After this's all over, I hope the U.S. gov't bills Trump for the damage he's done to our reputation

[Invisible Man]

Wish John Hurt were still around in large part so he could reprise the role in 2017.

[Faldoe]

are you willing to write him off completely with such certainly that you know he can't say anything of substance?

He's the host of a nightly entertainment program, why would I be interested in his opinions? Might as well watch Jimmy Fallon hoping to gain some insight. I don't have cable at home so it's not that I'm picking one 24 hours news channel and demonizing the others, I just don't see a need when the internet exists and I can read the news myself. Believe it or not, I've actually watched his show a lot because I like spending time with my geriatric relatives and they enjoy his show's simple narrative structure. I do like when Charles Krauthammer is on, whcih speaks to your point I guess. I may not agree but he makes me think and definitely brings substance and depth to O'Reilly's smug smirk-fest. The other bit that's fun is the guy that goes out and does street interviews to show what dum-dums those wacky progressives are. I can appreciate the humor of people saying ignorant shit on TV, it's a pretty classic formula. I think Leno used to do the same bit right? Anyway I'm really not arguing with you, I'm just tired of the term SJW. It's a generalization that undermines lots of people. As for people eagerly awaiting the fall of our country, again it's something you hear from all sides of the spectrum. Evangelicals desperately awaiting the end times to be saved from this wicked government that taxes them and spends the money on teaching their kids science, doomsday preppers eager for the day the shit hits the fan so they can shoot whoever tries to eat their MREs, etc etc.

I agree there are problems with mainsteam shows but that doesn't somehow negate his ability to make sense at times and make valid points.

I think comparing him to Jimmy Fallon - or using Fallon as an example - isn't a good one. Fallon is a total tard.

I'm not saying you need to or should watch O'Riley. I'm simply saying I don't think he should be completely written off. I think Krauthammer can make good points as well. I don't agree with everything he says but he can make valid points.

I agree that SJW can be an all encompassing and pejorative term. And there are those that just say "all these SJW types" without separating the legitimate concerns they have with their often over simplistic analysis or blame dealing they dish out. If there is to be growth, change, improvement, it has to be grounded in individual and collective reflection and a true desire for equality which I think cannot occur without being able to have debate and better dialogue where all of those participating can accept when/if they are wrong and not just double down on their points by spewing ad hominem insults.

[Faldoe]

Look at this fucking SJW. He' such an SJW he wrote a book on being an SJW. Dude is dressed like he's about drop the most obscure vaporwave cassette of the week.

Everybody thinks they're being logical, or at least selling a logical product. Not trying to be a dick or change your opinion, I just see Bill and some angry tumblr teen as two sides of the same cultural phenomenon, I guess? I dunno. Just look at that fucking creep. That dude dragged his ex-wife down a staircase by her throat and people look to him as some sort of pillar of morality. It's downright illogical.

Whats that saying about books and judging them by their covers? Yeah, obviously he is a man/person of the media and a guy selling his shit and certainly isn't without many douchebag moments but I'm saying are you willing to write him off completely with such certainly that you know he can't say anything of substance?

To do so I think is an error in reason.

Thats part of the problem.

I'm asking and wondering if people can truly have the energy and the openness in mind to listen to someone and recognize where the person their are listening to makes a logical point, or doesn't or even more difficult - may make a logical point in the midst of illogical ones, or make an illogical point in the midst of logical points.

This goes for the SJW crowd as well. There are those that think anything people in the SJ causes is total bullshit. I don't agree with that. While I think a lot of the SJ stuff isn't as thought out and self critical and reflective as it could be, there are still valid points in there and it's important to be able to see that.

If people in this country - the US - can't look into the nuance and listen, try and find common ground we are truly doomed.

And there are those people - nihilist or otherwise - that don't give a shit and will say "good, thats great, this country needs to go down, I'd love to see it come down, yada yada."

In this case O'Reilly's valid points are of the garden variety, broken clock phenomenon, and that's by design -- he's more reprehensible, IMO, because he's a smart guy who knowingly peddles shouty nonsense to people with a disinclination towards "science" and "the world outside their doorstep".

There are plenty of extraordinarily conservative thinkers (you can look at what Christopher Hitchens wrote about the Middle East, for example). I do not think O'Reilly qualifies.

I think the amount of times he makes sense is more than the broken clock type you speak of. I agree with his behavior being reprehensible regarding aspects of science when he is an intelligent person but then has a willful blindspot when it comes to the issue of CC.

Yes, Hitchens was good. Fair enough to your thoughts on O'Riley.

[Chankgeez]

Fallon is a total tard.

Isn't that what makes him entertaining though?

[Faldoe]

Also implying "white" and "non-white" are classes

Breaking: they are. And, under this spectrum, Carlton would totally be a "white person"... He stopped eating pork, he stopped eating greens, he traded in his dashiki for some Jordache jeans, etc.

Are you white or a non-person of color? There seems to be this trend that has been happening for some time in which both people of color and non-POF will "de-black" or remove any person of color from their respective race if said person doesn't have the "right" ideological beliefs or if they don't have a familial or financial background that the critical group deems agreeable. This happened when young black students on college campuses were critical of BLM. The response from BLM students at the respective colleges was to call their fellow critical black students "House n*****s" and the like or not really black simply for disagreeing with BLM.

White "allies" sympathetic to the BLM and social justice craze also seem to help do this dirty work by trying to deprive a person of color of their racial identity of background by trying to sell certain aspects of their life or experience precluded them from their race cause they don't share some common theme with the rest of the group.

Also your characterization of Carlton and a kind of list of attributes of what constitutes "black" via class is in itself a racist of prejudicial categorization. This kind of "boxing in" the current left is engaging in only further marginalizes and limits black people by saying in order to truly be black you not only have to have the obvious aspect which is skin color/genetic origins that constitute "to be black" but that you also must have a certain economic and ideological view to be black.

Are all successful black people not black because of their economic status?

You're moving the goalposts a little bit here, aren't you? Insofar as you're taking a construct most people take as a given in humor (I present Chappelle's 'racial draft' and so on) but I'm not sure you can so easily dismiss the idea that the dominant social construct for the mainstream U.S. is definitely tailored towards the (predominantly white) type-A aesthetic. It's why the NBA has a dress code and so forth -- or, to bastardize and steal a bit from Yahdon Israel, "there's no room for personal freedom in a social construct."

[aside: For what it's worth this also defined the prevailing attitudes towards tattoos, "immoral/deviant" sexual behavior, so on so forth. There's a reason, in other words, why "dress for success" brings up a particular image in the collective mind's eye (let's not kid ourselves, that person is straight out of the Mitt Romney catalog); and that image isn't something that is associated with poor people, who more often than not in the U.S. are 'non-white' because of reasons outlined briefly below. We can pick nits over whether that's a "real" class system or not, I guess.]

This happens everywhere, but again, the U.S. is a country that spent the first third of it's existence with an explicit class system based on race and is still addressing the fallout of that today -- the Civil Rights act is just barely 53 years old: that's barely two generations back, if you figure the median age here is about 38. People bitch about things like diversity criteria because they like to believe we're beyond that as a country, but the fact that it was deemed as necessary to introduce would perhaps speak otherwise.

So I hope that explains the Carlton phenomenon a bit. At least as much as as any of this applies to a fictional character brought up to make something of an exaggerated point.

How am I moving the goal posts? Yes, I am white. If you're suggesting a "pot calling the kettle black case," I don't think that is a fair assessment of what I'm saying. Regarding me asking you if you're white. My point was that people of color who hold ideological viewpoints that a majority of other POC do not hold should not be deprived of their identity or reality as a POC by the POC majority because the former's views are not accepted by the latter's. And certainly white people that agree with or allied with POC majority or POC in the Social Justice sphere shouldn't take it upon themselves - knowingly or unknowingly - to help perpetuate such a perspective.

I think it's true that despite the growth or improvements of race and racial identity in the USA that we are not totally removed for long instilled notions of what beauty is and who is beautiful, etc. and that thus there is still a view that the presentations of beauty or other standards are delivered through media mediums via the lens of "white."

That doesn't mean though that a black, latino or any other POC that is a conservative or is economically successful is someone no more a POC because of that and is now in a "white sphere." You can say those POC in those positions may be surrounded by a more white majority and I think would be indicative of how much of those spheres are still dominated by mostly white people and the reason may be in part because though the country has made progress the effects are still slow in POC moving up and becoming successful, and for multiple reasons: The remaining not-on-the-books-laws that can keep POC in immobile positions, lack of opportunity, etc. There a POC who were Democrats but became Republicans because they felt the former provided more obstacles or different types of continued oppression than the latter.

If you read Howard Zinn's A people's history you'd get a different view on race and class. He thought the formation of this country was more grounded in class than race and that race was used at certain times to keep both poorer whites and blacks - or anyone else - in those lower strata by pitting the former against the latter.

Throughout this country's history there were many forms of white/black/Indian alliances against dominant classes. It's not as simple as is often argued by aspects of the Left or SJ left that all whites owned slaves are benefited or were part of slavery.

You're comment about the CRA and that it's not that long ago is similar to what I've said in the third paragraph.

[Faldoe]

Fallon is a total tard.

Isn't that what makes him entertaining though?

his Neil Young thing is funny. I just can't stand him. I never watch the late night stuff though. Conan is good though. I like when he has Bill Burr on.

[D.o.S.]

Also implying "white" and "non-white" are classes

Breaking: they are. And, under this spectrum, Carlton would totally be a "white person"... He stopped eating pork, he stopped eating greens, he traded in his dashiki for some Jordache jeans, etc.

Are you white or a non-person of color? There seems to be this trend that has been happening for some time in which both people of color and non-POF will "de-black" or remove any person of color from their respective race if said person doesn't have the "right" ideological beliefs or if they don't have a familial or financial background that the critical group deems agreeable. This happened when young black students on college campuses were critical of BLM. The response from BLM students at the respective colleges was to call their fellow critical black students "House n*****s" and the like or not really black simply for disagreeing with BLM.

White "allies" sympathetic to the BLM and social justice craze also seem to help do this dirty work by trying to deprive a person of color of their racial identity of background by trying to sell certain aspects of their life or experience precluded them from their race cause they don't share some common theme with the rest of the group.

Also your characterization of Carlton and a kind of list of attributes of what constitutes "black" via class is in itself a racist of prejudicial categorization. This kind of "boxing in" the current left is engaging in only further marginalizes and limits black people by saying in order to truly be black you not only have to have the obvious aspect which is skin color/genetic origins that constitute "to be black" but that you also must have a certain economic and ideological view to be black.

Are all successful black people not black because of their economic status?

You're moving the goalposts a little bit here, aren't you? Insofar as you're taking a construct most people take as a given in humor (I present Chappelle's 'racial draft' and so on) but I'm not sure you can so easily dismiss the idea that the dominant social construct for the mainstream U.S. is definitely tailored towards the (predominantly white) type-A aesthetic. It's why the NBA has a dress code and so forth -- or, to bastardize and steal a bit from Yahdon Israel, "there's no room for personal freedom in a social construct."

[aside: For what it's worth this also defined the prevailing attitudes towards tattoos, "immoral/deviant" sexual behavior, so on so forth. There's a reason, in other words, why "dress for success" brings up a particular image in the collective mind's eye (let's not kid ourselves, that person is straight out of the Mitt Romney catalog); and that image isn't something that is associated with poor people, who more often than not in the U.S. are 'non-white' because of reasons outlined briefly below. We can pick nits over whether that's a "real" class system or not, I guess.]

This happens everywhere, but again, the U.S. is a country that spent the first third of it's existence with an explicit class system based on race and is still addressing the fallout of that today -- the Civil Rights act is just barely 53 years old: that's barely two generations back, if you figure the median age here is about 38. People bitch about things like diversity criteria because they like to believe we're beyond that as a country, but the fact that it was deemed as necessary to introduce would perhaps speak otherwise.

So I hope that explains the Carlton phenomenon a bit. At least as much as as any of this applies to a fictional character brought up to make something of an exaggerated point.

How am I moving the goal posts? Yes, I am white. If you're suggesting a "pot calling the kettle black case," I don't think that is a fair assessment of what I'm saying. Regarding me asking you if you're white. My point was that people of color who hold ideological viewpoints that a majority of other POC do not hold should not be deprived of their identity or reality as a POC by the POC majority because the former's views are not accepted by the latter's. And certainly white people that agree with or allied with POC majority or POC in the Social Justice sphere shouldn't take it upon themselves - knowingly or unknowingly - to help perpetuate such a perspective.

I think it's true that despite the growth or improvements of race and racial identity in the USA that we are not totally removed for long instilled notions of what beauty is and who is beautiful, etc. and that thus there is still a view that the presentations of beauty or other standards are delivered through media mediums via the lens of "white."

That doesn't mean though that a black, latino or any other POC that is a conservative or is economically successful is someone no more a POC because of that and is now in a "white sphere." You can say those POC in those positions may be surrounded by a more white majority and I think would be indicative of how much of those spheres are still dominated by mostly white people and the reason may be in part because though the country has made progress the effects are still slow in POC moving up and becoming successful, and for multiple reasons: The remaining not-on-the-books-laws that can keep POC in immobile positions, lack of opportunity, etc. There a POC who were Democrats but became Republicans because they felt the former provided more obstacles or different types of continued oppression than the latter.

If you read Howard Zinn's A people's history you'd get a different view on race and class. He thought the formation of this country was more grounded in class than race and that race was used at certain times to keep both poorer whites and blacks - or anyone else - in those lower strata by pitting the former against the latter.

Throughout this country's history there were many forms of white/black/Indian alliances against dominant classes. It's not as simple as is often argued by aspects of the Left or SJ left that all whites owned slaves are benefited or were part of slavery.

You're comment about the CRA and that it's not that long ago is similar to what I've said in the third paragraph.

working but the goal post comment was mostly that I think you're running the risk of coming across that you're conflating economic success and ideology. That might not be the case (in fact I suspect it isn't) but I just wanted to point out the possibility.

I've read the Zinn book, and I think he's right to some degree and too optimistic at the same time. Certainly there was a long period of time where white dirt farmers were being told that "at least you're not black."

[Faldoe]

Also implying "white" and "non-white" are classes

Breaking: they are. And, under this spectrum, Carlton would totally be a "white person"... He stopped eating pork, he stopped eating greens, he traded in his dashiki for some Jordache jeans, etc.

Are you white or a non-person of color? There seems to be this trend that has been happening for some time in which both people of color and non-POF will "de-black" or remove any person of color from their respective race if said person doesn't have the "right" ideological beliefs or if they don't have a familial or financial background that the critical group deems agreeable. This happened when young black students on college campuses were critical of BLM. The response from BLM students at the respective colleges was to call their fellow critical black students "House n*****s" and the like or not really black simply for disagreeing with BLM.

White "allies" sympathetic to the BLM and social justice craze also seem to help do this dirty work by trying to deprive a person of color of their racial identity of background by trying to sell certain aspects of their life or experience precluded them from their race cause they don't share some common theme with the rest of the group.

Also your characterization of Carlton and a kind of list of attributes of what constitutes "black" via class is in itself a racist of prejudicial categorization. This kind of "boxing in" the current left is engaging in only further marginalizes and limits black people by saying in order to truly be black you not only have to have the obvious aspect which is skin color/genetic origins that constitute "to be black" but that you also must have a certain economic and ideological view to be black.

Are all successful black people not black because of their economic status?

You're moving the goalposts a little bit here, aren't you? Insofar as you're taking a construct most people take as a given in humor (I present Chappelle's 'racial draft' and so on) but I'm not sure you can so easily dismiss the idea that the dominant social construct for the mainstream U.S. is definitely tailored towards the (predominantly white) type-A aesthetic. It's why the NBA has a dress code and so forth -- or, to bastardize and steal a bit from Yahdon Israel, "there's no room for personal freedom in a social construct."

[aside: For what it's worth this also defined the prevailing attitudes towards tattoos, "immoral/deviant" sexual behavior, so on so forth. There's a reason, in other words, why "dress for success" brings up a particular image in the collective mind's eye (let's not kid ourselves, that person is straight out of the Mitt Romney catalog); and that image isn't something that is associated with poor people, who more often than not in the U.S. are 'non-white' because of reasons outlined briefly below. We can pick nits over whether that's a "real" class system or not, I guess.]

This happens everywhere, but again, the U.S. is a country that spent the first third of it's existence with an explicit class system based on race and is still addressing the fallout of that today -- the Civil Rights act is just barely 53 years old: that's barely two generations back, if you figure the median age here is about 38. People bitch about things like diversity criteria because they like to believe we're beyond that as a country, but the fact that it was deemed as necessary to introduce would perhaps speak otherwise.

So I hope that explains the Carlton phenomenon a bit. At least as much as as any of this applies to a fictional character brought up to make something of an exaggerated point.

How am I moving the goal posts? Yes, I am white. If you're suggesting a "pot calling the kettle black case," I don't think that is a fair assessment of what I'm saying. Regarding me asking you if you're white. My point was that people of color who hold ideological viewpoints that a majority of other POC do not hold should not be deprived of their identity or reality as a POC by the POC majority because the former's views are not accepted by the latter's. And certainly white people that agree with or allied with POC majority or POC in the Social Justice sphere shouldn't take it upon themselves - knowingly or unknowingly - to help perpetuate such a perspective.

I think it's true that despite the growth or improvements of race and racial identity in the USA that we are not totally removed for long instilled notions of what beauty is and who is beautiful, etc. and that thus there is still a view that the presentations of beauty or other standards are delivered through media mediums via the lens of "white."

That doesn't mean though that a black, latino or any other POC that is a conservative or is economically successful is someone no more a POC because of that and is now in a "white sphere." You can say those POC in those positions may be surrounded by a more white majority and I think would be indicative of how much of those spheres are still dominated by mostly white people and the reason may be in part because though the country has made progress the effects are still slow in POC moving up and becoming successful, and for multiple reasons: The remaining not-on-the-books-laws that can keep POC in immobile positions, lack of opportunity, etc. There a POC who were Democrats but became Republicans because they felt the former provided more obstacles or different types of continued oppression than the latter.

If you read Howard Zinn's A people's history you'd get a different view on race and class. He thought the formation of this country was more grounded in class than race and that race was used at certain times to keep both poorer whites and blacks - or anyone else - in those lower strata by pitting the former against the latter.

Throughout this country's history there were many forms of white/black/Indian alliances against dominant classes. It's not as simple as is often argued by aspects of the Left or SJ left that all whites owned slaves are benefited or were part of slavery.

You're comment about the CRA and that it's not that long ago is similar to what I've said in the third paragraph.

working but the goal post comment was mostly that I think you're running the risk of coming across that you're conflating economic success and ideology. That might not be the case (in fact I suspect it isn't) but I just wanted to point out the possibility.

I've read the Zinn book, and I think he's right to some degree and too optimistic at the same time. Certainly there was a long period of time where white dirt farmers were being told that "at least you're not black."

Thanks for that. You're correct in that that is not my intention to portray it as such but I can see how it could be interpreted that way. I used the economic example here but in prior posts I think I used the example of POC - particularly black people - disagreeing with aspects of the BLM movement and instead of having their criticisms met with counter arguments or challenging their view points they are met with a response that denounces them as race traitors or some variation that tries to say their viewpoint is somehow a "white" viewpoint and thus eliminates the possibility that someone can be black and have a view that is counter to other black people's view points. Or that a qualification to be black isn't just a genetic/ phenotypical one but also an ideological one.

One could ask that since I'm white why should I care and my answer would be because I believe in the rights of the minority - this includes minorities within minorities - so long as the minority viewpoint is a logical or reasonable one. I wouldn't say I believe in the rights of say the KKK to try and implement actions that actively marginalize people solely because the KKK is a minority group - in relation to the larger group of white people. I'm using minority here not in the racial sense but in the numerical sense.

Yes, you're right about the white dirt farmer part. And I think here is where Zinn's point comes across how race was used a tool of the elites by getting said white dirt farmer's not to see the potential commonalities they and other POC may have with one another but use that white-dirt-farmer group as a bulwark or front to keep unity forming amongst people in similar circumstances and that could benefit from their unity.

[zeravla]

This gave me a pretty good scare:
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial ... .27wapjhpe

[Invisible Man]

Dudes Zinn is good and all but there's much more rigorous and provocative work done/being done out there regarding this same stuff (race/class). I will ship you the books if you want, but they're cheap and easy to come by.



David Roediger's book on this is dead-on, short, and pretty engaging (Wages of Whiteness).

[D.o.S.]

Yeah Zinn is in that Chomsky level of a "name" that a particularly edgy teacher in high school might have recommended. Not to take anything away from either of them, ofc, but they are sort of the Nirvanas of that kind of political thinking, if that makes any sense.

Also good is Bill Ayers & Bernadine Dohrn's book "Race Course Against White Supremacy", titular title and spectacle/apoplexy-inducing authors aside it's quite an interesting read.

[D.o.S.]

Thanks for that. You're correct in that that is not my intention to portray it as such but I can see how it could be interpreted that way. I used the economic example here but in prior posts I think I used the example of POC - particularly black people - disagreeing with aspects of the BLM movement and instead of having their criticisms met with counter arguments or challenging their view points they are met with a response that denounces them as race traitors or some variation that tries to say their viewpoint is somehow a "white" viewpoint and thus eliminates the possibility that someone can be black and have a view that is counter to other black people's view points. Or that a qualification to be black isn't just a genetic/ phenotypical one but also an ideological one.

One could ask that since I'm white why should I care and my answer would be because I believe in the rights of the minority - this includes minorities within minorities - so long as the minority viewpoint is a logical or reasonable one. I wouldn't say I believe in the rights of say the KKK to try and implement actions that actively marginalize people solely because the KKK is a minority group - in relation to the larger group of white people. I'm using minority here not in the racial sense but in the numerical sense.

Yes, you're right about the white dirt farmer part. And I think here is where Zinn's point comes across how race was used a tool of the elites by getting said white dirt farmer's not to see the potential commonalities they and other POC may have with one another but use that white-dirt-farmer group as a bulwark or front to keep unity forming amongst people in similar circumstances and that could benefit from their unity.

Right. I think that's where the main point of contention arises: the fact that black and poor are becoming less and less synonymous (which is a good thing, obviously) and what exactly constitutes "authentic" experience (i.e. Carlton) and, more importantly, who gets to define what that is, if anyone. Obviously there is a general feeling (justified) in this country that people without wealth are second class citizens -- depending on your politics you were generally funneled to Sanders or Trump or Clinton to voice that opinion -- and I do think that some aspects of the BLM could fall under 'unnecessarily divisive' but I don't know enough about that group to comment beyond the fact that poor people in general and black people in particular are certainly treated much worse by the police than other folks. That much is fairly obvious.

[Faldoe]

Yeah Zinn and Chomsky get thrown around a lot as kind of industry standards. I think Zinn's a People's History is insightful but it's easy - like with many things - to kind of make it a corner stone or bible of thought.

I haven't read any of those books. Having a BA in American Indian Studies I read a lot of stuff from Vine Deloria Jr. and other native thinkers regarding treaty and sovereignty rights.

[Invisible Man]

Yeah Zinn is in that Chomsky level of a "name" that a particularly edgy teacher in high school might have recommended.

Thank you for saying what I couldn't.

[Mudfuzz]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPARr3yp6ys[/youtube]