Right-wing vs. Left-wing Clashes [MOD NOTE POST #1]

20Cent

Trump implied that he intends to pardon Sheriff Joe Arpaio during his speech last night.

He added: “Was Sheriff Joe convicted for doing his job? He should have had a jury. I’ll make a prediction. I think he’s going to be just fine.

But the president stopped short of pardoning Arpaio, telling the crowd, to their visible disappointment: “But I won’t do it tonight because I don’t want to cause any controversy.”

Arpaio was convicted of ignoring a judges order to stop targeting coloured people at traffic stops. Could see this kicking off Rodney King type protests and unrest if he does it.

Tony EH

Billy86 wrote: »

Does anyone know what he didn't 'like' about Lee though? Because most of what we know about the man would be based in politics.

Nothing to do with Robert E. Lee.

The statue is of a man called Lt. Dick Dowling.

...an Irish immigrant who lived in Houston and fought for the Confederacy, was erected in 1905 to honor rebel soldiers who died at the Battle of Sabine Pass.

It's merely a monument to Confederate veterans.

Billy86

Ah, turns out I was getting it confused with the Charlottesville one.

Manic Moran

Utter stupidity. "Lee" is a common name in various Asian countries. There are a number of Asians who live in the US. Something to do with the US being a multi-national melting pot... Some Asians have, for whatever reason, decided to start giving their kids more or less American names. Names like John... or Robert.

Now, if you are an Asian whose name is "Robert Lee", you are discriminated against.

"ESPN has removed a sports commentator from covering an American football game in Charlottesville because he has the same name as Civil War General Robert E Lee."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41022954

Tony EH

Manic Moran wrote: »

Utter stupidity. "Lee" is a common name in various Asian countries. There are a number of Asians who live in the US. Something to do with the US being a multi-national melting pot... Some Asians have, for whatever reason, decided to start giving their kids more or less American names. Names like John... or Robert.

Now, if you are an Asian whose name is "Robert Lee", you are discriminated against.

"ESPN has removed a sports commentator from covering an American football game in Charlottesville because he has the same name as Civil War General Robert E Lee."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41022954

This is all getting terribly silly.

Billy86

Manic Moran wrote: »

Utter stupidity.

Or just fake news from one of the most prominent spreaders fake news out there.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/08/22/espn-pulls-announcer-robert-lee-off-virginia-game-charlottesville-protests/592458001/

According to an ESPN executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the situation, ESPN asked Lee if he would be more comfortable calling another game but gave him the option to stay. Lee chose to switch assignments, and ESPN accommodated him.

This would never have been an issue at all, except for the fact that it was leaked to Clay Travis of Outkick the Coverage, who frequently critiques ESPN and has accused the company of having a liberal bias.

Travis wrote about it on his Web site Tuesday night and it exploded into a national story, with Travis appearing on Tucker Carlson's Fox News program.

manual_man

Billy86 wrote: »

Or just fake news from one of the most prominent spreaders fake news out there.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/08/22/espn-pulls-announcer-robert-lee-off-virginia-game-charlottesville-protests/592458001/

It's become an issue because ESPN made it an issue. Yet another sad example of pandering to idiots who will seemingly get offended by ANYTHING. They asked Mr Lee would he be "more comfortable" covering another game. So basically put him under pressure to acquiesce when there was no good reason to do so. And for one i'm glad it's blown up in their face because this kind of lunacy needs to end.

20Cent

manual_man wrote: »

It's become an issue because ESPN made it an issue. Yet another sad example of pandering to idiots who will seemingly get offended by ANYTHING. They asked Mr Lee would he be "more comfortable" covering another game. So basically put him under pressure to acquiesce when there was no good reason to do so. And for one i'm glad it's blown up in their face because this kind of lunacy needs to end.

The switch wasn't made because his name might cause offence. It was because of the meme's, jokes and whatnot that would result from the alt right.

Billy86

manual_man wrote: »

It's become an issue because ESPN made it an issue. Yet another sad example of pandering to idiots who will seemingly get offended by ANYTHING. They asked Mr Lee would he be "more comfortable" covering another game. So basically put him under pressure to acquiesce when there was no good reason to do so. And for one i'm glad it's blown up in their face because this kind of lunacy needs to end.

No, it has not become an issue because ESPN asked a guy -called Robert Lee, who was set to commentate (apparently in his first game as it was opening weekend of the season), in Virginia just days after protests charged by white supremacy led to violence and death- if he was comfortable calling the game or would prefer to be moved to another game.

It has become an issue because the likes of Tucker Carlson and the guy on there lied about what happened, making it fake news. If this were not the case, the story would be "ESPN offers commentator change to switch games due to name" rather than "ESPN removes commentator due to name".

manual_man

20Cent wrote: »

The switch wasn't made because his name might cause offence. It was because of the meme's, jokes and whatnot that would result from the alt right.

Oh god, no. Not a meme!

Billy86

manual_man wrote: »

Oh god, no. Not a meme!

How dare ESPN look to protect their own staff and give them choices at the same time, how f***ing dare they!!

Christy42

manual_man wrote: »

It's become an issue because ESPN made it an issue. Yet another sad example of pandering to idiots who will seemingly get offended by ANYTHING. They asked Mr Lee would he be "more comfortable" covering another game. So basically put him under pressure to acquiesce when there was no good reason to do so. And for one i'm glad it's blown up in their face because this kind of lunacy needs to end.

Where are you getting all this pressure on him from? Near as I can see you made it up. There is nothing to suggest that ESPN would have cared much had he kept on his original assignment.

But sure the lunacy of paying attention to what a staff member wanted has to end.

manual_man

Billy86 wrote: »

No, it has not become an issue because ESPN asked a guy -called Robert Lee, who was set to commentate (apparently in his first game as it was opening weekend of the season), in Virginia just days after protests charged by white supremacy led to violence and death- if he was comfortable calling the game or would prefer to be moved to another game.

It has become an issue because the likes of Tucker Carlson and the guy on there lied about what happened, making it fake news. If this were not the case, the story would be "ESPN offers commentator change to switch games due to name" rather than "ESPN removes commentator due to name".

Right so they put the commentator under pressure, when they shouldn't have done so.

There's absolutely zero justification for them having asked Mr Lee to do this. Unless they were afraid that somehow a lot of people would not be able to distinguish between a deceased confederate war general and an Asian sports commentator in 2017. If somehow some people would have gotten offended by Mr Lee commenting on this game, then it's those people themselves that are the problem.

Christy42

manual_man wrote: »

Right so they put the commentator under pressure, when they shouldn't have done so.

There's absolutely zero justification for them having asked Mr Lee to do this. Unless they were afraid that somehow a lot of people would not be able to distinguish between a deceased confederate war general and an Asian sports commentator in 2017. If somehow some people would have gotten offended by Mr Lee commenting on this game, then it's those people themselves that are the problem.

You keep restating the assumption that they put him under pressure and are then getting outraged at it based on your own assumption.

Unless you back up that assumption the rest of the posts are meaningless as you have based your arguments on it.

The decision seems to have been taken for Mr. Lee's benefit. Not the random people getting offended you have made up.

Billy86

manual_man wrote: »

Right so they put the commentator under pressure, when they shouldn't have done so.

There's absolutely zero justification for them having asked Mr Lee to do this. Unless they were afraid that somehow a lot of people would not be able to distinguish between a deceased confederate war general and an Asian sports commentator in 2017. If somehow some people would have gotten offended by Mr Lee commenting on this game, then it's those people themselves that are the problem.

They didn't put him under pressure. Are you accusing my employer of putting me under pressure when they asked how I would feel about switching sites earlier in the year? I decided not to, by the way.

It was a case of attempting to shield a young, unknown commentator in what appears may have been his first game on the network from the mockery of the alt right - yet also giving him the option if he wanted to soldier on with it. 'Luckily' for us however, FOX were more than happy to spin that into the outrage of 'PC librul madness again!!'

manual_man

Christy42 wrote: »

You keep restating the assumption that they put him under pressure and are then getting outraged at it based on your own assumption.

Unless you back up that assumption the rest of the posts are meaningless as you have based your arguments on it.

The decision seems to have been taken for Mr. Lee's benefit. Not the random people getting offended you have made up.

It's because i'm being honest with myself that the simple act of asking him, was, yes, putting him under pressure. An issue was thus made when there shouldn't have been one.

We all know the situation. Your boss, or bosses, approach you and ask if you if you "might consider" this, or might consider that. Often the words "now you don't have to", and "don't feel under any pressure" are used. And all the while you as the employee, feel under pressure to acquiesce because you know the outcome your boss(es) want.

It all comes down to this irrational fear of offending that has infected many areas of society. It's destructive and contagious. And if people, and companies, don't stand up against it, then it continues to spread.

pitifulgod

manual_man wrote: »

It's because i'm being honest with myself that the simple act of asking him, was, yes, putting him under pressure. An issue was thus made when there shouldn't have been one.

We all know the situation. Your boss, or bosses, approach you and ask if you if you "might consider" this, or might consider that. Often the words "now you don't have to", and "don't feel under any pressure" are used. And all the while you as the employee, feel under pressure to acquiesce because you know the outcome your boss(es) want.

It all comes down to this irrational fear of offending that has infected many areas of society. It's destructive and contagious. And if people, and companies, don't stand up against it, then it continues to spread.

Would you want to start a media career as a figure of ridicule for the alt right? That is what they do. So yep, I very much think that they were considering his well being.

manual_man

Billy86 wrote: »

They didn't put him under pressure. Are you accusing my employer of putting me under pressure when they asked how I would feel about switching sites earlier in the year? I decided not to, by the way.

It was a case of attempting to shield a young, unknown commentator in what appears may have been his first game on the network from the mockery of the alt right - yet also giving him the option if he wanted to soldier on with it. 'Luckily' for us however, FOX were more than happy to spin that into the outrage of 'PC librul madness again!!'

Shielding him from what exactly? A few online memes? For real? This is absolutely absurd. If what you're truly afraid of in life is a few memes and online ridicule, from people you probably have next to nothing in common with in the first place, then it's a sad indictment on anyone who changes their actions to accomodate such "fears". All it can accomplish is to embolden those who would seek to do the ridiculing in the first place.

Billy86

manual_man wrote: »

Shielding him from what exactly? A few online memes? For real? This is absolutely absurd. If what you're truly afraid of in life is a few memes and online ridicule, from people you probably have next to nothing in common with in the first place, then it's a sad indictment on anyone who changes their actions to accomodate such "fears". All it can accomplish is to embolden those who would seek to do the ridiculing in the first place.

You're aware how much damage being a walking punchline can do to someone's media career even after they are established? And it's not like this guy is even "not an Al Michaels or Martin Tyler", as best I can tell this was due to be his first ever game at this level.

So yes, they were protecting the guy personally and professionally and gave him the choice not to be "dropped" but to switch games. And there is absolutely zero wrong with that whatsoever.

Christy42

manual_man wrote: »

It's because i'm being honest with myself that the simple act of asking him, was, yes, putting him under pressure. An issue was thus made when there shouldn't have been one.

We all know the situation. Your boss, or bosses, approach you and ask if you if you "might consider" this, or might consider that. Often the words "now you don't have to", and "don't feel under any pressure" are used. And all the while you as the employee, feel under pressure to acquiesce because you know the outcome your boss(es) want.

It all comes down to this irrational fear of offending that has infected many areas of society. It's destructive and contagious. And if people, and companies, don't stand up against it, then it continues to spread.

You are just making stuff up at this stage. My bosses frequently ask which projects different people would prefer to be on and then assign us accordingly (as best they can so no project is short handed). I have never felt under any pressure. Can a boss never ask an employee a question about what they want? How can you be a good employer without this information coming in occassionaly?

A company has to be able to solicit feedback from its employees. Especially if they are worried the employees might not be completely comfortable doing something. Seemingly this is impossible without pressuring the employee?

It is a complete stretch to say that ESPN honestly cared where he went and reads more like someone attempting to take offense over a simple company action.

Manic Moran

Missing the forest for the trees, here.

It doesn't matter if ESPN suggested it, ESPN just asked about it, or Mr Lee felt he would be more comfortable. The fact that the question is being brought up by anyone at all is an indicator as to just how stupid the whole thing has gotten. It should not be an issue for concern. By anyone.

"But on the other hand—grow the hell up. The man’s name is his name. Adults can distinguish the difference between a sportscaster named “Robert Lee” and a statue of a long-dead Confederate general. (Hell, I live in Atlanta, and we don’t run anyone named “Sherman” out of town with torches.)"
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/espn-removes-announcer-robert-lee-virginia-game-nobody-looks-good-122026966.html

20Cent

Manic Moran wrote: »

Missing the forest for the trees, here.

It doesn't matter if ESPN suggested it, ESPN just asked about it, or Mr Lee felt he would be more comfortable. The fact that the question is being brought up by anyone at all is an indicator as to just how stupid the whole thing has gotten. It should not be an issue for concern. By anyone.

"But on the other hand—grow the hell up. The man’s name is his name. Adults can distinguish the difference between a sportscaster named “Robert Lee” and a statue of a long-dead Confederate general. (Hell, I live in Atlanta, and we don’t run anyone named “Sherman” out of town with torches.)"
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/espn-removes-announcer-robert-lee-virginia-game-nobody-looks-good-122026966.html

Your president makes whole speeches about how the media are "mean" to him and tweets gossip about celebrities. The dumbing down is coming from the top.

johnnyskeleton

manual_man wrote: »

Oh god, no. Not a meme!

Billy86 wrote: »

How dare ESPN look to protect their own staff and give them choices at the same time, how f***ing dare they!!

Mod note:

How very good of you both to test the waters and see if I would follow through with what I said in the mod warnings.

Banned for two days.

Please don't reply to either of these posters until 8pm 25th August.

Danzy

In the bizarre, Gonzo politics that this protest has brought out on both sides it makes sense and is probably for his own good that Robert Lee is taken off this game.

The War of the Fools.

Samaris

Seems perfectly sensible to ask the guy if he wanted to be on a different one. He was given the choice, not just removed wholesale. No, given the circumstances, I don't think it was cruelly putting him under pressure. Adults can certainly tell the difference between some fella on the radio and a dead Confederate general, but the alt-right media commentators have been anything but adult lately.

It was reasonable to give him the option to not have his first broadcast game under the shadow of morons. "Broadcast employer shows concern for new staff" may be unusual, sure, but it's not news, no matter how much whoever was going on about it over the last few pages wants it to be.

Sweetemotion

Samaris wrote: »

Seems perfectly sensible to ask the guy if he wanted to be on a different one. He was given the choice, not just removed wholesale. No, given the circumstances, I don't think it was cruelly putting him under pressure. Adults can certainly tell the difference between some fella on the radio and a dead Confederate general, but the alt-right media commentators have been anything but adult lately.

It was reasonable to give him the option to not have his first broadcast game under the shadow of morons. "Broadcast employer shows concern for new staff" may be unusual, sure, but it's not news, no matter how much whoever was going on about it over the last few pages wants it to be.

C'mon lets be honest here. This is nothing to do with the right.

This is an idea from the left "usually a little white rich kid" Thinking this would offend a poc.

20Cent

Looks like the counter protest in Boston had some effect.

https://www.adl.org/education/resources/profiles/act-for-america
ACT for America an anti Muslim group has cancelled 67 "America First" rallies across the US and will instead be having an online "day of action".



ACT propagates the hateful conspiracy theory that Muslims are infiltrating US institutions in order to impose Sharia law.
ACT stokes irrational fear of Muslims via a number of false claims, including that headscarves are a sign of radicalization, and that 25 percent of Muslims approve of terrorism.
ACT founder Brigitte Gabriel is a leading voice in the fight against immigration and refugee resettlement.
ACT’s hardline stance on Islam and immigration has attracted a number of conservative lawmakers as well as far-right extremists, including white supremacists and militia group members.

Sweetemotion

20Cent wrote: »

Looks like the counter protest in Boston had some effect.

https://www.adl.org/education/resources/profiles/act-for-america
ACT for America an anti Muslim group has cancelled 67 "America First" rallies across the US and will instead be having an online "day of action".



ACT propagates the hateful conspiracy theory that Muslims are infiltrating US institutions in order to impose Sharia law.
ACT stokes irrational fear of Muslims via a number of false claims, including that headscarves are a sign of radicalization, and that 25 percent of Muslims approve of terrorism.
ACT founder Brigitte Gabriel is a leading voice in the fight against immigration and refugee resettlement.
ACT’s hardline stance on Islam and immigration has attracted a number of conservative lawmakers as well as far-right extremists, including white supremacists and militia group members.

They probably don't need to rally, the guys protesting are their biggest recruitment machines

Do you think one little counter protest is going to change the minds of an acclaimed 750,000 members?

20Cent

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Do you think one little counter protest is going to change the minds of an acclaimed 750,000 members?

No, but it does send the message that regular people won't put up with them marching around stirring up hate. Previous ACT rallies had members of Identity Evropa and Vanguard America attend and speak at them.

Saruhashi

20Cent wrote: »

No, but it does send the message that regular people won't put up with them marching around stirring up hate. Previous ACT rallies had members of Identity Evropa and Vanguard America attend and speak at them.

They should not be getting permission to hold these rallies in the first place.

Don't they have to apply for permits and such?

Obvious Otter

The problem is that the narrative at large on this issue isn't equal to the reality. Anyone from the right protesting is a neo nazi and is tarred and feathered as a racist and a bigot. The reality is quite different. While we continue demonising people for policial beliefs that don't agree with our own we will just continue to force people into the extremes of both sides.

Society in the United States has become far too politically correct to actually deal with the mass divineness that we're seeing unfold.

Christy42

Obvious Otter wrote: »

The problem is that the narrative at large on this issue isn't equal to the reality. Anyone from the right protesting is a neo nazi and is tarred and feathered as a racist and a bigot. The reality is quite different. While we continue demonising people for policial beliefs that don't agree with our own we will just continue to force people into the extremes of both sides.

Society in the United States has become far too politically correct to actually deal with the mass divineness that we're seeing unfold.

While certainly some go overboard using the nazi word most simply used it when they marched with the nazi flag and was appropriate.

If someone marches behind a nazi flag and their excuse is political correctness I am going to go ahead and call bull on that one. Seriously no one should let their morality be driven by political correctness and anyone who says otherwise is lying

wes

Obvious Otter wrote: »

The problem is that the narrative at large on this issue isn't equal to the reality. Anyone from the right protesting is a neo nazi and is tarred and feathered as a racist and a bigot. The reality is quite different. While we continue demonising people for policial beliefs that don't agree with our own we will just continue to force people into the extremes of both sides.

Calling someone a Nazi for marching with a Nazi flag, is just a statement of fact. Its not demonizing in that case.

Obvious Otter wrote: »

Society in the United States has become far too politically correct to actually deal with the mass divineness that we're seeing unfold.

Surely, saying that we can't call people walking around with Nazi flags Nazi's is political correctness? These guys openly admitted to be Neo Nazi's, KKK, white supremacists etc. All people are doing is calling a spade a spade. The rights demands for political correctness is amusing, considering how often they rail against it.

Obvious Otter

wes wrote: »

Calling someone a Nazi for marching with a Nazi flag, is just a statement of fact. Its not demonizing in that case.



Surely, saying that we can't call people walking around with Nazi flags Nazi's is political correctness? These guys openly admitted to be Neo Nazi's, KKK, white supremacists etc. All people are doing is calling a spade a spade. The rights demands for political correctness is amusing, considering how often they rail against it.

I didn't say that. Obviously calling neo-nazis what they are is nothing to do with political correctness.

People aren't calling a spade a spade and to suggest that is disingenuous. Lots of misrepresentation of the events in Charlottesville has taken place.

Obvious Otter

wes wrote: »

Calling someone a Nazi for marching with a Nazi flag, is just a statement of fact. Its not demonizing in that case.



Surely, saying that we can't call people walking around with Nazi flags Nazi's is political correctness? These guys openly admitted to be Neo Nazi's, KKK, white supremacists etc. All people are doing is calling a spade a spade. The rights demands for political correctness is amusing, considering how often they rail against it.

I didn't say that. Obviously calling neo-nazis what they are is nothing to do with political correctness.

People aren't calling a spade a spade and to suggest that is disingenuous. Lots of misrepresentation of the events in Charlottesville has taken place.

wes

Obvious Otter wrote: »

I didn't say that. Obviously calling neo-nazis what they are is nothing to do with political correctness.

Well considering the subject of the thread, your comments are then confusing, and make no sense.

Obvious Otter wrote: »

People aren't calling a spade a spade and to suggest that is disingenuous. Lots of misrepresentation of the events in Charlottesville has taken place.

People who were openly white supremacist organized and marched. No one is claiming they are the average right winger.

IMO, all I am seeing is people wanting political correctness for there side of things.

PopePalpatine

Obvious Otter wrote: »

Lots of misrepresentation of the events in Charlottesville has taken place.

Yep, here's a report on a prime example.

Annasopra

Tony EH wrote: »

It would be. But it doesn't change anything. Besides, black people wandering by that statue of Lee in Robert E. Lee park weren't even born when the Civil War was in effect.

I understand the sentiments and understand why people around the world would have issue with statues and symbols from history. But, whitewashing these things out of the public eye won't erase the historical record or even make those those hard done by feel any better in the long run.

It's just a gloss.

Why not do what Budapest did? Create a park for all the taken statues to goto.

Tony EH

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why not do what Budapest did? Create a park for all the taken statues to goto.

That's an option Joey. But, it would just be a matter of time before that park is targeted too.

This isn't really about statues though. It's an attempt to control the narrative. It's a power play. This year it's statues. Next year it'll be something else.

The vast majority of people walk by those statues and don't even register them, black and white.

InTheTrees

Tony EH wrote: »

That's an option Joey. But, it would just be a matter of time before that park is targeted too.
This isn't really about statues though. It's an attempt to control the narrative. It's a power play. This year it's statues. Next year it'll be something else.
The vast majority of people walk by those statues and don't even register them, black and white.

Yikes. So what you're saying is its just those uppity black folk who should know their place and shouldnt complain??

The Civil Rights struggle in the 1960's means nothing does it?

marcus001

InTheTrees wrote: »

Yikes. So what you're saying is its just those uppity black folk who should know their place and shouldnt complain??

The Civil Rights struggle in the 1960's means nothing does it?

Anything that comes after "so what you're saying is" is almost always retarded inflammatory nonsense.

Why do you insist on posting like this?

Brian?

Tony EH wrote: »

That's an option Joey. But, it would just be a matter of time before that park is targeted too.

This isn't really about statues though. It's an attempt to control the narrative. It's a power play. This year it's statues. Next year it'll be something else.

The vast majority of people walk by those statues and don't even register them, black and white.

It probably will be something else. But they'll probably be right about that as well.

johnnyskeleton

InTheTrees wrote: »

Yikes. So what you're saying is its just those uppity black folk who should know their place and shouldnt complain??

The Civil Rights struggle in the 1960's means nothing does it?

marcus001 wrote: »

Anything that comes after "so what you're saying is" is almost always retarded inflammatory nonsense.

Why do you insist on posting like this?

Mod note:

Has no one read the mod warning? Banned for three days.

ancapailldorcha

Given that this discussion has rarely exceeded the level of link dumping and sniping, I think we're done here.