Its because people or organizations never want to clean up their own mess.
Rosanne Lamar Bee Left/Right Slugjam
- Thread starter KYtotheCore
- Start date
Sure, there are sometimes cases like this.
But overwhelmingly they are the minority. It does NOT happen "all the time." And it does NOT "hardly get any air time".
And the biggest issue... they are used to discredit LEGIT issues, and to deflect from them.
It just becomes this pointless pattern... like, someone will be like "Hey, there seem to be systemic issues with how African Americans are treated by our legal system" and then someone says "Oh yeah? Well, look at this one random story of this one black person doing something crazy! Soooo... let's not talk about the bigger issue!"
It is part of the bigger issue. That's what you are not accepting. If we are going to go with numbers. White people are doing much more positive things in this country than negative. So why aren't we talking about that bigger picture? It doesn't work that way. If we want to resolve anything, everything involved needs to be addressed.
Huh? I think that "white people" are doing positive things in this country is a GIVEN. Like... obviously. Why on earth would you start a conversation about an issue with that?
"Hey, there are a lot of black men being shot by cops. But before we discuss that, can we discuss how white people have established really good school system, and how white people have developed a lot of great vaccines, and how white people..."
That seems unnecessary to me.
Okay, I can't get dragged back into this today. I'll check back in tomorrow.
All the time? Like every day? Yes, in this country it happens every day. That seems like you are not giving it the amount of attention it needs b/c you don't view it as important.
It is unnecessary. That's why I said it didn't work that way. I was pointing out that if we are going to dismiss cases because they are the minority, then why don't we just dismiss all cases of racism and police brutality because they are the minority?
All I am saying is that the cases you want to dismiss are not meant to be a deflection, they are meant to be part of the conversation.
Me thinks you’ll be back prior to tomorrow. You typically can’t stay away.
It's fine to highlight false accusations in their place, but as a counter to a different incident isn't that place.
I think it's b/c if we're already talking about a different incident, it's as if you're trying to jump in line. I think it makes more sense for people on "your side" to acknowledge what's already under discussion before bringing up other examples. It's as if you're bargaining for equal acknowledgment when the whole issue is about inequality.
Nothing in particular at this moment, nor you, in particular. I'm referring to the typical pattern.
ITT overall, though, I'd cite your resistance to calling Roseanne's tweets racist -- a de facto defense of her -- and your over-the-top condemnation of Lamar based on subjective interpretation of what happened. You've also hammered Samantha Bee way harder than you ever did Roseanne.
But really I mean the pattern. I don't want to get distracted by nitpicking our differing perspectives on exact examples.
Datt. What Roseanne did was worse than what Lamar did. I acknowledged that, not at first, but after learning more. What Roseanne did was worse than what Bee did. I never compare the two. I also did not say Roseanne's comments were not racist. I at first questioned whether the intent was racist. I now believe it was. Can we put that to rest now?
Because nobody ever considers themselves lucky for having a shopping cart with 3 good wheels. It's that 4th wheel that matters more.
Why does white have to have anything to do w/ it? TheDude1 and I are white. We don't see this as an adversarial thing, black vs white. Can we not express concern and address inequities facing black people w/o stopping to validate white people?
Everything involved can be addressed in its place. If you have a head injury and an ankle injury as the result of a car accident, the PT on your ankle can come later. The head injury needs to be addressed first.
It's an example of what I'm talking about and I may mention it again in that vein, but I acknowledge you have the hierarchy straightened out, yes.
I already addressed my intentions of thst comment. I don't disagree with your analogy. But if you have two cuts, one big, one small that are bleeding profusely, they both need to be addressed at the same time.
Is it your place to tell people where they can voice their concern? Maybe it falls on deaf ears unless people make it a talking point during racial cases? What you find concerning isn't the same as the next guy.
Yes, yes. We could go back and forth all day w/ more idiosyncratic additions to the analogies. For example, in the event that two equal cuts need to be addressed at once, it makes sense that you start w/ the first one you come to rather than passing it to get to the second.
At the end of the day, my point -- and I think @TheDude1 is making the same point -- is that bringing up other examples immediately, w/o any address of the issue at hand, comes across as deflective and derailing, not as something furthering the conversation.
Sure datt, I agree that it is a deflection in those cases. But today, today you two are deflecting. These are the incidents being discussed. You guys just refuse to discuss them and chalk them up to deflection even when there was no discussion to deflect from.
Do you agree that things have a place? Yes or no. I'm not asking you to agree with me on exactly what that place is; do you agree that they have a place? Yes or no.
If you're going to engage w/ someone, what they find should matter to you if only for the sake of a productive dialogue. Whatever matters more to you isn't going to help anything if it's seen as jumping in line.
Hey. As I sit in my office waiting on phone calls talking to you fools, I just found out I got a 10% raise. Yippy
What incidents? The NAACP pastor guy and the Texas woman? I didn't realize those were actually the incidents being discussed. They just seemed like the ongoing conservative onslaught of hand-picked examples protecting the status quo.
On the one hand I can acknowledge them as bad as separate incidents and in the ongoing discussion about racial equity, but again, I don't think it's as necessary for things representing the status quo to get as much attention and I'm not going to validate the pattern of requesting appeasement on those examples as a prerequisite to things that deserve to be addressed first.
All the white males committing mass shootings hasn't led to oppressive profiling of white males (and shouldn't); one "dead cops" chant and all of the BLM movement gets condemned (also shouldn't). White people generally don't need the defending, collectively, like other groups do. We're privileged like that.
"your place" was meant as a general term, but yes, time and place is important. We are on page 20 and when a subject comes up that pertains to the topic....sure seems like a sound interval to introduce it to the convo. When you engage w/ someone what they think matters is def important, but if they don't have the ability to also be is listener, it stops being a conversation and starts being a lecture. Conversations are two way streets with multiple thoughts exchanged in between. Someone able to hold strong conservations can easily bounce different thoughts and ideas back and forth without trying to dominate the exchange with one track, single thought, controlling dialogue.
Congrats on the extra $1.25 an hour.
No... I think we do... agree... maybe? Paying undue attention to them is part of it.
That brings us full circle to the perceived -- repeat, perceived -- kneejerk way they are brought up as if to counter and deflect from a prior example.
Yeah, it's all a two-way street and it's great if both sides play nice. As I've mentioned a few times, it seems more logical to me that those in the advantageous position make the first gesture. That's generally conservatives representing the status quo. It doesn't excuse liberals, but that seems like the most reasonable sequence.
But these stories are part of what increases the hostility and divide in this country. The news media can not wait to report these stories regardless if they are true or not.
That gives us a little glimpse that you feel that way. At no time do I feel like I'm conversing from a point of power. It just seems rational and important to bring up when discussing things. At times it might seem like bringing up a counter point is dismissive of the original point----but both sides have the opportunity to acknowledge the very real problem both pose. Its good to be heard but it is also important to not dominant the conversation with your side of the problem and dictate the hierarchy of importance.
Like how Dude dismisses it being a real problem, then saying it doesn't happen very often (every day), then acting like it gets more than 1/100th of the coverage. Thats not acknowledgment....its dismissal.
Last edited:
****er. I fought for TWO YEARS to get a 2.8% raise, and that's AFTER I got hit with $8,000 more for my health care
Seriously, good for you. There are times I wish I had stayed in the private sector.
I actually work for the county. I am being moved to drug court as soon as I get done with the addiction meetings (on my own time) and there are rumors that department is going to be taken over by the state. I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing. But it means no more on call, working on holidays and another raise. Bigger caseload than I have now, but I won't have to deal with the DUI fckers anymore. Thay will be nice.****er. I fought for TWO YEARS to get a 2.8% raise, and that's AFTER I got hit with $8,000 more for my health care
Seriously, good for you. There are times I wish I had stayed in the private sector.