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

Civil Wrongs

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

  • Originally posted by redrover View Post

    Let's hear it for the good Reagan https://ffrf.org/
    There is no such thing as freedom from religion in the U.S.

    ?


    • Sure there is, just as there is such a thing as freedom from atheism in the US. A couple of examples:
      -At a private residence, a religious gathering is interrupted by an atheist -a stranger- who starts to mock the group and their beliefs. He is asked to leave, refuses to do so, and the owner calls the police. Police arrive, verify that the person is an unwelcome stranger, and encourage him to leave, quietly or otherwise.

      -OTOH, at a private club, a group of atheists are hoisting their favorite frosty beverage and talking about how wonderful atheism would be if it were the law of the land. A religious person -not a member of the club- belts out a sermon. He refuses to leave, prompting a call to the very same police unit. The cops arrive, verify that the person is an unwelcome stranger, and encourage him to leave, quietly or otherwise.

      Now, if we're talking about a public area, like a school or municipal office, it gets more complicated. While the courts have ruled that a public school teacher is generally restricted to religious subjects if and only if it is essential for a specific historical event (fe the Protestant Rebellions) or philosophy, they also protect the student's right to engage in individual prayer within the school. The courts may upset the most ardent believers in religion or their opposites in atheism. The rest of us? -Meh. We get upset only when either party thinks it can determine the outcome to their favor, and wind up spending large sums of taxpayers' funds for yet another battle in the courts.

      ?


      • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
        Sure there is, just as there is such a thing as freedom from atheism in the US. A couple of examples:
        -At a private residence, a religious gathering is interrupted by an atheist -a stranger- who starts to mock the group and their beliefs. He is asked to leave, refuses to do so, and the owner calls the police. Police arrive, verify that the person is an unwelcome stranger, and encourage him to leave, quietly or otherwise.

        -OTOH, at a private club, a group of atheists are hoisting their favorite frosty beverage and talking about how wonderful atheism would be if it were the law of the land. A religious person -not a member of the club- belts out a sermon. He refuses to leave, prompting a call to the very same police unit. The cops arrive, verify that the person is an unwelcome stranger, and encourage him to leave, quietly or otherwise.

        Now, if we're talking about a public area, like a school or municipal office, it gets more complicated. While the courts have ruled that a public school teacher is generally restricted to religious subjects if and only if it is essential for a specific historical event (fe the Protestant Rebellions) or philosophy, they also protect the student's right to engage in individual prayer within the school. The courts may upset the most ardent believers in religion or their opposites in atheism. The rest of us? -Meh. We get upset only when either party thinks it can determine the outcome to their favor, and wind up spending large sums of taxpayers' funds for yet another battle in the courts.
        Neither one of your examples was a freedom from religion issue. Both were simply disturbing the peace issues.

        ?


        • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
          There is no such thing as freedom from religion in the U.S.
          Not only is there no such thing as "freedom from religion" in the US, that's not even what the "Freedom from Religion Foundation" is working for. They want to enshrine their religion as the established religion of the US government and enforce it as the only approved religion on the public square.

          ?


          • Originally posted by Commodore View Post

            Not only is there no such thing as "freedom from religion" in the US, that's not even what the "Freedom from Religion Foundation" is working for. They want to enshrine their religion as the established religion of the US government and enforce it as the only approved religion on the public square.
            Which should be just as difficult to accomplish as the Lutheran church establishing itself as the only religion on the public square. Rather than spend taxpayer dollars on who gets to practice what on the public square, better to enforce disturbing the peace and/or trespassing laws if necessary.

            Supposing the two sides refuse to compromise, some public squares might be stuffed full of stone monuments, half of them depicting the 10 commandments, the other half with atheist or anti-religious sayings. Would all that clutter fall under "disturbing the peace" or "trespassing"?

            ?


            • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

              Neither one of your examples was a freedom from religion issue. Both were simply disturbing the peace issues.
              Yes, they are examples of freedom of or from religion on private property. That's why I followed with a comment about public property.

              ?


              • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                Which should be just as difficult to accomplish as the Lutheran church establishing itself as the only religion on the public square. Rather than spend taxpayer dollars on who gets to practice what on the public square, better to enforce disturbing the peace and/or trespassing laws if necessary.
                On the contrary, by operating under the guise of "irreligiosity", and driving the faithful out of the public square like St Patrick's fictitious snakes, you've made "irreligiosity" the only acceptable view. And since no one has proven or disproven the existence of diety, "irreligiosity" is itself a faith, and you've established it in violation of the 1st amendment.
                Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                Supposing the two sides refuse to compromise, some public squares might be stuffed full of stone monuments, half of them depicting the 10 commandments, the other half with atheist or anti-religious sayings. Would all that clutter fall under "disturbing the peace" or "trespassing"?
                We have this handy thing called a census that tells us, among many other things, the faith preferences of the community. And we also have protections that say that, so long as a belief or practice does not threaten anyone else and their rights, they can exercise and even proselytize if they so desire. So, if the vast majority of the population, through their elected officials in charge of public spaces, generally agrees upon Christianity, then there is no reason a Christmas Tree or a Manger or even a Crucifix can not be displayed, so long as the same body does not take it upon themselves to raise an angry mob to pillage displays of other faiths on adjacent private property. If the Pastafarians where the cultural and numeral majority, they could sprinkle parmesan if they so chose, so long as they did not molest private displays.

                ?


                • There is no faith known as irreligiosity.
                  This seemingly comes to a surprise to many but: All Christians do not agree with public displays and crosses dotting the landscape. Various sects have very strong opinions on idolatry , hmmmm it comes up somewhere in this really popular book.

                  ?


                  • Originally posted by radcentr View Post

                    Yes, they are examples of freedom of or from religion on private property. That's why I followed with a comment about public property.
                    That's nonsense. If the same person came in and belted out a pitch for time shares he would be kicked out just as fast. There is no such thing, legal or otherwise, as a freedom from religion.

                    ?


                    • Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                      There is no faith known as irreligiosity.
                      Of course they are not going to call it that, that would betray its purpose.
                      Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                      This seemingly comes to a surprise to many but: All Christians do not agree with public displays and crosses dotting the landscape. Various sects have very strong opinions on idolatry , hmmmm it comes up somewhere in this really popular book.
                      Yes, the worship of idols is frowned upon. Apparently some do not believe they can have icons without worshiping them.

                      ?


                      • Originally posted by Commodore View Post
                        Of course they are not going to call it that, that would betray its purpose.
                        Who's this "they" again? How is it a religion? What is it's purpose? What is it's creed and dogma? What are the requirements to join "they"?

                        ?


                        • One of the advantages of rejecting timeless standards is that you can make up whatever standards, purpose, creed and dogma you want. But since people have an innate desire to have their ideas approved of by others, they inevitably congregate to write down whatever it is they can agree upon, but of course, can not quantitatively prove. And thus a faith is born.

                          ?


                          • "Racism" and "multiculturalism" run amok.

                            Young people haven't been brainwashed by the garbage about "race," as is illustrated all over the world every day, and in the below example.

                            It is just us adults that have. We buy into this non-sense, so continue it. We've all been taught to separate ourselves from others by differences like skin color - which isn't logical in any way.

                            Funny this.

                            Kids know this. Adults don't !?!?!? Yes !

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


                            Here's a new corporate-blunder story: A white two-year old picked out a black doll as her reward for potty-training and the Target cashier, according to her mom's Facebook post, asked her:

                            Are you sure this is the doll you want, honey? Sophia finally found her voice and said, Yes, please! The cashier replied, But she doesnt look like you. We have lots of other dolls that look more like you, wrote Benner in the online post.

                            The mom wrote that she was angry but the little one justified the choice of dolls far more engagingly:

                            Yes, she does. Shes a doctor like Im a doctor. And Im a pretty girl and shes a pretty girl. See her pretty hair? And see her stethoscope?

                            The mainstream press will probably play this up as racism, but I suspect something else is going on - excessive multicultural ghettoism. This is the post-modern claim that white parents can't adopt black children, or that black children can't enjoy playing with blonde white dolls because it will hurt their self-esteem, that nobody who isn't black can imagine what the black experience is like, and now, that a white toddler can't enjoy a black doll. There's also a school of thought that calls a white toddler playing with a black doll a 'cultural appropriation' or 'imperialism' if you want to get really over the top about it.

                            Let me inform this dumb cashier something about little girls since I used to be one: Little girls enjoy dolls of all race colors. I did as a child during the 1960s and 1970s and so did all my little friends. As an adult, my good friend's black daughters love playing with blonde Barbie dolls and they have told me that is really what they want, they don't need dolls to match their own skin color, sometimes they enjoy something different. Little girls don't care about color, they love the dolls the way they are in all their variety and they enjoy using their imaginations to imagine and project all sorts of people. I have since learned teaching kids that black kids should not be pressured to create black figures in their art either - I recall encouraging one African American little girl that her St. Augustine could be portrayed as an African or North African in our bag-puppet art project since he was from Tunisia. My little girl would not budge. She wanted that guy blonde. I learned to just respect how she wanted to express herself. There was nothing malign about it, and no, she didn't have low self-esteem. It was simply what she wanted and she really didn't like being pigeonholed into cultural niches which made her feel different. She wasn't different.

                            It calls to mind that little kids know what they are doing on affairs so primal to their development. They love dolls of all colors. They love art of all color. They like dying their hair the color they like, and they love their parents, whatever their color. It's normal. Multiculturalist pigeonholing doesn't work too well with little kids who already have a natural multicultualism about them. They should all have the dolls they like best.



                            http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...lack_doll.html


                            ?


                            • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
                              "Racism" and "multiculturalism" run amok.

                              Young people haven't been brainwashed by the garbage about "race," as is illustrated all over the world every day, and in the below example.

                              It is just us adults that have. We buy into this non-sense, so continue it. We've all been taught to separate ourselves from others by differences like skin color - which isn't logical in any way.

                              Funny this.

                              Kids know this. Adults don't !?!?!? Yes !

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


                              Here's a new corporate-blunder story: A white two-year old picked out a black doll as her reward for potty-training and the Target cashier, according to her mom's Facebook post, asked her:

                              Are you sure this is the doll you want, honey? Sophia finally found her voice and said, Yes, please! The cashier replied, But she doesnt look like you. We have lots of other dolls that look more like you, wrote Benner in the online post.

                              The mom wrote that she was angry but the little one justified the choice of dolls far more engagingly:

                              Yes, she does. Shes a doctor like Im a doctor. And Im a pretty girl and shes a pretty girl. See her pretty hair? And see her stethoscope?

                              The mainstream press will probably play this up as racism, but I suspect something else is going on - excessive multicultural ghettoism. This is the post-modern claim that white parents can't adopt black children, or that black children can't enjoy playing with blonde white dolls because it will hurt their self-esteem, that nobody who isn't black can imagine what the black experience is like, and now, that a white toddler can't enjoy a black doll. There's also a school of thought that calls a white toddler playing with a black doll a 'cultural appropriation' or 'imperialism' if you want to get really over the top about it.

                              Let me inform this dumb cashier something about little girls since I used to be one: Little girls enjoy dolls of all race colors. I did as a child during the 1960s and 1970s and so did all my little friends. As an adult, my good friend's black daughters love playing with blonde Barbie dolls and they have told me that is really what they want, they don't need dolls to match their own skin color, sometimes they enjoy something different. Little girls don't care about color, they love the dolls the way they are in all their variety and they enjoy using their imaginations to imagine and project all sorts of people. I have since learned teaching kids that black kids should not be pressured to create black figures in their art either - I recall encouraging one African American little girl that her St. Augustine could be portrayed as an African or North African in our bag-puppet art project since he was from Tunisia. My little girl would not budge. She wanted that guy blonde. I learned to just respect how she wanted to express herself. There was nothing malign about it, and no, she didn't have low self-esteem. It was simply what she wanted and she really didn't like being pigeonholed into cultural niches which made her feel different. She wasn't different.

                              It calls to mind that little kids know what they are doing on affairs so primal to their development. They love dolls of all colors. They love art of all color. They like dying their hair the color they like, and they love their parents, whatever their color. It's normal. Multiculturalist pigeonholing doesn't work too well with little kids who already have a natural multicultualism about them. They should all have the dolls they like best.



                              http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...lack_doll.html


                              You can take any subject and try to relate anything to it. It doesn't make it so. People do things for all different reasons at different times. Some children like dolls that look like themselves, some children like dolls that look what the child wants to look like. Some children don't care what their doll looks like, some children want dolls that look different because it's interesting. Even one child could want to play with a doll that looks like them on Monday, then a doll that looks different on Tuesday. How absurd to try and attach blanket reasoning behind why children play with certain types of dolls and how it will effect them, and what it says about them. This is all so asinine.

                              This whole racial thing has really gotten to me. I'm so tired of people being represented by their color. The color of someone's skin has nothing to do with who they are, and I just don't get why everyone doesn't get it. We are creating more and more antagonism with people feeling angry against the other race to point of where people have to write articles debunking other articles and both claiming the other article is racist. The country seems to be completely absorbed with being on either one side or the other of racial tension. Every time I hear the media refer to a crime adding verbiage that a black man... or a white man... I can barely tolerate the story. I just can't get past the harm, of naming the color of the people as relevance, does to the mindset of our citizens. It spins the crime to give black and white racists a view of right and wrong based on color and not based on right and wrong. It creates racists of people who were not because they are being cast in one group or the other and feel the need to defend themselves. Black people are defending black people when they are wrong. And white people are defending white people when they are wrong. The color of the person is being supported, not the values of the person. Black or White. Everyone is on the defense or the attack.

                              What don't people get about the meaning of the word EQUALITY? Why are so many people confused about what that word means?
                              Last edited by msc; 04-18-2017, 04:28 AM.

                              ?


                              • Originally posted by msc View Post


                                You can take any subject and try to relate anything to it. It doesn't make it so. People do things for all different reasons at different times. Some children like dolls that look like themselves, some children like dolls that look what the child wants to look like. Some children don't care what their doll looks like, some children want dolls that look different because it's interesting. Even one child could want to play with a doll that looks like them on Monday, then a doll that looks different on Tuesday. How absurd to try and attach blanket reasoning behind why children play with certain types of dolls and how it will effect them, and what it says about them. This is all so asinine.

                                This whole racial thing has really gotten to me. I'm so tired of people being represented by their color. The color of someone's skin has nothing to do with who they are, and I just don't get why everyone doesn't get it. We are creating more and more antagonism with people feeling angry against the other race to point of where people have to write articles debunking other articles and both claiming the other article is racist. The country seems to be completely absorbed with being on either one side or the other of racial tension. Every time I hear the media refer to a crime adding verbiage that a black man... or a white man... I can barely tolerate the story. I just can't get past the harm, of naming the color of the people as relevance, does to the mindset of our citizens. It spins the crime to give black and white racists a view of right and wrong based on color and not based on right and wrong. It creates racists of people who were not because they are being cast in one group or the other and feel the need to defend themselves. Black people are defending black people when they are wrong. And white people are defending white people when they are wrong. The color of the person is being supported, not the values of the person. Black or White. Everyone is on the defense or the attack.

                                What don't people get about the meaning of the word EQUALITY? Why are so many people confused about what that word means?
                                Mainly because government has decided that you may be entitled to a certain benefit if you are a certain color or you may be able to sue your employer if you are a poor worker of color, or you may simply earn your money by being a race hustler, extorting benefits from corporations with threats of discrimination suits. If it weren't color, it would be shades of the same color as happens in some mostly black countries. Some people are just not happy and need someone else to blame.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X