanizer Skiwrote:

Proof that people will always “prefer to believe what they prefer to be true”. Despite overwhelming evidence. 

Was it mainly the lack of Pizzagate coverage, or is there another issue on your mind?

Mark Rolofsonwrote:

It's a good article.  Like I said: I personally can understand tearing down Confederate statues.  I also never claimed that the black Billionaire represents all black people's opinions.  He is making a very important point. I would also argue there is a big downside to removing statues.  Did Germany remove the buildings at the World War II Jewish concentration camps?  No.  You can still visit those sites from the Holocaust.  The genocide that happened was far more horrifying than slavery.  It's important to know history, because those who don't are doomed to repeat it.  So, erasing history won't change it, nor will it make the future any better.

Things that are not true, even when spoken by billionaires, are...well, still not true. What is "very important" about an untrue statement?

The comparison between statues and concentration camps is ludicrous. Confederate statues honor and commemorate traitors. Concentration camps were not preserved to honor the Third Reich. 

Salamanizer Skiwrote:

Proof that people will always “prefer to believe what they prefer to be true”. Despite overwhelming evidence. 

Without specific, verifiable info about how you feel the NYT isn't "legit", that post and this one carry as much weight as when #toddlerinchief whines about "fake news".

Mark Rolofsonwrote:

It's a good article.  Like I said: I personally can understand tearing down Confederate statues.  I also never claimed that the black Billionaire represents all black people's opinions.  He is making a very important point. I would also argue there is a big downside to removing statues.  Did Germany remove the buildings at the World War II Jewish concentration camps?  No.  You can still visit those sites from the Holocaust.  The genocide that happened was far more horrifying than slavery.  It's important to know history, because those who don't are doomed to repeat it.  So, erasing history won't change it, nor will it make the future any better.

Germany also literally made the Swastika and all other Nazi symbols illegal. They turned all remnants of Nazi concentration camps into museums where people can look at just how shitty the Nazis were. Have you visited a concentration camp? There are no statues of the wardens, or of Hitler anywhere to be seen. There are no Nazi flags being flown. There is just a very solemn, depressing museum.

It sounds like you want to preserve the historical record. That's great! Let's move all of our confederate shit into museums where they belong. Having confederate statues in public places and flying the confederate flag in public buildings is an attempt to glorify these people and what they did. If you're looking to Germany as an example, then you agree with us more than you think you do. Germans understand the difference between preserving history and glorifying it.

not erasing history.

Salamanizer Skiwrote:

Of course he is. He’s more interested in more funding for things like welfare, and other social “free” services. Taking money from those who contribute and produce everything and giving it to those who contribute and produce nothing. A sensible person calls that theft, but when you’re someone who has nothing, you got nothing to loose in the deal. So it all somehow becomes rationalized and justifiable theft. 

Everyone pays taxes unless you are living in the Alaskan bush with stone age tools.

Even a child when they buy a toy pays taxes.

Even if you don't make enough to have to pay income taxes all of the fees (ie entrance fees, gas taxes, bridge tolls, licenses, registrations) are taxes like any other and they take more from you as a percentage of your income the poorer you are (regressive tax structure).

The people that are stealing from our future are Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics and the prison industrial complex.<<<<--- they have convinced you to hate social programs that would make us all richer because the taxes would be redirected away from them.

Mark Rolofsonwrote: Historically the word word "negress" meant black woman or girl and it was not offensive.  Neither was the bronze sculpture titled "Negress".  Some dictionaries say the word is usually offensive.  That would no doubt apply to modern times where the word negro is rarely used, even though Martin Luther King commonly used that word in the 1960s.  All this hoopla over renaming routes or cliffs that have names that may be racist, isn't really about doing what will help black people or other minorities.  It's about making white people feel better.  It's a way to soothe their guilt over fact that much of our white race in America is at the forefront of being the world's biggest piece of shit when it comes to racism, excessive wealth, militarism, etc.

This article will hopefully shed some light on how black people feel about removing confederate statues and movies like "Gone With The Wind".  It's at the very bottom of their list of things that need to be done.  In fact, its not their list Period!

https://www.rt.com/usa/492937-bet-founder-mocks-woke-apologists-whiteness/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Email

The article states:  "Painfully woke white people yanking TV shows off the air and tearing down statues aren’t helping the racial justice cause, according to the founder of Black Entertainment Television.

Mark,

Your posts clearly show that you're a smart guy and, to your credit, try to get information from lots of different sources when forming your opinion.  This is in stark contrast to lots of conservatives, who I believe have preformed beliefs and look for information to support those views, not information that may actually prompt someone to revise their views based upon these troubling things called "facts".  However, I really disagree with your first paragraph.  When we talk about historical uses of words, we need to understand that meaning and intent can change over time, which is why the n word is no longer an acceptable term.  It's origin, according to Merriam-Webster, is "alteration of earlier neger, from Middle French negre, from Spanish or Portuguese negro, from negro black, from Latin niger ".  When you argue that one shouldn't view the word "negress" as offensive because historically it may not have been intended in that manner, you ignore the following:
The slave trade already existed, where "negresses" where trafficked as property, not human beings.
The word was chosen by the traffickers.
"Negresses", if asked, probably would not refer to themselves that way.  
When MLK used the word "negro", he was still using the term that whites used to refer to POC.  Given that MLK was championing equal rights--the right to vote, not be segregated, etc.--do you think the majority of whites were really interested (or even asked) how POC wished to be called?  

Finally, the RT article is the opinion of one POC, a billionaire, whose wealth probably distances himself from lots of other people marching and protesting believe or want.  He clearly has a view, but it's also clear that it is just his view.  He doesn't speak for all POC nor should you hold out the article as evidence that he does. 

A new type of Peril is relevant today :  Chinese Peril.
Not the old meaning of the term which was mainly intended in the USA as a form of xenophobia against immigrants.  "As a psycho-cultural perception of menace from the Eastern world, fear of the Yellow Peril was more racial than national, a fear derived not from concern with a specific source of danger or from any one country or people, but from a vaguely ominous, existential  fear..."

Today the term Chinese Peril  is accurate as a political statement about the Chinese state, since now China is indeed a large peril to most of the world.
The one party dictators attack, imprison, or kill all dissenters.
Massive big brother control and propaganda which far exceeds anything predicted by Orwell.
Cheaters on every trade agreement they've ever made.  Steal and copy countless items from elsewhere.   They should never have been let into the WTO, and at least should have been booted out after a few years when it became clear that they would not live up to any meaning of the term fair trade, and are not a nation based on laws.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/05/mcmaster-china-strategy/609088/

As far as the total size of the Defense budget,
you have to add in the rising cost of the VA, all military disability, military retirement pension and health care, all vet benefits including state programs, emergency war and secret funds which are often not included in the regular budget, all Dept of Energy spending on nuclear bombs, all retirement benefits of DOD, VA, and any other related civilians and agencies, and the share of the interest on the debt that was generated by previous defense spending of all types.

tom donnellywrote: The name Yellow Peril is relevant today in a new way...Today the term is accurate as a political statement about the Chinese state, since now China is indeed a large peril to most of the world.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/05/mcmaster-china-strategy/609088/

Whatever people's view of the Chinese state may be, that is no reason to use "Yellow" (referencing the skin color) Peril. The article you linked makes no reference to the name. And to continue using it today makes one a racist.

rebootwrote:

Whatever people's view of the Chinese state may be, that is no reason to use "Yellow" (referencing the skin color) Peril. The article you linked makes no reference to the name. And to continue using it today makes one a racist.

OK I edited it to "Chinese Peril"

Harumpfster Boondogglewrote: The people that are stealing from our future are Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics and the prison industrial complex.<<<<--- they have convinced you to hate social programs that would make us all richer because the taxes would be redirected away from them.

How do LM and GD convince us to hate social programs? How does the "prison industrial complex" convince us to hate social programs? I haven't seen those ads. And I watch way too much TV.

 I can't wait for the hearings in Congress on this. It's an outrage. An outrage, I tell you!

By the way, the prison industrial complex (whatever that is) doesn't make people, directly or indirectly,  go commit crimes. I've never heard that defense used in court.

Pretty far-fetched there, Tut-Tut.