Thanks, and here is an example of something good that came out of this:
As all hell was breaking loose in Charlottesville, Virginia, last weekend, with neo- Nazis, members of the KKK and assorted other white supremacists and hate groups engaged in a rally that turned deadly, it ends up that a Wegmans that was just a couple of miles from the epicenter of the violence was instrumental in preparing and donating food for first responders.
According to the Democrat & Chronicle, “Charlottesville store managers halted daily work to prepare food for first responders working to quell the unrest … First responders entered the store late Saturday planning to purchase several pizzas, drinks, but left with a vehicle filled with donated hot food, chips and drinks.”
A Facebook posting by the Metro Richmond Fire Incidents said that “store managers halted their daily work and ‘dedicated themselves and other staff to cooking for us. They fired up all their ovens, called in extra bakers and even emptied their freezers to cook boxed pizza for us when they ran out of dough.
The night manager stayed till 1 a.m. The opening manager had carts lined up for us with breakfast, sorted by delivery location. The store practically refused to take a payment until we told them we wouldn't leave until they did’.
“In all, food prepared at the store fed more than 1,000 police officers and National Guard members, ‘amid absolute chaos and with no advanced notice,’ according to the post. The deed culminated Sunday morning with 500 Virginia State Police troopers ‘walking into their location, bereft with grief, yet so thankful to see a 20-foot long counter lined with breakfast’.”
It is Eye-Opening to know that in a situation where racists and bigots and hate mongers show us the worst of humanity and the polar opposite of what this country is supposed to be all about, there are people and places that show kindness and empathy, demonstrating and reflecting the best of the American spirit.
It also should be Eye-Opening to businesses that the spotlight will find those that behave well, and those that do not. There is no place to hide, and so businesses and business leaders must do the right thing.
nope.. I disagree. it is not ok to believe whatever you want.
You "can" believe whatever you want You in fact will believe whatever you want But it is not "ok" to believe whatever you want.
"being ok" is an epithet of social approval.. i.e. what you believe lies within the generally accepted borders of the socially acceptable. While I think this sphere should be as wide as possible in a tolerant society, there are some ideas that will destroy that very same liberal tolerance. These ideas are not and can never be ok if you want to live in a tolerant liberal society. For the same reason it is not ok to think murder, rape, cannibalism or sexual discrimination is "ok".
I know what you are saying...I also dont think it is ok to believe whatever you want (and to my point, it's not going to happen/become a part of our society). But in this situation, it is legal for these folks to believe they are superior. Regardless, that's not really the point. The point is, the protesters were protesting for something that was despicable. However, that does not excuse violence as means to try to thwart a legal protest. I'll shut up now, and we can go back to our regularly scheduled Trump bash.
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Aug 16, 2017 - 10:23am
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
nope.. I disagree. it is not ok to believe whatever you want.
You "can" believe whatever you want You in fact will believe whatever you want But it is not "ok" to believe whatever you want.
"being ok" is an epithet of social approval.. i.e. what you believe lies within the generally accepted borders of the socially acceptable. While I think this sphere should be as wide as possible in a tolerant society, there are some ideas that will destroy that very same liberal tolerance. These ideas are not and can never be ok if you want to live in a tolerant liberal society. For the same reason it is not ok to think murder, rape, cannibalism or sexual discrimination is "ok".
So Trump has finally spoken and named the groups that y'all wanted to hear him say out loud.
Happy ? Of course not. Its now too little too late. Right ?
#BAU
I'll be happy when YOU finally concede. Trump and the lil gang of incompetent idiots surrounding him is not something that I see ever changing or admitting being wrong. You are different to me. You are just misguided, in my opinion. I like to believe there is admission within you and you are intelligent enough to admit when you are wrong about something. Call me crazy but anyone that is drawn to this website and befriends the people here, has to be open minded enough to promote change from within. No pressure, but aren't you tired of trying to hold up the fort when its just not worthy of your efforts? Embrace the love, only love will change the hate mongers.
I'll preface this by saying, I'm not agreeing with how the administration handled any of this.
Nevertheless, there were clear examples of counter-protests violently reacting to nazi/alt right…protestors. This should not be swept under the rug.
Until the day we outlaw nazis and white supremacists, it is ok to believe in whatever you want. If you believe the white race is supreme, fine…it’s just never gonna happen. But to protest against this belief physically is still wrong.
nope.. I disagree. it is not ok to believe whatever you want.
You "can" believe whatever you want You in fact will believe whatever you want But it is not "ok" to believe whatever you want.
"being ok" is an epithet of social approval.. i.e. what you believe lies within the generally accepted borders of the socially acceptable. While I think this sphere should be as wide as possible in a tolerant society, there are some ideas that will destroy that very same liberal tolerance. These ideas are not and can never be ok if you want to live in a tolerant liberal society. For the same reason it is not ok to think murder, rape, cannibalism or sexual discrimination is "ok".
Enough with the philosophizing bullshittery. We have Nazi sympathizers in the White House and you're wondering if some particular group's response to that is morally acceptable.
Actually, I'm not wondering but saying they are no better.
Perhaps this was the wrong thread (Trump) but that was the line of the current discussion. I'm not arguing about trump, or trying to support anything he said (see my opening line - I'm not a trump supporter, to contrary, i think his policies, tweeting...are deplorable).
I'm simply trying to make the point that many of the counter protesters were in fact violent, and that shouldn't be ignored or excused (is that too Gandhi for you?). And to be clear, the magnitude of what went wrong was clearly in favor of the white supremacist protestors.
In my book if you hit someone whose ideas you don't agree with, you're no better. Or if you reduce someone to shit for their ideas., no matter how universally wrong the idea.
You don't think someone might get upset than another thinks they are inferior just because of the color of their skin?
Enough with the philosophizing bullshittery. We have Nazi sympathizers in the White House and you're wondering if some particular group's response to that is morally acceptable.
Actually, I'm not wondering but saying they are no better.
Perhaps this was the wrong thread (Trump) but that was the line of the current discussion. I'm not arguing about trump, or trying to support anything he said (see my opening line - I'm not a trump supporter, to contrary, i think his policies, tweeting...are deplorable).
I'm simply trying to make the point that many of the counter protesters were in fact violent, and that shouldn't be ignored or excused (is that too Gandhi for you?). And to be clear, the magnitude of what went wrong was clearly in favor of the white supremacist protestors.
In my book if you hit someone whose ideas you don't agree with, you're no better. Or if you reduce someone to shit for their ideas., no matter how universally wrong the idea.
Enough with the philosophizing bullshittery. We have Nazi sympathizers in the White Houseand you're wondering if some particular group's response to that is morally acceptable.
Is there a moral difference between one person claiming I am superior and you are lesser, and the other punching that person in the face? Aren't they both actually saying the same thing? In fact, I've heard that direct on this thread..."trump is a piece of s*#t" or something akin to that...not that his ideas are wrong, but that he is in fact less than me.
Enough with the philosophizing bullshittery. We have Nazi sympathizers in the White House and you're wondering if some particular group's response to that is morally acceptable.
Completely different moral universes. Even if the protesters turned up in tanks bearing flamethrowers you wouldn't weaken their argument that racism (and Nazism for that matter) needs to be combated even if it were dressed up in the clothes of an angel, (EDIT: i.e although you might want to discuss the severity of the response, you can't use that to dismiss their underlying premise).
Is there a moral difference between one person claiming I am superior and you are lesser, and the other punching that person in the face? Aren't they both actually saying the same thing? In fact, I've heard that direct on this thread..."trump is a piece of s*#t" or something akin to that...not that his ideas are wrong, but that he is in fact less than me.
Kurtster, you are doing exactly the same as Trump, assuming a moral equivalence where none exists. This is not about whether one group or the other has a greater predilection to violence. This is about one group (whether they be armed with pitchforks or doves bearing olive twigs in their beaks is wholly irrelevant) who espouses quite openly racial superiority and another group who finds that anathema to everything that the constitution stands for.
Completely different moral universes. Even if the protesters turned up in tanks bearing flamethrowers you wouldn't weaken their argument that racism (and Nazism for that matter) needs to be combated even if it were dressed up in the clothes of an angel, (EDIT: i.e although you might want to discuss the severity of the response, you can't use that to dismiss their underlying premise).
I'll preface this by saying, I'm not agreeing with how the administration handled any of this.
Nevertheless, there were clear examples of counter-protests violently reacting to nazi/alt right…protestors. This should not be swept under the rug.
Until the day we outlaw nazis and white supremacists, it is ok to believe in whatever you want. If you believe the white race is supreme, fine…it’s just never gonna happen. But to protest against this belief physically is still wrong.
No, its more like there are so many stains on the bed how do you tell which one is Trump's ?
Want to hang him and everyone who supports him with guilt by association ? Carry on.
There is an attempt at a coup underway. Racism is the excuse. Power is what is going on.
First its the statues then its the books then its ... the people.
Two factions showed up loaded for bear and a fight. The politicians told the police to stand down and allow the fight to get started. One side gets blamed and the other gets a pass. It could have been prevented, but the establishment powers that be wanted a fight, too. They got it and now the worm turns.
I'm sure that you and most everyone else disagrees with the above.
Kurtster, you are doing exactly the same as Trump, assuming a moral equivalence where none exists. This is not about whether one group or the other has a greater predilection to violence. This is about one group (whether they be armed with pitchforks or doves bearing olive twigs in their beaks is wholly irrelevant) who espouses quite openly racial superiority and another group who finds that anathema to everything that the constitution stands for.
Completely different moral universes. Even if the protesters turned up in tanks bearing flamethrowers you wouldn't weaken their argument that racism (and Nazism for that matter) needs to be combated even if it were dressed up in the clothes of an angel, (EDIT: i.e although you might want to discuss the severity of the response, you can't use that to dismiss their underlying premise).
Trump sh*ts the bed and the discussion turns into an argument of who manufactured the bed.
No, its more like there are so many stains on the bed how do you tell which one is Trump's ?
Something about glass houses, rocks and those without sin come to mind ....
Want to hang him and everyone who supports him with guilt by association ? Carry on.
There is an attempt at a coup underway. Racism is the excuse. Power is what is going on.
First its the statues then its the books then its ... the people.
Two factions showed up loaded for bear and a fight. The politicians told the police to stand down and allow the fight to get started. One side gets blamed and the other gets a pass. It could have been prevented, but the establishment powers that be wanted a fight, too. They got it and now the worm turns.
I'm sure that you and most everyone else disagrees with the above.
God I love it when the staffers spend 48 hours arguing that Trump didn't mean what he said and then he bursts through the wall like the goddamn Kool Aid Man and is all I MEANT THE SHIT OUT OF IT JABRONIS!
I'm sorry but this is intellectually dishonest. I haven't been following the discussion here very closely but your post reads like an attempt to draw attention away from Trump's failed statesmanship and the full exposure of his attitudes about race and protest.
All political parties pre-Civil War were racist. Civil rights as a national political force didn't show up in American politics until after WWII. No one party "instigated" the Civil War and the KKK had a grassroots beginning that really didn't have a grounding in the Democratic party. One historian demolishes the major implication of your post: that the Democratic and Republican parties are the same as they were back in the 19th century and even in the pre-Great Depression 20th century: "The party lines of the 1860s/1870s are not the party lines of today," <Carole Emberton, an associate professor of history at the University at Buffalo>, wrote to us. "Although the names stayed the same, the platforms of the two parties reversed each other in the mid-20th century, due in large part to white ‘Dixiecrats’ flight out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By then, the Democratic Party had become the party of ‘reform,’ supporting a variety of ‘liberal’ causes, including civil rights, women’s rights, etc. whereas this had been the banner of the Republican Party in the nineteenth century."
I urge you to read the Politifact piece, if only to read the thoughts of other historians who support Emberton's position.
While a greater percentage of Republicans in Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats, a close analysis of the vote shows that the politicians' positions were based on geography than party affiliation. This quote is telling: "In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both housesis statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act." The Dixiecrats did not force the GOP to turn away from civil rights as an issue when they joined the party in the 60s. No one put a gun to Nixon's head when in 1968 and 1972 he enlarged the Southern Strategy of other opponents to civil rights and racial integration. In 1980, no one forced Ron Reagan to give his first post-convention speech in Philadelphia MS, a small town only known as the place where in '64 three civil rights volunteers were murdered and secretly buried because of their activism. Reagan's speech promised to restore states' rights to prominence, a dog-whistle to those opposed to civil rights, integration, affirmative action, etc.
No one is forcing the GOP to engage in voter suppression attempts focused on minorities and the poor. No one is forcing Trump to sympathize with the alt-right and white nationalists.
Your claim that Democrats today are "Plantation Masters" is offensive and deeply patronizing. Your support for Trump, a man completely unfit to be President, has become blinkered and irrational. You used to post words like "I reserve the right to change my mind about Trump" and "I may be quite wrong about Trump", kurtster. I invite you to revisit those positions.
I hope things on the health front are improving/good/no problemo for you.
Thanks, I had my last dose of radiation yesterday.
OK, while the Democratic Party did not 'create' the Klan, it was part and parcel of the Democratic Party from its inception.
Historian Eric Foner observed: "In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party's infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.<59> To that end they worked to curb the education, economic advancement, voting rights, and right to keep and bear arms of blacks.<59> The Klan soon spread into nearly every southern state, launching a "reign of terror against Republican leaders both black and white. Those political leaders assassinated during the campaign included Arkansas Congressman James M. Hinds, three members of the South Carolina legislature, and several men who served in constitutional conventions"
I am well aware of the Parties changing / evolving positions over the years. My statement regarding the list of offenses institutionalized by the Democratic Party for the hundred years after the Civil War to the 1960's is correct. That is when the Dixiecrats migrated to the Republican Party en masse. My point is that The Democratic Party needs to formally apologize for its racist ways for the 100 years after the Civil War.
This is not shifting anything away from Trump. It is calling out the attempt to revise history and blame all the racist ills of this country on Republicans. That racists are the exclusive property of the Republican Party is dishonest at best. They exist and need to be purged, with prejudice, to use a legal term. They exist everywhere and to say that only white Republicans are racist is offensive and delusional. But that is the narrative we are dealing with. The roots of modern institutionalized racism are being ignored, conveniently and dishonestly in my opinion. Its time to set the record straight and move forward.
We hung Paula Deen 30 years after the fact for using the N word. Her apology didn't cut it. Yes, there is a real double standard, I'll argue that forever. But if apologies are needed and do work, then how about the whole damn Democratic Party formally apologize to the American people for being the original racist party, the instigators of the Civil War, the creators of the KKK, the party of segregation, separate but equal, lynchings, poll taxes and Jim Crow.
Individuals may have apologized but the organization that institutionalized all of the above never has. Instead they hung this terrible mantle on the Republican Party in the 60's with the infiltration of all the Dixiecrats who effectively hijacked the repubs in the South and have since managed to taint the whole party.
Its time, especially before we take this history revision too far. Fess up, Democrats, apologize for your despicable past. You're still the Plantation Masters no matter how hard you deny it. Maybe then we can move on and start to heal as a country.
I'm sorry but this is intellectually dishonest. I haven't been following the discussion here very closely but your post reads like an attempt to draw attention away from Trump's failed statesmanship and the full exposure of his attitudes about race and protest.
All political parties pre-Civil War were racist. Civil rights as a national political force didn't show up in American politics until after WWII. No one party "instigated" the Civil War and the KKK had a grassroots beginning that really didn't have a grounding in the Democratic party. One historian demolishes the major implication of your post: that the Democratic and Republican parties are the same as they were back in the 19th century and even in the pre-Great Depression 20th century:
"The party lines of the 1860s/1870s are not the party lines of today," <Carole Emberton, an associate professor of history at the University at Buffalo>, wrote to us. "Although the names stayed the same, the platforms of the two parties reversed each other in the mid-20th century, due in large part to white ‘Dixiecrats’ flight out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By then, the Democratic Party had become the party of ‘reform,’ supporting a variety of ‘liberal’ causes, including civil rights, women’s rights, etc. whereas this had been the banner of the Republican Party in the nineteenth century."
I urge you to read the Politifact piece, if only to read the thoughts of other historians who support Emberton's position.
"In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both housesis statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act."
The Dixiecrats did not force the GOP to turn away from civil rights as an issue when they joined the party in the 60s. No one put a gun to Nixon's head when in 1968 and 1972 he enlarged the Southern Strategy of other opponents to civil rights and racial integration. In 1980, no one forced Ron Reagan to give his first post-convention speech in Philadelphia MS, a small town only known as the place where in '64 three civil rights volunteers were murdered and secretly buried because of their activism. Reagan's speech promised to restore states' rights to prominence, a dog-whistle to those opposed to civil rights, integration, affirmative action, etc.
No one is forcing the GOP to engage in voter suppression attempts focused on minorities and the poor. No one is forcing Trump to sympathize with the alt-right and white nationalists.
Your claim that Democrats today are "Plantation Masters" is offensive and deeply patronizing. Your support for Trump, a man completely unfit to be President, has become blinkered and irrational. You used to post words like "I reserve the right to change my mind about Trump" and "I may be quite wrong about Trump", kurtster. I invite you to revisit those positions.
I hope things on the health front are improving/good/no problemo for you.
Embrace the love, only love will change the hate mongers.
