Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

Overheal

eagle eye wrote: »

I said he didn't say anything racist. He just gave an opinion on history and demographics.
1.6% of the population supports his demographic opinion, lack of history means it's hard to argue with his opinion on history.
And I've said it does suggest racism but that he didn't actually say anything racist.

Native Americans being ethnically cleansed is all that 1.6% is indicative of.

You linked to books which all seem to be about since Europeans went to north America.

Then you didn’t look at them all. All you need to know there is a history before colonization and there was more than “nothing” here. A lot more.

Yeah, all through this thread and any of the old Trump threads.

So no proof.

There are lots and lots of Republicans I don’t castigate.

Brian?

eagle eye wrote: »

I said he didn't say anything racist. He just gave an opinion on history and demographics.
1.6% of the population supports his demographic opinion, lack of history means it's hard to argue with his opinion on history.
And I've said it does suggest racism but that he didn't actually say anything racist.


You linked to books which all seem to be about since Europeans went to north America.


Yeah, all through this thread and any of the old Trump threads.

Why are you defending Santorum when he admits he was wrong himself?

Tell me how

eagle eye wrote: »

Yeah, all through this thread and any of the old Trump threads.

And similarly, you have a history of coming across as being quite supportive of Republicans and their ideals but every ten posts or so you say that you are Democrat so I must definitely be imagining that.

Aside from Santorum dismissing whatever cultural heritage native Americans do possess, his comments completely dismissed their experience of effectively being ethnically cleansed by those who he is lauding for having built the nation.
I'm guessing there'd be evidence of much more culture and contribution by the natives in the America of today if that hadn't happened as it did, but lets ignore that point.

duploelabs

duploelabs wrote: »

Another dodge, is that 4 now? So what is cancel culture?

Nope, again no dodges. I was never asked a question. You made a demand, noone else interacted me.

However, thankyou for your question. Cancel culture is an effort by (usually) a small number of people to have someone fired from a job, not re-hired, or cause some sort of financial burden on a person (for example by trying to have a publisher drop publishing a book). In its recent form was started by McCarty in the 60's, was continued by the religious right in the 90's early nouties, and has now been taken up by mainly the progressive left.

duploelabs

Hhhhh wrote: »

Nope, again no dodges. I was never asked a question. You made a demand, noone else interacted me.

However, thankyou for your question. Cancel culture is an effort by (usually) a small number of people to have someone fired from a job, not re-hired, or cause some sort of financial burden on a person (for example by trying to have a publisher drop publishing a book). In its recent form was started by McCarty in the 60's, was continued by the religious right in the 90's early nouties, and has now been taken up by mainly the progressive left.

So people shouldn't be responsible for their words they publish?

salmocab

Hhhhh wrote: »

Nope, again no dodges. I was never asked a question. You made a demand, noone else interacted me.

However, thankyou for your question. Cancel culture is an effort by (usually) a small number of people to have someone fired from a job, not re-hired, or cause some sort of financial burden on a person (for example by trying to have a publisher drop publishing a book). In its recent form was started by McCarty in the 60's, was continued by the religious right in the 90's early nouties, and has now been taken up by mainly the progressive left.

It’s always happened, it’s not a culture it’s life. People do things and others react. The only difference now is it’s been given a catchy name by people with an agenda.

Cody montana

Getting fired for being a **** person is not cancel culture.

duploelabs

duploelabs wrote: »

So people shouldn't be responsible for their words they publish?

No, I am bit busy, so have not really been specific enough. When I've time later I will elucidate more clearly.

salmocab

Cody montana wrote: »

Getting fired for being a **** person is not cancel culture.

It’s cancel culture when it’s people perceived as liberals doing the cancelling. Otherwise it’s oddly not mentioned.
It’s utter nonsense people do things that have consequences and the phrase is rolled out as if it’s a conspiracy against the right.

eagle eye

Tell me how wrote:

And similarly, you have a history of coming across as being quite supportive of Republicans and their ideals but every ten posts or so you say that you are Democrat so I must definitely be imagining that.

What Republicans have I defended.
Also.if you think this is me defending Santorum then I don't know what to say to you.
My issue is with people calling what he said racist when he didn't say anything racist. I don't like what he said but that's a whole different matter.

Hhhhh

Hhhhh wrote: »

No, I am bit busy, so have not really been specific enough. When I've time later I will elucidate more clearly.

Do you think Trump's efforts to boycott multiple businesses was cancel culture?

eagle eye wrote: »

What Republicans have I defended.
Also.if you think this is me defending Santorum then I don't know what to say to you.
My issue is with people calling what he said racist when he didn't say anything racist. I don't like what he said but that's a whole different matter.

He downplayed a genocide and claimed that the group who were killed off had no culture. It's very much the savages versus civilizing at work. Which is very much so a form of racism.

Cody montana

salmocab wrote: »

It’s cancel culture when it’s people perceived as liberals doing the cancelling. Otherwise it’s oddly not mentioned.
It’s utter nonsense people do things that have consequences and the phrase is rolled out as if it’s a conspiracy against the right.

These are the same people crowing about free speech.
Your comments and actions are not immune.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think Trump's efforts to boycott multiple businesses was cancel culture?

No, as it refers to the targeting of individuals not companies. And no, I'm not a Trump supporter, a Republican or a conservative. You've just picked a bad example. There are no doubt examples of those on the 'right' engaging in cancel culture, it happens to be that over the last number of years it's been mostly practiced by progressives.

Deleted User wrote: »

He downplayed a genocide and claimed that the group who were killed off had no culture. It's very much the savages versus civilizing at work. Which is very much so a form of racism.

Do you think it's akin to denying justifying the Holocaust?

Smee_Again

Hhhhh wrote: »

Do you think it's akin to denying the Holocaust?

Out of curiosity has anyone claim it was?

Smee_Again

Smee_Again wrote: »

Out of curiosity has anyone claim it was?

Yes, not on this thread in particular, but there was no insinuation there intended.

“Televising someone with [Santorum’s] views on Native American genocide is fundamentally no different than putting an outright Nazi on television to justify the Holocaust,” said Fawn Sharp, the group’s president, in a statement from last month. “Any mainstream media organization should fire him or face a boycott from more than 500 Tribal Nations and our allies from across the country and worldwide.”

Also on 2nd look I should've said the same as justifying, not denying. But the question still stands.

Smee_Again

Hhhhh wrote: »

Yes, not on this thread in particular, but there was no insinuation there intended.



Also on 2nd look I should've said the same as justifying, not denying. But the question still stands.

There’s a big difference between justifying and denying, thanks for clarifying.

I think those comments from Sharp are fair.

Santorum dismissed entire cultures that predate the US and cultures that were largely systematically and intentionally erased by US governments so it’s fair to draw parallels between Native Americans and the treatment of Jews by the Nazis.

Smee_Again

Smee_Again wrote: »

There’s a big difference between justifying and denying, thanks for clarifying.

Indeed, and no problem.

Smee_Again wrote: »

I think those comments from Sharp are fair.

Santorum dismissed entire cultures that predate the US and cultures that were largely systematically and intentionally erased by US governments so it’s fair to draw parallels between Native Americans and the treatment of Jews by the Nazis.

I respectively disagree, but see no reason to take this on farther.

Smee_Again

Hhhhh wrote: »

Indeed, and no problem.


I respectively disagree, but see no reason to take this on farther.

You’re obviously entitled to disagree but if you don’t explain why then I’ll have to conclude that you disagree for the sake of convenience because otherwise you’d have to admit that what Santorum said was both outrageous and racist.

Overheal

Has anyone here who has spoken against the 1619 Project ever actually read the 1619 Project, or done any research on how the material is being used in schools, or who its principle author is? I personally didn't know a lot about this, other than the talking points I get from my reps about liberal indoctrination and self-hating Americans bla bla bla.

I actually would like to know what is so fundamentally offensive about 1619 that the GOP would use government to abridge the freedom of speech between educators and students about the history of our country as told by many sources not only including 1619 but our entire literature of so-called "banned" books etc. and jim crow era textbooks as well. Why fear critical thought?

Smee_Again

Smee_Again wrote: »

You’re obviously entitled to disagree but if you don’t explain why then I’ll have to conclude that you disagree for the sake of convenience because otherwise you’d have to admit that what Santorum said was both outrageous and racist.

I think it was silly but not racist. I also disagree it is at all like justifying the Holocaust. Where does he justify the what happened to the Native Americans? It was a dumb thing to say but it's just as likely, if not more, that he spoke out of turn and as a result of ignorance then due to him being a racist, and it has been blown out of all proportion like often happens these days, particularly in America.

Smee_Again

Hhhhh wrote: »

I think it was silly but not racist. I also disagree it is at all like justifying the Holocaust. Where does he justify the what happened to the Native Americans? It was a dumb thing to say but it's just as likely, if not more, that he spoke out of turn and as a result of ignorance then due to him being a racist, and it has been blown out of all proportion like often happens these days, particularly in America.

He justifies it by completely dismissing it.

salmocab

WhomadeGod wrote: »

A majority of Americans say they view "cancel culture" as a threat to their freedom, according to a new Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll survey released exclusively to The Hill on Monday.

Sixty-four percent of respondents said that there is "a growing cancel culture" that is a threat to their freedom, while 36 percent said they did not view it as a threat to their freedom.

Additionally, the poll found that 36 percent of Americans said cancel culture is a "big problem," while 32 percent called it a "moderate problem." Another 20 percent said it was a "small problem" and 13 percent said it is "not a problem."

The findings come amid the growing societal debate over cancel culture, which is defined by Merriam-Webster as "the practice or tendency of engaging in mass canceling as a way of expressing disapproval and exerting social pressure."

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/545387-64-percent-say-they-view-cancel-culture-as-a-threat-to-their-freedom-poll?amp

A harvard poll finds 64% of Americans somewhat concerned about camel culture.

Despite many here in this thread even denying its existence it is very much a thing that many of millions of people are very concerned about.

It’s always happened they are only worried because it has a catchy name. People have always been in trouble in work or wherever due to things they say or do. The phrase is just a snappy thing that conservatives are pushing to try and make out they are victims of some new phenomena.

Smee_Again

People fear but can’t tell you what it is.

Just what those using it want.

Hhhhh

Hhhhh wrote: »

Indeed, and no problem.


I respectively disagree, but see no reason to take this on farther.

You introduced the point...

eagle eye

Deleted User wrote:

He downplayed a genocide and claimed that the group who were killed off had no culture. It's very much the savages versus civilizing at work. Which is very much so a form of racism.

Did he talk about what happened to them? I didn't see any quotes attributed to him about any of that.
It is this just you putting stuff in there to make it look.lime something it's not?

eagle eye

Deleted User wrote:

Do you think Trump's efforts to boycott multiple businesses was cancel culture?

Why are you trying to bring me into the cancel culture argument?

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

Did he talk about what happened to them? I didn't see any quotes attributed to him about any of that.
It is this just you putting stuff in there to make it look.lime something it's not?

He referred to them having no culture as if it was a sign of the strength of the US. So whatever way you read it, he was trying to downplay native American culture and imply the US brought civilization to the land.

eagle eye wrote: »

Why are you trying to bring me into the cancel culture argument?

I was responding to another poster....

salmocab

eagle eye wrote: »

Why are you trying to bring me into the cancel culture argument?

He didn’t at all

Faugheen

Smee_Again wrote: »

Why do you always describe the ethnicity of your friends?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wFKKxcFxwY

eagle eye

Smee_Again wrote:

Why do you always describe the ethnicity of your friends?

I just seen this now. I only describe it when it's important.
I never think about colour, religion or anything else unless I'm reminded of it which I was in the incident I described.

Smee_Again

eagle eye wrote: »

I just seen this now. I only describe it when it's important.
I never think about colour, religion or anything else unless I'm reminded of it which I was in the incident I described.

And always to back up your claim that you’re definitely not racist.

Sure look, I have a [insert ethnicity here] friend and here is a totally true story.

Beasty

Back on topic. There is a separate thread for Trump

eagle eye

Smee_Again wrote:

And always to back up your claim that you’re definitely not racist.

There was never any accusation of me being a racist to the best if my knowledge. I was just giving an example of racism.
I don't agree that what was said was a racist comment.

That's my last comment on the matter.

If you want to insult it accuse me of something then take it to pm or better still meet me in person.

Tell me how

eagle eye wrote: »

There was never any accusation of me being a racist to the best if my knowledge. I was just giving an example of racism.
I don't agree that what was said was a racist comment.

That's my last comment on the matter.

If you want to insult it accuse me of something then take it to pm or better still meet me in person.

ffs.

What are your, 15?

eagle eye

Tell me how wrote:

ffs.


What are your, 15?

It took me a while to figure out what this was about.
It points to what I was talking about earlier, seeing things that aren't there.

salmocab

eagle eye wrote: »

It took me a while to figure out what this was about.
It points to what I was talking about earlier, seeing things that aren't there.

Like when you said someone was dragging you into the debate on cancel culture?

ohnonotgmail

eagle eye wrote: »

It took me a while to figure out what this was about.
It points to what I was talking about earlier, seeing things that aren't there.

It took you a while to figure out that calling someone out to meet you in person makes you sound like a 15 year old? Really?

eagle eye

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It took you a while to figure out that calling someone out to meet you in person makes you sound like a 15 year old? Really?

I wasn't calling them out. This is what I'm getting at. You are seeing things that isn't there.

Go to pm or meet me in person is not calling somebody out.

ohnonotgmail

eagle eye wrote: »

I wasn't calling them out. This is what I'm getting at. You are seeing things that isn't there.

Go to pm or meet me in person is not calling somebody out.

suggesting you meet in person is calling them out.

Smee_Again

eagle eye wrote: »

I wasn't calling them out. This is what I'm getting at. You are seeing things that isn't there.

Go to pm or meet me in person is not calling somebody out.

Why did you want to meet? Between previous PMs you've sent me, and another time you wanted to meet up I'm starting to think you have a bit of a crush on me.

eagle eye

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

suggesting you meet in person is calling them out.

That's in your mind, a mind that spends too much time on Twitter I'd guess.

eagle eye

Smee_Again wrote: »

Why did you want to meet? Between previous PMs you've sent me, and another time you wanted to meet up I'm starting to think you have a bit of a crush on me.

I find it funny how you can't just post without some sort of snarky comment.

PM or meet in person, we can talk privately then with no audience. I think we could understand each other better.

salmocab

eagle eye wrote: »

I find it funny how you can't just post without some sort of snarky comment.

PM or meet in person, we can talk privately then with no audience. I think we could understand each other better.

Jesus wept you made a snarky comment in the post right before this one. You accuse others of seeing things that aren’t there yet did exactly that yesterday. Are you not big on self awareness?

ohnonotgmail

eagle eye wrote: »

That's in your mind, a mind that spends too much time on Twitter I'd guess.

eagle eye wrote: »

I find it funny how you can't just post without some sort of snarky comment.

PM or meet in person, we can talk privately then with no audience. I think we could understand each other better.

your lack of self-awareness is unreal.

eagle eye

ohnonotgmail wrote:

your lack of self-awareness is unreal.

I wasn't being snarky with you, I was being honest. I suspect you spend a lot of time on Twitter and have developed this reading problem that's prevalent there as in seeing things in a sentence that aren't there.
I'm very self-aware and confident.
I see there's multiple quotes of all my posts and you all thanking each other's posts and you guys are not self-aware enough to realise that you are coming across as bullies. And this is happening all the time in this thread.

ohnonotgmail

eagle eye wrote: »

I wasn't being snarky with you, I was being honest. I suspect you spend a lot of time on Twitter and have developed this reading problem that's prevalent there as in seeing things in a sentence that aren't there.

No, it was definitely a snark. You know nothing about me. Nothing. all I can see in your reply is projection. Very trumpian.

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm very self-aware and confident.
I see there's multiple quotes of all my posts and you all thanking each other's posts and you guys are not self-aware enough to realise that you are coming across as bullies. And this is happening all the time in this thread.

this bully nonsense again?

salmocab

Says you have a reading problem
and then calls you a bully. This would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.

eagle eye

ohnonotgmail wrote:

No, it was definitely a snark. You know nothing about me. Nothing. all I can see in your reply is projection. Very trumpian.

It's not a snark, you accused me if calling somebody out when I didn't. There was nothing in or about my list that suggested that. You see this stuff on Twitter all the time so I said I'd guess you spend too much time on there.

ohnonotgmail wrote:

this bully nonsense again?

It's true and it's very evident all through this thread and the Presidential election threads.
That comment shows how lacking in self-awareness you are.

ohnonotgmail

eagle eye wrote: »

It's not a snark, you accused me if calling somebody out when I didn't. There was nothing in or about my list that suggested that. You see this stuff on Twitter all the time so I said I'd guess you spend too much time on there.


It's true and it's very evident all through this thread and the Presidential election threads.
That comment shows how lacking in self-awareness you are.

people disagreeing with you is not bullying. People saying you are a terrible person is not bullying.

Beasty

The following posters are now threadbanned, as none of you appear capable of discussing the topic - you all seem too obsessed with each other

salmocab
eagle eye
ohnonotgmail