Only black reporters allowed in Mayoral race event

[ecofarm]

now you know how we feel about things some of you say sometimes... several in this thread alone.

So don't care.

 

[Hypothetical]

So don't care.

ok, well then right back to you.

 

[OlNate]

My point exactly in my earlier points to this thread.

lol....ok...so are we agreeing or disagreeing?

 

[OlNate]

that sounds like the BS definition of racism to me. either we strive to be equal as one species or we don't.

I reject the notion that treatment of anyone should be different in any way for the tone of their skin, good or bad.

now if you really think there is still systemic racism, prove it and we will work together to stop it. but no privileges or differences either way can be allowed to truly rid the world of it.

I'm sorry you think the dictionary is BS. Not sure what to do with that.

And I think you might be simplifying the process a bit...if I do something to piss off my wife really badly, because I messed up, I know I can't just say sorry, and it's all good, just because I say so. I always find it weird when folks say "I don't see color, I'm not racist, so get over it, racism is no longer an issue, time to get over racism now"... There's literally no other situation where that would be a reasonable expectation. It would be nice, but humans don't work that way.

 

[trixare4kids]

lol....ok...so are we agreeing or disagreeing?

Give me all your maple syrup and then get off my lawn.

Yes, we are agreeing. Marking time and date...:lol:

 

[OlNate]

Looks like this story is going viral... In the last 12 hours:
White reporters banned from political meeting in Georgia church

lol...of course it's going viral.

 

[Hypothetical]

I'm sorry you think the dictionary is BS. Not sure what to do with that.

And I think you might be simplifying the process a bit...if I do something to piss off my wife really badly, because I messed up, I know I can't just say sorry, and it's all good, just because I say so. I always find it weird when folks say "I don't see color, I'm not racist, so get over it, racism is no longer an issue, time to get over racism now"... There's literally no other situation where that would be a reasonable expectation. It would be nice, but humans don't work that way.

I never said racism was not still an issue, or to get over it. i am saying that if we are to rid ourselves of it for the most part, we all have to strive to be treated equally on an equal footing. that means condemning inequality based on skin tone whereever we find it

I have never treated anyone badly as far as race is concerned, so what am i sorry about? I am sympathetic and sad for what people had to go through in those eras, but no i don't feel responsible. If I find racism today, i will do what I can to stop or prevent it.

this is just like justice... in order to truly be a free nation you must have equal justice under the law. we fail at that a lot as well, but we must strive to achieve it , always, for it to work to our benefit as a people. ONE people.

 

[OlNate]

Give me all your maple syrup and then get off my lawn.

Yes, we are agreeing. Marking time and date...:lol:

(Seriously, though, this agreeing stuff is getting way too boring. Kiss my ass, I'm keeping my maple syrup, and me and my Canadian buddies are coming over to get hammered and party on your lawn)

 

[AGENT J]

I'm sorry you think the dictionary is BS. Not sure what to do with that.

And I think you might be simplifying the process a bit...if I do something to piss off my wife really badly, because I messed up, I know I can't just say sorry, and it's all good, just because I say so. I always find it weird when folks say "I don't see color, I'm not racist, so get over it, racism is no longer an issue, time to get over racism now"... There's literally no other situation where that would be a reasonable expectation. It would be nice, but humans don't work that way.

as already proven, the dictionary factually DOES NOT support you, claiming otherwise is the only BS :shrug:

 

[OlNate]

as already proven, the dictionary factually DOES NOT support you, claiming otherwise is the only BS :shrug:

We disagree.

 

[AGENT J]

We disagree.

there is no we, and theres nothign to disagree on. Theres just you being factually wrong per the dicitionary. why be dishonest about it? its weird and it never going to work or change facts :shrug:

 

[eohrnberger]

:roll: If only something new could be learned about conservative victimhood...sadly it's always the same old exhausting story.

I never said I supported it, just that unless you can prove they were kept out because they were deemed inferior because of their race, it wasn't racism. Sounds like no one is commenting on the reasons behind it at the moment, maybe it was problematic, in which case it should be dealt with.

If it's gross, it's gross... :shrug: Prove it was. Either way, I'm utterly uninspired to become outraged over this. It's Georgia...if there is friction between white and black people, it didn't start here.

Didn't know that seeking for consistently applied standards was a 'conservative victimhood' thing.

At least you are stating that such a policy is problematic. I see this as a point of common ground between us. :thumbs:

 

[OlNate]

there is no we, and theres nothign to disagree on. Theres just you being factually wrong per the dicitionary. why be dishonest about it? its weird and it never going to work or change facts :shrug:

:lol: We're not doing this. I know what's down the Agent J rabbit hole, been there, done that...no thanks. :lol:

 

[OlNate]

Didn't know that seeking for consistently applied standards was a 'conservative victimhood' thing.

At least you are stating that such a policy is problematic. I see this as a point of common ground between us. :thumbs:

Hey, if you get to be snarky, so do I.

I agree, the optics are horrible. But the fact is, we don't know the motivation behind it, because they haven't said. Maybe wait a beat, see if it's as bad as you think, and then get pissed off. To me we're still at the "Whadju say??" stage.

 

[eohrnberger]

Hey, if you get to be snarky, so do I.

OK. :mrgreen: Fair enough.

I agree, the optics are horrible. But the fact is, we don't know the motivation behind it, because they haven't said. Maybe wait a beat, see if it's as bad as you think, and then get pissed off. To me we're still at the "Whadju say??" stage.

'"Whadju say??" stage' - fair.
Terrible optics? Oh for sure. Without a doubt.

But I rather doubt that any motivation on this is going to be made public. Of course, I may be wrong. I freely admit that I might be.

 

[OlNate]

OK. :mrgreen: Fair enough.


'"Whadju say??" stage' - fair.
Terrible optics? Oh for sure. Without a doubt.

But I rather doubt that any motivation on this is going to be made public. Of course, I may be wrong. I freely admit that I might be.

I tend to agree...I doubt this will ever be made public. Then again, it is a political endeavor, so they might come up with something. I think you're right, though. Which is too bad - if the intentions were not racist in nature, that should be known, and if they were, that should be dealt with. In the meantime, though, the knee jerk outrage (in general) is unfounded due to lack of information, and is in no one's best interest, as it tends to mess with the blood pressure...hehe...

As an aside, I like fighting with you. I'm sure I think some of what you say is right out to lunch, and I'm sure you think some of what I say is right out to lunch, but I always feel like while we'd probably end up telling each other to go **** ourselves fairly often, it would be followed up quickly by, ok, let's grab that beer now.

Have a good weekend, man. Watch that blood pressure.

 

[AGENT J]

:lol: We're not doing this. I know what's down the Agent J rabbit hole, been there, done that...no thanks. :lol:

yes you do, facts and anybldy lying or denying them severely losing to them....

here your false claim:

Racism includes a designation of inferiority. Unless you can prove that the white journalists were not admitted because they were deemed inferior because of their race, it's not racism by definition. :shrug:

that claim is factually wrong per the dictionary as we see below because an inclusion of inferiority is NOT needed

Definition of racism
Racism | Definition of Racism by Merriam-Webster

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

so your options are post with integrity and honesty and admit your mistake like normal people do or continue to lie about it and ill continue to point it out :shrug:

 

[OlNate]

yes you do, facts and anybldy lying or denying them severely losing to them....

here your false claim:


that claim is factually wrong per the dictionary as we see below because an inclusion of inferiority is NOT needed

Definition of racism
Racism | Definition of Racism by Merriam-Webster

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

so your options are post with integrity and honesty and admit your mistake like normal people do or continue to lie about it and ill continue to point it out :shrug:

Have a good weekend, Agent J. If you would like to see my thoughts, please find them in response to others.

 

[eohrnberger]

I tend to agree...I doubt this will ever be made public. Then again, it is a political endeavor, so they might come up with something. I think you're right, though. Which is too bad - if the intentions were not racist in nature, that should be known, and if they were, that should be dealt with. In the meantime, though, the knee jerk outrage (in general) is unfounded due to lack of information, and is in no one's best interest, as it tends to mess with the blood pressure...hehe...

As an aside, I like fighting with you. I'm sure I think some of what you say is right out to lunch, and I'm sure you think some of what I say is right out to lunch, but I always feel like while we'd probably end up telling each other to go **** ourselves fairly often, it would be followed up quickly by, ok, let's grab that beer now.

Have a good weekend, man. Watch that blood pressure.

Hey Nate, I don't look at it as 'fighting' with you. I look at it as an impassioned discussion. Really I do. I never take it personal.

I quite enjoy batting it back and forth with you as well, and dang! I'd sure like to have a beer with you, say a nice IPA or dark beer would be great (couple of my fav's)

So, no blood pressure concerns, and you have a great weekend as well. Take the load off, and relax! You've survived this week, and deserve it, right?
On Monday you get to start all over again.

 

[VanceMack]

Answer me this.
Is it supremacist?

Your positions are ridiculous...but its understood. You swallowed the ridiculous **** you were spoon fed in your 'PHD in gender studies' or whatever the **** newfangled made up ridiculous course of study it was that left you imminently qualified to say stupid **** and offer an opinion like everyone else on an internet blog.

Was it 'supremacist'. Well now we dont know since only black folk were allowed. However...by matching the definition of supremacy, "the state or condition of being superior to all others in authority, power, or status." their actions CERTAINLY provided a superior position of authority, power, and status to black reporters. Was it 'racist', or "a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another." Well...yeah...of course it was.

Certainly racist, meets the definition of supremacy, and at the end of the day...

still think its funny as ****. If their intent was to destroy any credibility they might be expected to have, then they accomplished it.

 

[OlNate]

Hey Nate, I don't look at it as 'fighting' with you. I look at it as an impassioned discussion. Really I do. I never take it personal.

I quite enjoy batting it back and forth with you as well, and dang! I'd sure like to have a beer with you, say a nice IPA or dark beer would be great (couple of my fav's)

So, no blood pressure concerns, and you have a great weekend as well. Take the load off, and relax! You've survived this week, and deserve it, right?
On Monday you get to start all over again.

You get on up here when the nice weather hits, and this Canadian will show you good beer is. :lol: And I prefer to call it fighting, dammit, don't try to romanticize it, if I was looking for passion I'd be with my wife, not here. haha

Take it easy, bud.

 

[daeler]

:lol: We're not doing this. I know what's down the Agent J rabbit hole, been there, done that...no thanks. :lol:

He was mentioning that you are only using one part of the dictionary definition and ignoring the rest, definition 3 says nothing about inferiority and is a valid alternate definition. Basically it is racism, not illegal, but morally wrong. If you make a public statement that only one skin color is allowed then, to me, that is morally wrong. I am all for empowerment, but you can not empower a race/gender by hiding.

 

[AGENT J]

Have a good weekend, Agent J. If you would like to see my thoughts, please find them in response to others.

as you know, posts like yours that are dishonest and i get to expose will help make my weekend, so actually....thank you!

here your false claim:

Racism includes a designation of inferiority. Unless you can prove that the white journalists were not admitted because they were deemed inferior because of their race, it's not racism by definition. :shrug:

that claim is factually wrong per the dictionary as we see below because an inclusion of inferiority is NOT needed

Definition of racism
Racism | Definition of Racism by Merriam-Webster

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

let us know when you are ready to admit your factual mistake, thanks

 

[OlNate]

He was mentioning that you are only using one part of the dictionary definition and ignoring the rest, definition 3 says nothing about inferiority and is a valid alternate definition. Basically it is racism, not illegal, but morally wrong. If you make a public statement that only one skin color is allowed then, to me, that is morally wrong. I am all for empowerment, but you can not empower a race/gender by hiding.

Man, you guys must have gotten a different article than I got, to have this all figured out. The one I read said no one commented...

 

[OlNate]

as you know, posts like yours that are dishonest and i get to expose will help make my weekend, so actually....thank you!

here your false claim:


that claim is factually wrong per the dictionary as we see below because an inclusion of inferiority is NOT needed

Definition of racism
Racism | Definition of Racism by Merriam-Webster

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

let us know when you are ready to admit your factual mistake, thanks

*sigh*...and here I thought I was doing the right thing by taking you off of ignore. You can stop stalking now, you're back on.