Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Emotional blackmail

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Emotional blackmail

    Liberals use emotional blackmail to force us to believe what they believe.

    They use it to silence us.

    They use it to manipulate us.

    They use it to market bad ideas and bad people to us.

    As I've said for awhile, they're manipulative liars.

    They've been very successful at it.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ...leftists routinely employ to shame their opponents into capitulation accusations of racism, homophobia, misogyny and the like emotional blackmail goes beyond the pressure of mere invective.

    The key component here is in impressing upon the target that they are harming someone or something if they do not summarily accept whatever proposal is being advanced by the left:

    If you don't buy into anthropogenic climate change, you're harming the planet.

    If you don't buy into the proposal that America is an institutionally racist nation, you're harming ethnic minorities.

    If you don't buy into open borders, you're harming poor little Pablo and his family who only want a better life.


    In the world of liberals, theres nothing worse than hurting someones feelings, saying or doing something that has the potential to make someone feel bad about themselves.

    Thus, if you dont buy into the LBGTQ agenda, youre damaging the self-esteem of LGBTQ people.

    If you dont buy into Islamophilia, youre hurting the feelings of those who follow Islam.

    If you dont buy into the idea of reparations for blacks, you're minimizing their collective suffering, which of course will make blacks feel bad.


    Emotional blackmail has served the left very well over the years.

    Since few want to be thought of as the type of person who would wantonly harm another person or destroy something of intrinsic value, if the invective doesnt get them, the prospect of a guilty conscience often does.

    ...millions of Americans voted for Barack Obama in 2008 for no other reason than in so doing, they were able to count it as definitive proof that they were not bigoted. Forever after, such people will be able to counter any accusation of racism with the fact that they voted for a black man as president.

    ...hundreds of thousands of voters in the state of Colorado voted for former Rep. Jared Polis as their governor in 2018 for no other reason than in so doing, they were able to count it as definitive proof that they were not homophobic.

    Between the marketing that goes on during political campaigns and the ideological bent of the establishment press, in both cases, voters remained blissfully unaware that these men were two of the most subversive ever to seek office in America.

    ..theres no shortage of emotional engagement these days, particularly on the part of the left. Reckless accusations of racist! barked at pretty much anyone liberals dont like these days, wholly unsubstantiated claims that white nationalism is on the rise and other racialist propaganda have the potential to shame voters into making some decidedly perilous decisions over the next few years.


    https://www.wnd.com/2019/04/the-powe...nal-blackmail/

  • #2
    Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
    Liberals use emotional blackmail to force us to believe what they believe.

    They use it to silence us.

    They use it to manipulate us.

    They use it to market bad ideas and bad people to us.

    As I've said for awhile, they're manipulative liars.

    They've been very successful at it.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ...leftists routinely employ to shame their opponents into capitulation accusations of racism, homophobia, misogyny and the like emotional blackmail goes beyond the pressure of mere invective.

    The key component here is in impressing upon the target that they are harming someone or something if they do not summarily accept whatever proposal is being advanced by the left:

    If you don't buy into anthropogenic climate change, you're harming the planet.

    If you don't buy into the proposal that America is an institutionally racist nation, you're harming ethnic minorities.

    If you don't buy into open borders, you're harming poor little Pablo and his family who only want a better life.


    In the world of liberals, theres nothing worse than hurting someones feelings, saying or doing something that has the potential to make someone feel bad about themselves.

    Thus, if you dont buy into the LBGTQ agenda, youre damaging the self-esteem of LGBTQ people.

    If you dont buy into Islamophilia, youre hurting the feelings of those who follow Islam.

    If you dont buy into the idea of reparations for blacks, you're minimizing their collective suffering, which of course will make blacks feel bad.


    Emotional blackmail has served the left very well over the years.

    Since few want to be thought of as the type of person who would wantonly harm another person or destroy something of intrinsic value, if the invective doesnt get them, the prospect of a guilty conscience often does.

    ...millions of Americans voted for Barack Obama in 2008 for no other reason than in so doing, they were able to count it as definitive proof that they were not bigoted. Forever after, such people will be able to counter any accusation of racism with the fact that they voted for a black man as president.

    ...hundreds of thousands of voters in the state of Colorado voted for former Rep. Jared Polis as their governor in 2018 for no other reason than in so doing, they were able to count it as definitive proof that they were not homophobic.

    Between the marketing that goes on during political campaigns and the ideological bent of the establishment press, in both cases, voters remained blissfully unaware that these men were two of the most subversive ever to seek office in America.

    ..theres no shortage of emotional engagement these days, particularly on the part of the left. Reckless accusations of racist! barked at pretty much anyone liberals dont like these days, wholly unsubstantiated claims that white nationalism is on the rise and other racialist propaganda have the potential to shame voters into making some decidedly perilous decisions over the next few years.


    https://www.wnd.com/2019/04/the-powe...nal-blackmail/
    Do those mean old liberals say mean things that hurt the poor baby's feelings Aw.

    ?


    • #3
      Originally posted by redrover View Post
      Do those mean old liberals say mean things that hurt the poor baby's feelings Aw.
      Liberals have done nothing to "my feelings."

      They're not mean either, just stubborn & stupid.

      What they have done is successfully manipulated, intimidated and lied to you and succeeded.

      You've bought into every one of their bad ideas. You've been emotionally blackmailed into believing so many ridiculous and false things.

      It's been so successfully done, that you could never admit to it, because you'll never allow yourself to see it !

      ?


      • #4
        Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
        Liberals use emotional blackmail to force us to believe what they believe.

        They use it to silence us.

        They use it to manipulate us.

        They use it to market bad ideas and bad people to us.

        As I've said for awhile, they're manipulative liars.

        They've been very successful at it.
        ... [/URL]
        So, by "us" you mean "them" -the liberals.

        Though liberals have attacked the entire right for denying climate change, institutional racism, etc., we have a problem with the response by the right.
        -Are you claiming there was never institutional racism in the US?
        -Are you claiming there is no involvement of human behavior in climate change, or that there is no need to worry about it?

        A certain portion of lefties get the wrong response (purely defensive) when they attack everyone on the right for racism or climate change. That's because those kinds of lefties are going for an image rather than policy change, which will need cooperation from some righties to make it happen.

        OTOH, certain righties don't ask for specifics, (aka proof) that lefties did their homework when they accuse the US of "institutional racism". Specifics in the form of questions that push back. (fe) Did you ever ask a lefty who just threw out the "institutional racism" label, what period in US history suffered most from institutional racism, or how severe was the racism compared to now? -Because if you didn't push back with questions like that, you didn't do your homework. In that case, you merely defended a false image of an America always free of institutional (gov't. sanctioned) racism, against an equally sloppy leftist argument that the US was and is "just plain racist" in the institutional sense.

        ?


        • #5
          Originally posted by radcentr View Post
          So, by "us" you mean "them" -the liberals.

          Though liberals have attacked the entire right for denying climate change, institutional racism, etc., we have a problem with the response by the right.
          -Are you claiming there was never institutional racism in the US?
          -Are you claiming there is no involvement of human behavior in climate change, or that there is no need to worry about it?

          A certain portion of lefties get the wrong response (purely defensive) when they attack everyone on the right for racism or climate change. That's because those kinds of lefties are going for an image rather than policy change, which will need cooperation from some righties to make it happen.

          OTOH, certain righties don't ask for specifics, (aka proof) that lefties did their homework when they accuse the US of "institutional racism". Specifics in the form of questions that push back. (fe) Did you ever ask a lefty who just threw out the "institutional racism" label, what period in US history suffered most from institutional racism, or how severe was the racism compared to now? -Because if you didn't push back with questions like that, you didn't do your homework. In that case, you merely defended a false image of an America always free of institutional (gov't. sanctioned) racism, against an equally sloppy leftist argument that the US was and is "just plain racist" in the institutional sense.
          The word "us" in these instances, is used to mean any and all Americans. I'm describing how the tactics of the hard left are used for the manipulation of all.

          [ Liberals use emotional blackmail to force us to believe what they believe.

          They use it to silence us.

          They use it to manipulate us.

          They use it to market bad ideas and bad people to us.

          As I've said for awhile, they're manipulative liars.

          They've been very successful at it.
          ]

          https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...ail#post561651

          The cited article ( see above link ) goes on to explain how these manipulations occur and how they work.

          You're engaging in it yourself here. You clearly don't want us to ever stop talking about racism and being racist and racists and how important racism is in our history - elevating the subject to assure we can NEVER FORGET AND LEAVE THE MORONIC NOTIONS OF RACISM BEHIND. Stoking it like the typical race baiters - Jesse Jackson Al Sharpton and the rest of the creeps that rely on that sh*t for their livelihood.

          Climate change ?

          It has been shown to be a fraud.

          But, like racism, some will never let it go.

          Ever.

          Why ?

          Because it's a method of taking power away from masses of people and awarding it to only a select few.

          Power always attracts people. Some people have no care, honesty or decency when it comes to how that power must be gotten. Read history.

          ?


          • #6
            You can ignore the arguments by simply stating "there is no racism anymore in the US" and "there is no man-made climate change". Have you or anyone you know been physically attacked for responding that way? If so, alert the police. If there is some reprisal from gov't. or a gov't. protected condition (like employment in any public sector), that's a violation and hire a lawyer. Otherwise, it's a case of hurt feelings or avoiding arguments.

            You never responded to the "institutional racism" question -slavery and Jim Crow being the most famous examples in the US. If you or anyone else is claiming that is truly behind us, proceed with an argument. Your response will have more weight if you claim isolated incidents (not the same as institutional racism), but if someone just claims you are racist for making that argument, ask them for examples of institutions that are racist. A few lefties that are used to undeveloped techniques for debate need to "up their game" and find examples -like basing funding for education on state-wide investment for each student, rather than neighborhood real estate taxes.

            Likely you would find common ground on reforming education or other institutions (sectors) that need improvement. Works better than answering canned debating points with undeveloped responses from your own side. If a lefty is so shallow they can't move beyond the "you're a racist" line, just go to the old standby for someone who bases their treatment of people on their genetic background. Tell them, "I tried debating an issue with you, but you can't get beyond what I look like. So this is your problem, not mine." -Then move on. That same tactic has worked for lefties who aren't shallow. Should work just fine for righties who can debate issues, when facing down the shallow lefty.

            ?


            • #7
              I understand what you're saying and am not saying that there is no racism. My thoughts on the matter is that "a fire dies with no fuel."

              It's so very tiresome - to me - that we still feel a need to argue and bitch about something that - to me - is a nonissue, should be.

              The left wants to silence those they disagree with by accusing them of what they are guilty of.

              It continues these foolish notions, because some will be inflamed and led into it. So racism gets worse.

              "Institutional racism." I believe/hope it is behind us. Though I know there are still crazies out there - that's never going to change.

              I think and wonder... maybe..

              Guilty liberals will always try to hide who they really still are ?

              Bigoted, hateful people.

              Only bigoted, hateful people would lie about and accuse completely innocent people of being bigoted and hateful.

              Only bigoted, hateful people would accuse Mother Teresa of "hate speech" and block her speech.

              = = = = = = = = = =

              In the case of Mother Teresa (now Saint Teresa), Sen. Ted Cruz was questioning executives from Twitter and Facebook about their business practices, which seem to discriminate against conservatives (especially if they are Christian conservatives).

              The comment in question was tweeted out by a pro-life organization, and the tweet consisted of Mother Teresas words and her picture: Abortion is profoundly anti-women. Three quarters of its victims are women: Half the babies and all the mothers.

              That was it. Nothing hateful and nothing bigoted. Rather, the statement was grounded in love, even calling mothers who abort their babies victims rather than criminals.

              But it was too offensive for Twitter and was subsequently blocked for violating company guidelines, only to be eventually restored.

              For example, here is a tweet that says that abortion is profoundly anti-women and its a quote from Mother Teresa, and this tweet was blocked. Now its fairly remarkable that Mother Teresa is now deemed hate speech. Do either of you agree with the proposition that Mother Teresa is issuing hate speech?

              What was the response of these Twitter and Facebook executives?

              Silence. Deafening silence. Twelve long seconds of uncomfortable silence.

              Yet the question was so simple. Either admit your extreme bias or say, Of course not! That should never have been blocked.

              But they couldnt.


              [ and they didn't !]

              Already in 2017 it was documented that, For years, Twitter has blocked the accounts of Live Action and Lila Rose from purchasing ads to reach the public. Blocked ads include information on Planned Parenthoods lack of health services for women, a map directing women to comprehensive health care clinics around the nation, and a quote by Thomas Jefferson.

              https://www.wnd.com/2019/04/when-twi...mother-teresa/

              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              We see that it's liberals accusing anyone they disgree with of "racism"...

              ... as a method of silencing them.

              Silencing them and distracting them from who the real racists are, where it all originated.

              In the same manner that they distract people from the racist intents & origins of planned parenthood.
              Which was created to help us GET RID OF "COLORED PEOPLE."...


              ... and "abortion" remains a holy sacrament of the left.

              ...
              I wonder why ???


              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              The party of white extremism, racism, bigotry and white nationalism, the Democrats, has all but erased the evils committed by the real villains, successfully offloading their turpitude onto an unsuspecting party, the Republicans, who stood for diversity, integration and tolerance.

              [ Now they accuse the republicans of what they are guilty of !

              ... they've REdirected their hate, from minorities to Trump...
              at least temporarily

              Now they foment racism .. accuse others of it, to keep it alive, while creating hateful lies about the president ... all to distract. ]

              I would love for someone on the right, during a televised hearing like this, explain to all just who the Democrats were and, in many ways, still are.

              Tell America the unvarnished history of the Democratic Party the party of the Klan, of burning crosses, of segregation, internment camps, dogs and fire hoses.

              It was their progressive hero Woodrow Wilson who set back race relations decades, by re-segregated everything from the military to the mail service and every public-sector department in between. During his presidential campaign in 1912, Wilson exclaimed, Should I become president of the United States, [Negroes] may count upon me for absolute fair dealing and for everything by which I could assist in advancing the interests of their race in the United States.

              He was lying, of course, but many blacks who had been Republicans switched parties because of Wilsons lies. In fact, Wilson surrounded himself with like-minded racists. His postmaster general, Albert S. Burleson, claimed that his, ultimate goal was not only to make the railway lines lily white but to segregate all government departments, which they did, and this led to the firing of many blacks.

              I could continue for page after page through all the leftist heroes Wilson, FDR and LBJ all the way up to the present day Democratic Party plantation owners, who demand blind loyalty from black voters and give them nothing but lies and broken promises in return.

              The right Republicans and conservatives began as the true party of inclusion and diversity of not only color but thought.


              https://www.wnd.com/2019/04/the-part...m-not-the-gop/

              ?


              • #8
                Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
                I understand what you're saying and am not saying that there is no racism. My thoughts on the matter is that "a fire dies with no fuel."

                It's so very tiresome - to me - that we still feel a need to argue and bitch about something that - to me - is a nonissue, should be.

                The left wants to silence those they disagree with by accusing them of what they are guilty of.

                It continues these foolish notions, because some will be inflamed and led into it. So racism gets worse.

                "Institutional racism." I believe/hope it is behind us. Though I know there are still crazies out there - that's never going to change.

                I think and wonder... maybe..

                Guilty liberals will always try to hide who they really still are ?

                Bigoted, hateful people.

                Only bigoted, hateful people would lie about and accuse completely innocent people of being bigoted and hateful.

                Only bigoted, hateful people would accuse Mother Teresa of "hate speech" and block her speech.

                = = = = = = = = = =
                ...
                Tell America the unvarnished history of the Democratic Party the party of the Klan, of burning crosses, of segregation, internment camps, dogs and fire hoses.

                It was their progressive hero Woodrow Wilson who set back race relations decades, by re-segregated everything from the military to the mail service and every public-sector department in between. During his presidential campaign in 1912, Wilson exclaimed, Should I become president of the United States, [Negroes] may count upon me for absolute fair dealing and for everything by which I could assist in advancing the interests of their race in the United States.

                He was lying, of course, but many blacks who had been Republicans switched parties because of Wilsons lies. In fact, Wilson surrounded himself with like-minded racists. His postmaster general, Albert S. Burleson, claimed that his, ultimate goal was not only to make the railway lines lily white but to segregate all government departments, which they did, and this led to the firing of many blacks.

                I could continue for page after page through all the leftist heroes Wilson, FDR and LBJ all the way up to the present day Democratic Party plantation owners, who demand blind loyalty from black voters and give them nothing but lies and broken promises in return.

                The right Republicans and conservatives began as the true party of inclusion and diversity of not only color but thought.

                ...]
                That's a start, but I'd like the right to push back with their take on the issues, including racism. Which "institutions" are still racist, or at least biased against the poor? The example I noted -public financing of education- might be the last example of "institutional racism", but it might also be argued that it is less a case of racism, and more a bias against the poor in general. It really could be corrected in bipartisan fashion, cobbling together arguments from left and right, IMHO. National non-profit organizations providing low cost alternatives to private school vouchers, in those locations where public school systems are basically in ruins. State-wide funding per student, replacing local property taxes (which really does discriminate against the poor). Audits and surveys of "best systems" across the 50 states' education programs replacing much of the bureaucracy at the federal level. There's room for compromise between left and right in that list, but more important, every US student would have the opportunity they didn't have before, and society as a whole benefits. It satisfies the "general welfare".

                The latest/greatest lefty argument, "white privilege" irritates you and other righties, I imagine. That isn't institutional, but personal IMO. No one should be surprised, especially since that perception is several decades old by now. Remember that book, "Black Like Me"? Dealt with the subject way back in the early 1960's. I'd criticize the left's claim that -all- diversity should be embraced, because there are cultural traits that are downright illegal (and for good reason) in the US. Like the acceptance of wife-beating or payment of "blood money" instead of prosecuting assault and battery cases. Likewise, the occasional righty individual's claim that they are "blind" to race (or that it is the solution to racism) is based more on fantasy than reality. Since we are largely ignorant when meeting strangers, then we honestly face our prejudice while dealing with each stranger. Given that prejudice comes in positive and negative flavors, and each person needs to size up the individuals in their circle, then racism fits into that learning curve. In short, everyone can be evaluated on how well they handle their ignorance of strangers or foreign customs. Do they "get up to speed" eventually, or do they not even try? Do they accept too little of a foreigner's customs, or embrace too much?

                As for the Democrats failure to desegregate or do away with Jim Crow early on (the Wilson & FDR presidencies), those two Dems saw Republican presidents during those same decades who likewise failed to deal effectively with racism. By that time (1915-1934), the Republican party that ran and elected black candidates for various public offices had passed away, replaced by a backsliding class of politician who was satisfied with a shrinking -but still significant- number of black voters. What was more important for the GOP candidate of that time -the economic "boom" vote. It was the roaring 20's, the majority white voter was plenty happy with the GOP administrations of that decade, and both parties took pains to take the side of whites if they couldn't ignore the race riots altogether in some urban centers of the time (look up Tulsa OK for one example). If the GOP had paid attention to the "black vote", it would have taken pains to keep that block solidly voting GOP (like it was from 1870-1928). It would have begun to pressure Jim Crow's end -starting in 1924, and developed a solid program to support main street economics. Had the GOP made even half-hearted efforts in that direction, it would never have lost much of the black vote, which started to swing in favor of the Dems starting during FDR's period. Keep in mind, that was a black vote shifting toward the Democrat party which then included a large component of Dixiecrats (Jim Crow), and it was way before welfare without work requirements. Why do you suppose the GOP began to lose the black voter back in the 1930's?

                ?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                  That's a start, but I'd like the right to push back with their take on the issues, including racism. Which "institutions" are still racist, or at least biased against the poor? The example I noted -public financing of education- might be the last example of "institutional racism", but it might also be argued that it is less a case of racism, and more a bias against the poor in general. It really could be corrected in bipartisan fashion, cobbling together arguments from left and right, IMHO. National non-profit organizations providing low cost alternatives to private school vouchers, in those locations where public school systems are basically in ruins. State-wide funding per student, replacing local property taxes (which really does discriminate against the poor). Audits and surveys of "best systems" across the 50 states' education programs replacing much of the bureaucracy at the federal level. There's room for compromise between left and right in that list, but more important, every US student would have the opportunity they didn't have before, and society as a whole benefits. It satisfies the "general welfare".

                  The latest/greatest lefty argument, "white privilege" irritates you and other righties, I imagine. That isn't institutional, but personal IMO. No one should be surprised, especially since that perception is several decades old by now. Remember that book, "Black Like Me"? Dealt with the subject way back in the early 1960's. I'd criticize the left's claim that -all- diversity should be embraced, because there are cultural traits that are downright illegal (and for good reason) in the US. Like the acceptance of wife-beating or payment of "blood money" instead of prosecuting assault and battery cases. Likewise, the occasional righty individual's claim that they are "blind" to race (or that it is the solution to racism) is based more on fantasy than reality. Since we are largely ignorant when meeting strangers, then we honestly face our prejudice while dealing with each stranger. Given that prejudice comes in positive and negative flavors, and each person needs to size up the individuals in their circle, then racism fits into that learning curve. In short, everyone can be evaluated on how well they handle their ignorance of strangers or foreign customs. Do they "get up to speed" eventually, or do they not even try? Do they accept too little of a foreigner's customs, or embrace too much?

                  As for the Democrats failure to desegregate or do away with Jim Crow early on (the Wilson & FDR presidencies), those two Dems saw Republican presidents during those same decades who likewise failed to deal effectively with racism. By that time (1915-1934), the Republican party that ran and elected black candidates for various public offices had passed away, replaced by a backsliding class of politician who was satisfied with a shrinking -but still significant- number of black voters. What was more important for the GOP candidate of that time -the economic "boom" vote. It was the roaring 20's, the majority white voter was plenty happy with the GOP administrations of that decade, and both parties took pains to take the side of whites if they couldn't ignore the race riots altogether in some urban centers of the time (look up Tulsa OK for one example). If the GOP had paid attention to the "black vote", it would have taken pains to keep that block solidly voting GOP (like it was from 1870-1928). It would have begun to pressure Jim Crow's end -starting in 1924, and developed a solid program to support main street economics. Had the GOP made even half-hearted efforts in that direction, it would never have lost much of the black vote, which started to swing in favor of the Dems starting during FDR's period. Keep in mind, that was a black vote shifting toward the Democrat party which then included a large component of Dixiecrats (Jim Crow), and it was way before welfare without work requirements. Why do you suppose the GOP began to lose the black voter back in the 1930's?
                  The whole concept of white "privilege" is non-sense, that I can tell you.

                  You use meeting strangers as an example to show that racism is somehow an inherent part of our very nature. At least that's what it looks like you're suggesting with;

                  "Likewise, the occasional righty individual's claim that they are "blind" to race (or that it is the solution to racism) is based more on fantasy than reality. Since we are largely ignorant when meeting strangers, then we honestly face our prejudice while dealing with each stranger. Given that prejudice comes in positive and negative flavors, and each person needs to size up the individuals in their circle, then racism fits into that learning curve. In short, everyone can be evaluated on how well they handle their ignorance of strangers or foreign customs. Do they "get up to speed" eventually, or do they not even try? Do they accept too little of a foreigner's customs, or embrace too much?"

                  That it fits into a learning curve, related to how well they "handle their ignorance of strangers or foreign customs" ?

                  Being ignorant about a stranger, who that stranger is, has no application to that strangers skin color. Being ignorant of the culture they come/came from, also has no application to that strangers skin color.

                  The gop began losing black votes in the '30's, due to their incompetence & division - again.

                  If the people in the GOP had any intelligence..... LOL

                  Good read on the subject here;

                  --------------------------------------------

                  ...

                  As late as the mid-1930s, African American Republican John R. Lynch, who had represented Mississippi in the House during and after Reconstruction, summed up the sentiments of older black voters and upper middle-class professionals: The colored voters cannot help but feel that in voting the Democratic ticket in national elections they will be voting to give their indorsement [sic] and their approval to every wrong of which they are victims, every right of which they are deprived, and every injustice of which they suffer.29

                  ...

                  https://history.house.gov/Exhibition...ent--New-Deal/


                  Lot more to it, but a very interesting read.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                    The whole concept of white "privilege" is non-sense, that I can tell you.

                    You use meeting strangers as an example to show that racism is somehow an inherent part of our very nature. At least that's what it looks like you're suggesting with;

                    "Likewise, the occasional righty individual's claim that they are "blind" to race (or that it is the solution to racism) is based more on fantasy than reality. Since we are largely ignorant when meeting strangers, then we honestly face our prejudice while dealing with each stranger. Given that prejudice comes in positive and negative flavors, and each person needs to size up the individuals in their circle, then racism fits into that learning curve. In short, everyone can be evaluated on how well they handle their ignorance of strangers or foreign customs. Do they "get up to speed" eventually, or do they not even try? Do they accept too little of a foreigner's customs, or embrace too much?"

                    That it fits into a learning curve, related to how well they "handle their ignorance of strangers or foreign customs" ?

                    Being ignorant about a stranger, who that stranger is, has no application to that strangers skin color. Being ignorant of the culture they come/came from, also has no application to that strangers skin color.

                    The gop began losing black votes in the '30's, due to their incompetence & division - again.

                    If the people in the GOP had any intelligence..... LOL

                    Good read on the subject here;

                    --------------------------------------------

                    ...

                    As late as the mid-1930s, African American Republican John R. Lynch, who had represented Mississippi in the House during and after Reconstruction, summed up the sentiments of older black voters and upper middle-class professionals: The colored voters cannot help but feel that in voting the Democratic ticket in national elections they will be voting to give their indorsement [sic] and their approval to every wrong of which they are victims, every right of which they are deprived, and every injustice of which they suffer.29

                    ...

                    https://history.house.gov/Exhibition...ent--New-Deal/


                    Lot more to it, but a very interesting read.
                    Lynch was a voice of experience, one more voice that was ignored by the GOP that abandoned reconstruction in it's entirety before that generation who lived thru that period died of old age. Too bad, the GOP was on the edge of being a party of true reform.

                    To the point about racism, my comment about getting up to speed regarding strangers should be taken at face value. It doesn't blame one race for another's difficult position; it blames ignorance -the failure to study and learn about what is different from one's own experience. That ignorance is the basis for racism, and a lot of other "isms'. There is a specific reason I go to ignorance as a root cause, rather than racism. -Ignorance describes a general failure of the human condition that is practiced by all ethnic groups (all individuals at one time or another), and it also points to the obvious solution. Thus, no labels I can apply to you, which somehow don't apply to me. Thus, no excuse for either one of us. We both know the solution: Study and learn, period. Those who continue to practice racism despite the opportunity to learn from a wide variety of sources, should be treated like any other person who is ignorant. That is, they should be either pitied and helped if their ignorance is based on mental issues, or avoided/isolated from causing damage if they are competent, but willfully ignorant. Isolation is up to each individual if the willful ignorance is legal, up to the law if it is illegal.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                      Lynch was a voice of experience, one more voice that was ignored by the GOP that abandoned reconstruction in it's entirety before that generation who lived thru that period died of old age. Too bad, the GOP was on the edge of being a party of true reform.
                      I don't understand the R party. R means Retarded ? So they play the part.

                      The D party is no better. D means Demonic ? So they play the part.

                      They both do well, but so misguided are they.

                      Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                      To the point about racism, my comment about getting up to speed regarding strangers should be taken at face value. It doesn't blame one race for another's difficult position; it blames ignorance -the failure to study and learn about what is different from one's own experience. That ignorance is the basis for racism, and a lot of other "isms'.
                      All true.

                      Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                      There is a specific reason I go to ignorance as a root cause, rather than racism. -Ignorance describes a general failure of the human condition that is practiced by all ethnic groups (all individuals at one time or another), and it also points to the obvious solution. Thus, no labels I can apply to you, which somehow don't apply to me. Thus, no excuse for either one of us. We both know the solution: Study and learn, period.
                      To a point.

                      I assume you're experienced enough to have met certain people ( skin tone irrelevant ) that you just can't stand, can't stand to be around them even. But you're forced by work, or some other at situation ( maybe you're related to them ) to be around them at times, and know at the core that they're good people. You're also aware that there are people that feel the same way about YOU.

                      You know, some people we just can't stand and don't like, and it's not because of ignorance. It's because we're people and we just aren't going to like all other people LOL

                      Where ignorance comes in HERE is when we foster hate or resentment for people that really don't need, or deserve to be hated. Those aware enough will just decide to interact less with people who they aren't compatible with. Skin color has no bearing on this. At least not in MY experience. I know there ARE those who see certain skin colors and make ignorant assumptions etc... that's where ignorance comes in.

                      Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                      Those who continue to practice racism despite the opportunity to learn from a wide variety of sources, should be treated like any other person who is ignorant. That is, they should be either pitied and helped if their ignorance is based on mental issues, or avoided/isolated from causing damage if they are competent, but willfully ignorant. Isolation is up to each individual if the willful ignorance is legal, up to the law if it is illegal.
                      Given the human condition, there will always be racists. There will always be all manner of fools, some of them very dangerous https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...or-at-the-mall

                      Which I believe is why a good sense of self awareness is vital to living a safe life.

                      ?

                      Working...
                      X