BLM, or WLM? [MOD WARNING: FIRST POST]

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm having visions of Overheal and tell me how screaming at the sky wearing fanny hats in early November..

I'm ok with that, it's a better vision than the one of a guy on the outskirts of Boston indoctrinating his kids in racial stereotyping.

mynamejeff

Overheal wrote: »

my age is irrelevant to the fact stated.

the fact (not a fact) stated is irrelevant to the point(???) you are trying to


a totally and completely ridicules statement

Overheal

mynamejeff wrote: »

the fact (not a fact) stated is irrelevant to the point(???) you are trying to


a totally and completely ridicules statement

Is a fact.

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

Because, if you abuse and beat someone for months, years, the fact that you are then nice to them over a single topic does not undo all the injustice which they experienced.

And also, and once again, this current proclamation of 'Discrimination is wrong, end of' I'm going to take with a pinch of salt when I am only hearing it in relation to cases where black communities (or females, or disabled people, or migrants etc on other threads) are receiving some support to get to any way close to the position which their white peers have enjoyed for years.

People couldn't give a sh*t about equal rights for others, they just don't want to see specific efforts to help black people and it is very obvious that this is the case.

Sorry, who is beating these prospective university students? Is this a government scheme or a local initiative?

There's a difference between getting help, and discrimination. Scholarships and grants are programs of support, Affirmative Action is discrimination. I know you struggle with nuance, but that's a pretty basic thing to grasp.

The absolute irony of a vociferous BLM supporter talking about equal rights for others. The entire organisation is focused on garnering exclusive rights for black people, at the expense of others.

Sudden Valley

Perhaps affirmative action would get more buy- in from the whole population if it was based on socio economic class rather than ethniticity/ race. The african americans would still gain because they are generally in the poorer groups.

mynamejeff

Overheal wrote: »

I see it elsewhere as well. During the suffrage movement affluent women even campaigned against women's rights because it would upset their status as unemployed homemakers.

Posted as fact and the link you posted as proof states no such thing ,

it says there were various reasons why some ladies were anti sufferage most


" a silent majority of British women were “notoriously indifferent” to having the vote anyway."

your twisting a source to make it seem to fit your agenda which it does not

#notafact

TheFactMan

mynamejeff wrote: »

Posted as fact and the link you posted as proof states no such thing ,

it says there were various reasons why some ladies were anti sufferage most


" a silent majority of British women were “notoriously indifferent” to having the vote anyway."

your twisting a source to make it seem to fit your agenda which it does not

#notafact

Thats the general tactic, post a hollow niche study in an attempt to back up an even more ridiculous point, and then proclaiming it a fact because said random study slightly aligns with there views.

Overheal

mynamejeff wrote: »

Posted as fact and the link you posted as proof states no such thing ,

it says there were various reasons why some ladies were anti sufferage most


" a silent majority of British women were “notoriously indifferent” to having the vote anyway."

your twisting a source to make it seem to fit your agenda which it does not

#notafact

"some women felt that they occupied a sheltered and valued position in their homes and that voting outside the home would break that family bond."

https://www.nebraskastudies.org/en/1900-1924/votes-for-women/opposition-to-womens-suffrage/

"But as the suffragists would soon learn, women would play a crucial role in attempting to prevent women from gaining the right to vote. As the suffragist movement gained momentum, women mobilized committees, circulated petitions, and created associations to oppose women’s suffrage in New York and Massachusetts. Thousands of women would eventually join their fight."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/local/history/anti-suffrage-women-vote-19-amendment/

Similar opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment as well:

"Schlafly focused political opposition to the ERA in defense of traditional gender roles, such as only men fighting in war. She argued that the Equal Rights Amendment would eliminate the men-only draft and ensure that women would be equally subject to conscription and be required to serve in combat, and that defense of traditional gender roles proved a useful tactic. In Illinois, the anti-ERA activists used traditional symbols of the American housewife, and took homemade foods (bread, jams, apple pies, etc.) to the state legislators, with the slogans, "Preserve us from a congressional jam; Vote against the ERA sham" and "I am for Mom and apple pie."[37]

The historian Lisa Levenstein said that, in the late 1970s, the feminist movement briefly attempted a program to help older divorced and widowed women.[38] Many widows were ineligible for Social Security benefits, few divorcees received alimony, and, after a career as a housewife, few had any work skills with which to enter the labor force. The program, however, encountered sharp criticism from young activists who gave priority to poor minority women rather than to middle-class women. By 1980, NOW downplayed the program, as they focused almost exclusively on ratification of the ERA. Schlafly moved into the political vacuum, and denounced the feminists for abandoning older, middle-class widows and divorcees in need, and warned that the ERA would unbalance the laws in favor of men, stripping legal protections that older women urgently needed.[39]

Schlafly said that the ERA was designed for the benefit of young career women, and warned that if men and women had to be treated equally, that social condition would threaten the security of middle-aged housewives without job skills. She also contended that the ERA would repeal legal protections, such as alimony, and eliminate the judicial tendency for divorced mothers to receive custody of their children.[40] Schlafly's argument that protective laws would be lost resonated with working-class women.[41]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly#Equal_Rights_Amendment

I figured this was common knowledge, but I hope this addresses your concerns about this being a matter of fact or not.

mynamejeff

Overheal wrote: »

"some women felt that they occupied a sheltered and valued position in their homes and that voting outside the home would break that family bond."

https://www.nebraskastudies.org/en/1900-1924/votes-for-women/opposition-to-womens-suffrage/

"But as the suffragists would soon learn, women would play a crucial role in attempting to prevent women from gaining the right to vote. As the suffragist movement gained momentum, women mobilized committees, circulated petitions, and created associations to oppose women’s suffrage in New York and Massachusetts. Thousands of women would eventually join their fight."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/local/history/anti-suffrage-women-vote-19-amendment/

Similar opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment as well:

"Schlafly focused political opposition to the ERA in defense of traditional gender roles, such as only men fighting in war. She argued that the Equal Rights Amendment would eliminate the men-only draft and ensure that women would be equally subject to conscription and be required to serve in combat, and that defense of traditional gender roles proved a useful tactic. In Illinois, the anti-ERA activists used traditional symbols of the American housewife, and took homemade foods (bread, jams, apple pies, etc.) to the state legislators, with the slogans, "Preserve us from a congressional jam; Vote against the ERA sham" and "I am for Mom and apple pie."[37]

The historian Lisa Levenstein said that, in the late 1970s, the feminist movement briefly attempted a program to help older divorced and widowed women.[38] Many widows were ineligible for Social Security benefits, few divorcees received alimony, and, after a career as a housewife, few had any work skills with which to enter the labor force. The program, however, encountered sharp criticism from young activists who gave priority to poor minority women rather than to middle-class women. By 1980, NOW downplayed the program, as they focused almost exclusively on ratification of the ERA. Schlafly moved into the political vacuum, and denounced the feminists for abandoning older, middle-class widows and divorcees in need, and warned that the ERA would unbalance the laws in favor of men, stripping legal protections that older women urgently needed.[39]

Schlafly said that the ERA was designed for the benefit of young career women, and warned that if men and women had to be treated equally, that social condition would threaten the security of middle-aged housewives without job skills. She also contended that the ERA would repeal legal protections, such as alimony, and eliminate the judicial tendency for divorced mothers to receive custody of their children.[40] Schlafly's argument that protective laws would be lost resonated with working-class women.[41]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly#Equal_Rights_Amendment

I figured this was common knowledge, but I hope this addresses your concerns about this being a matter of fact or not.

Originally Posted by Overheal
I see it elsewhere as well. During the suffrage movement affluent women even campaigned against women's rights because it would upset their status as unemployed homemakers..

your gone a long way from your original assertation now

and as relevant to this thread as Gemma o Doherty's opinion on mask wearing

Overheal

mynamejeff wrote: »

Originally Posted by Overheal
I see it elsewhere as well. During the suffrage movement affluent women even campaigned against women's rights because it would upset their status as unemployed homemakers..

your gone a long way from your original assertation now

and as relevant to this thread as Gemma o Doherty's opinion on mask wearing

The central point being that even people from the same social class or demographic will oppose better rights for their own class or demographic if it means undermining their own social status. Naturally, this extends to people who are not of a subjugated class of people opposing equality for the subjugated class if it affects their own stature. This was in direct relation to denial of Tell Me How's observation that many people don't "give a sh*t about equal rights for others, they just don't want to see specific efforts to help black people and it is very obvious that this is the case," and an expansion upon the point, with cataloged examples where people opposed rights even for themselves if it meant diminishing a personal benefit, as in the case I pointed out of women opposing the right to vote and equal rights out of fear of losing their status within the family unit. We've throughout modern history seen whites oppose equality for minorities for this reason, with much panic being given to the fact that whites will not be the supermajority demographic within a few decades.

Junkyard Tom

Tell me how wrote: »

People on Boards who go from thread to thread undermining any advocacy for any group, female, black, migrant, traveller vociferously.

Yeah if you took a few of the main reactionaries in this thread and examined their posts you'd see a pattern of anti-BLM, anti-feminism, anti-trans, crying about 'the left', wetting the bed over idiot university students, support for Trump, hatred of Greta Thunberg, and so on.

It's certainly a pattern, a sort of neurosis in my estimation, and indicates a personality sub-type that would be of interest to psychologists.

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

He is, by name, someone who has been called out in this thread for not saying or doing enough. Now that he does, he's dismissed as "another opportunistic politician." Somehow I'm not surprised.

Wasn't me saying that so the point is moot

You do know that posters have varying and different opinions yes?

I still believe he is just another useless opportunistic politician and I'm sticking with that ok?

gozunda

Silentcorner wrote: »

I'm genuinely only kidding...I'm gonna assume you weren't around back then...

I wouldn't worry it too much tbh - we seem to get a lot of that. Some posters around here seem to think that where they disagree with someone - then that automatically makes the other poster a wife beating, misogynist with a fully paid up kkk membership or similar

Infact it has been declared so often by same - its now a long running joke.



The latest bizarre offerings in this vein

People on Boards who go from thread to thread undermining any advocacy for any group, female, black, migrant, traveller vociferously. ...

Yeah if you took a few of the main reactionaries in this thread and examined their posts you'd see a pattern of anti-BLM, anti-feminism, anti-trans, crying about 'the left', wetting the bed over idiot university students, support for Trump, hatred of Greta Thunberg, and so on.

It's certainly a pattern, a sort of neurosis in my estimation, and indicates a personality sub-type that would be of interest to psychologists.

'Neurosis' is about right :pac:

AbusesToilets

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Yeah if you took a few of the main reactionaries in this thread and examined their posts you'd see a pattern of anti-BLM, anti-feminism, anti-trans, crying about 'the left', wetting the bed over idiot university students, support for Trump, hatred of Greta Thunberg, and so on.

It's certainly a pattern, a sort of neurosis in my estimation, and indicates a personality sub-type that would be of interest to psychologists.

Perhaps there's some commen element in many of those movements, that people find disagreeable. The close mindedness, the denial of facts, the refusal to countenance alternative views. The general attitude that depicts anyone who dares to question their "truth" as an enemy, who must be destroyed.

As ever, you exist in an irony free zone.

mynamejeff

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Yeah if you took a few of the main reactionaries in this thread and examined their posts you'd see a pattern of anti-BLM, anti-feminism, anti-trans, crying about 'the left', wetting the bed over idiot university students, support for Trump, hatred of Greta Thunberg, and so on.

It's certainly a pattern, a sort of neurosis in my estimation, and indicates a personality sub-type that would be of interest to psychologists.

anti riot anti murder anti the stoking of a race war anti mindless radical left wing nutjob anti state substance anti chaos anti lots of things

I probably would be pro blm if they weren't racists rioting their way across America and blaming whites for their inability to make a life for themselves in a country where most other minority's have managed just that.

Junkyard Tom

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Perhaps there's some commen element in many of those movements, that people find disagreeable.

No it's definitely a personality type. If it quacks like a duck it very likely to be a duck.

mynamejeff wrote: »

anti lots of things

Indeed, a long list of what they're against which indicates a reactionary personality type.

AbusesToilets

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

No it's definitely a personality type. If it quacks like a duck it very likely to be a duck.



Indeed, a long list of what they're against which indicates a reactionary personality type.

Whoosh

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Perhaps they don't agree with the idea that their situation would be improved by the ideas being put forth?

Their contributions would indicate that they disagree with the idea of such improvement full stop. We can only take them at the words which they very frequently post here and the absence of anything indicating alternative proactive solutions.

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

Their contributions would indicate that they disagree with the idea of such improvement full stop. We can only take them at the words which they very frequently post here and the absence of anything indicating alternative proactive solutions.

You say that, yet are seemingly blind to how your own words come across. You are frequently insulting and dismissive in response to others. If you are an example of those advocating for these ideas, why are you surprised that they face opposition?

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You say that, yet are seemingly blind to how your own words come across. You are frequently insulting and dismissive in response to others. If you are an example of those advocating for these ideas, why are you surprised that they face opposition?

How is it that people get annoyed with my complete opposition to their repeated arguments to inhibit any type of progressive action when they aren't supported with either alternative solutions or actual real world evidence?

Report any such posts you feel are unacceptable or consider for a second that I am responding in a manner to indicate the complete disagreement with a point being made and am doing so in a manner supported with evidence.

I am frequently referenced by names within insulting or derogatory posts and I don't bite or get upset at such provocation.

I will continue to highlight the motivation in such posts and held by certain posters for what I feel it is.

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

Some posters around here seem to think that where they disagree with someone - then that automatically makes the other poster a wife beating, misogynist with a fully paid up kkk membership or similar

Infact it has been declared so often by same - its now a long running joke.

Who? Where? Evidence please.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Rinse and repeat.

Well I'm replying directly to your comment attacking those with whom you dont agree with.

Don't shoot the messenger because you don't like the message...

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

AH tell me how. Even more ad hominem directed at posters? You're now outdoing yourself ..

So let get this right - everyone you disagree with "are fully paid up members of the Status Quo fan club" lol.

Excuse me whilst I pick myself up off the floor - I lost my balance from laughing so much

Need a mirror?

Some posters around here seem to think that where they disagree with someone - then that automatically makes the other poster a wife beating, misogynist with a fully paid up kkk membership or similar

Infact it has been declared so often by same - its now a long running joke.

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

Need a mirror?

No not at all. Do you? I'm simply responding to these sort of daft and stupid posts

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Yeah if you took a few of the main reactionaries in this thread and examined their posts you'd see a pattern of anti-BLM, anti-feminism, anti-trans, crying about 'the left', wetting the bed over idiot university students, support for Trump, hatred of Greta Thunberg, and so on.

It's certainly a pattern, a sort of neurosis in my estimation, and indicates a personality sub-type that would be of interest to psychologists.

Tell me how wrote: »

People on Boards who go from thread to thread undermining any advocacy for any group, female, black, migrant, traveller vociferously.

You're on Boards about a year, that should have been enough time to see the consistency of viewpoints from certain accounts.

Hence my parody of those posts. Viz.

Some posters around here seem to think that where they disagree with someone - then that automatically makes the other poster a wife beating, misogynist with a fully paid up kkk membership or similar

Infact it has been declared so often by same - its now a long running joke.

And that stands my friend ..

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

No not at all. Do you? I'm simply responding to these sort of daft and stupid posts

But you can't show where anyone was called, "a wife beating, misogynist with a fully paid up kkk membership or similar" yet you've claimed that to be so.

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

How is it that people get annoyed with my complete opposition to their repeated arguments to inhibit any type of progressive action when they aren't supported with either alternative solutions or actual real world evidence?

Report any such posts you feel are unacceptable or consider for a second that I am responding in a manner to indicate the complete disagreement with a point being made and am doing so in a manner supported with evidence.

I am frequently referenced by names within insulting or derogatory posts and I don't bite or get upset at such provocation.

I will continue to highlight the motivation in such posts and held by certain posters for what I feel it is.

Calling you out when you're wrong, as they view it, doesn take them annoyed or members of whatever extremists group you label them with.

Whatever validity your ideas might have, gets dismissed because you choose to be so insulting.

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

But you can't show where anyone was called, "a wife beating, misogynist with a fully paid up kkk membership or similar" yet you've claimed that to be so.

You know what parody is as detailed yes?

:rolleyes: and yes "or similar" fairly well describes what I have already quoted above. :pac:

Here's the most recent selection of adjectives been thrown about ..

"undermining any advocacy for any group, female, black, migrant, traveller vociferously.anti-BLM, anti-feminism, anti-trans, crying about 'the left', wetting the bed over idiot university students, support for Trump, hatred of Greta Thunberg"

Justin Credible Darts

Overheal wrote: »

But you can't show where anyone was called, "a wife beating, misogynist with a fully paid up kkk membership or similar" yet you've claimed that to be so.

you practically live on here.
have almost 52 thousand posts, and not once have you ever criticized the scumbag rioters, the violent protesters etc.


In fact when I mentioned this earlier and even quoted you, it was the first post you were quoted by me that you did not reply....you went silent...imagine that.


your agenda is so biased you could not even bring yourself to condemn the scumbags.






You might condemn then now after i have put you on the spot, but the biased agenda of yours was, is, and will always be visible to others

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

You know what parody is as detailed yes?

:rolleyes: " and yes "or similar" fairly well describes what I have already quoted above. :pac:

Here's the most recent selection of adjectives been thrown about ..

"undermining any advocacy for any group, female, black, migrant, traveller vociferously.anti-BLM, anti-feminism, anti-trans, crying about 'the left', wetting the bed over idiot university students, support for Trump, hatred of Greta Thunberg"

Over reactionary to equivocate that with 'being a fully paid member of the KKK,' which nobody has ever been remotely accused of here.

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

Over reactionary to equivocate that with 'being a fully paid member of the KKK,' which nobody has ever been remotely accused of here.

So your OK with the 'wife beating' and 'misogynist' type name calling then ?

Grand so ... :pac:

And yes people have been called 'racists' for daring to hold an alternate opinion in this thread And when that and the above type of ****e is being randomly flung around then its only a matter of time imo.