Re: Flock's favorite candidate is back
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:45 am
I think the 1960s definition is more accurate than the 1984 newspeak definition from the ministry of truth, you prole.
You would. It allows you to discriminate all you want and take comfort in the thought that you're not a racist. A lot of people in the South in the 1960s felt the same way.flockofseagulls104 wrote:I think the 1960s definition is more accurate than the 1984 newspeak definition from the ministry of truth, you prole.
You have yet to show the bored just ONE instance where I have discriminated against anyone all I wanted. Please refrain from any more accusations, hyperbole or bat phone references before you can do that.silverscreenselect wrote:You would. It allows you to discriminate all you want and take comfort in the thought that you're not a racist. A lot of people in the South in the 1960s felt the same way.flockofseagulls104 wrote:I think the 1960s definition is more accurate than the 1984 newspeak definition from the ministry of truth, you prole.
Joyously? I think not.Bob Juch wrote:Flock, you claim to be not racist or discriminating against anyone but you joyously changed your profile photo to Bill the Butcher from The Gangs of New York, who was an outspoken xenophobe. Perhaps you should change it to Gandhi.
If you recall, I got it from you. You graciously and with no malice said it reminded you of me, a very nice compliment from someone who knows absolutely nothing about me. So I adopted it to commemorate your friendly gesture.Bob Juch wrote:Flock, you claim to be not racist or discriminating against anyone but you joyously changed your profile photo to Bill the Butcher from The Gangs of New York, who was an outspoken xenophobe. Perhaps you should change it to Gandhi.
Since I don't have the time or inclination to go through all your posts, let's take the easy one... the joke about the candidate's name. And your continued insistence that there couldn't possibly be any racial connotations involved in it because you certainly don't believe you're superior to someone from India.flockofseagulls104 wrote: You have yet to show the bored just ONE instance where I have discriminated against anyone all I wanted.
This strikes me as very convoluted.silverscreenselect wrote:Since I don't have the time or inclination to go through all your posts, let's take the easy one... the joke about the candidate's name. And your continued insistence that there couldn't possibly be any racial connotations involved in it because you certainly don't believe you're superior to someone from India.flockofseagulls104 wrote: You have yet to show the bored just ONE instance where I have discriminated against anyone all I wanted.
My statement was wrong; I admitted it. In pulling the thread back up, I see how it could be taken the wrong way. And it may have reflected a bias on my part that I wasn't aware of when I posted it. That's the entire point of the articles I posted... there is bias that white people often aren't aware of until it's pointed out. Some acknowledge it and try to improve; others scream that they personally couldn't be biased because they've got a daughter-in-law from India. And you blithely accept all of Donald Trump's explanations and claim he couldn't possibly be biased either.
Let's put this in terms even you might understand. You play poker. You understand what a "tell" is. Do you believe a poker player really believes that it's a good idea to announce he's got a good hand by fiddling with his chips or scratching his ear or whatever his particular tell is? And if a lot of poker players do this even when they're playing for serious money, you think other people don't have similar subconscious actions? Or perhaps you are the only one who's immune to this?flockofseagulls104 wrote: My point is that this whole subconscious bias thing is a political construct.
You are not getting it, SSS. I ask a lot of questions about this. I hear it, but I don't automatically buy it just because there are so-called experts that tell me it's true. So-called experts at the turn of the 20th century were convinced that eugenics was the way of the future. Woodrow Wilson, for one. That led to Hitler, WWII and yes, SSS, Planned Parenthood.silverscreenselect wrote:Let's put this in terms even you might understand. You play poker. You understand what a "tell" is. Do you believe a poker player really believes that it's a good idea to announce he's got a good hand by fiddling with his chips or scratching his ear or whatever his particular tell is? And if a lot of poker players do this even when they're playing for serious money, you think other people don't have similar subconscious actions? Or perhaps you are the only one who's immune to this?flockofseagulls104 wrote: My point is that this whole subconscious bias thing is a political construct.
Yes, everyone suffers from bias. The difference is that, historically in America and other parts of the world, only white people were in a position to something about it. That's how he got colored water fountains in the first place. And today, to a large extent, white society and culture, in government and business, makes the rules and decisions. And when it's pointed out statistically and objectively, in criminal dispositions and hiring practices and lending practices, they refuse to believe it because "I'm not a racist."flockofseagulls104 wrote: If everyone has this tendency, why is the construct of, say, microaggressions, or any of the other similar constructs that have emerged over recent years, targeted to 'white' people and 'racism' and 'homophobia' and whatever the new target is?
What exactly is 'white' society? What would an alternative society be? What would be different?silverscreenselect wrote:Yes, everyone suffers from bias. The difference is that, historically in America and other parts of the world, only white people were in a position to something about it. That's how he got colored water fountains in the first place. And today, to a large extent, white society and culture, in government and business, makes the rules and decisions.flockofseagulls104 wrote: If everyone has this tendency, why is the construct of, say, microaggressions, or any of the other similar constructs that have emerged over recent years, targeted to 'white' people and 'racism' and 'homophobia' and whatever the new target is?