| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mat-ty
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 7850
|
 Posted: Thu May 31, 2018 1:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| coboardhead wrote: | | mat-ty wrote: | | coboardhead wrote: | Matty
No. I completely disagree.
You can call a white person an ape. It is NOT the same as calling a black person an ape. Because there is a history in this country of using ape as a racial slur. A way to put down blacks as being less human and, therefore, exploitable.
So. When you, or Malibu, claim these insults by Maher, or Colbert, are, somehow equal to the insult by Roseanne, it is showing a basic misunderstanding, or insensitivity, to the plights of blacks in this country. That's my point.
You may think it's clever to use terms like "jump shot" in describing Obama. But, that would not be understanding the history of basketball leagues that did not allow black players.
You may think "half breed" is also cute. Doesn't mean anything right? To you...maybe. To a black person it means something different. It is a way to use race as another way to diminish the value of a human over something he cannot change.
If I am "overly sensitive" by your standards, it is meaningless to me. Because you, quite simply, do not want to educate yourself about this issue. |
You seem to struggle with comprehension COBO. I hope you're a better rider than reader. I get the ape thing shithead and have made ZERO attempts to defend it. I also don't deny my name calling. Again read before you criticize or you will continue to make an ass of yourself |
Yet, you continue to use slurs like "half breed" and "jump shot" as well as "chink". I gave you opportunity to retract them when I provided historical context. Your answer is to use them again to piss me off. Then call me overly sensitive.
So. Matty. I have a difficult time taking you seriously. Why do you need to use a racial term when you comment about someone you don't like? You don't have to use "chink" when discussing the Chinese unfair trade practices. It just comes across as you hating Chinese and, frankly, I dismiss it all. |
I would love to hear some of the names you call Trump. My guess is they are equally as offensive, if not worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2018 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matty knows racism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14883
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2018 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mat-ty wrote: | | coboardhead wrote: | | mat-ty wrote: | | coboardhead wrote: | Matty
No. I completely disagree.
You can call a white person an ape. It is NOT the same as calling a black person an ape. Because there is a history in this country of using ape as a racial slur. A way to put down blacks as being less human and, therefore, exploitable.
So. When you, or Malibu, claim these insults by Maher, or Colbert, are, somehow equal to the insult by Roseanne, it is showing a basic misunderstanding, or insensitivity, to the plights of blacks in this country. That's my point.
You may think it's clever to use terms like "jump shot" in describing Obama. But, that would not be understanding the history of basketball leagues that did not allow black players.
You may think "half breed" is also cute. Doesn't mean anything right? To you...maybe. To a black person it means something different. It is a way to use race as another way to diminish the value of a human over something he cannot change.
If I am "overly sensitive" by your standards, it is meaningless to me. Because you, quite simply, do not want to educate yourself about this issue. |
You seem to struggle with comprehension COBO. I hope you're a better rider than reader. I get the ape thing shithead and have made ZERO attempts to defend it. I also don't deny my name calling. Again read before you criticize or you will continue to make an ass of yourself |
Yet, you continue to use slurs like "half breed" and "jump shot" as well as "chink". I gave you opportunity to retract them when I provided historical context. Your answer is to use them again to piss me off. Then call me overly sensitive.
So. Matty. I have a difficult time taking you seriously. Why do you need to use a racial term when you comment about someone you don't like? You don't have to use "chink" when discussing the Chinese unfair trade practices. It just comes across as you hating Chinese and, frankly, I dismiss it all. |
I would love to hear some of the names you call Trump. My guess is they are equally as offensive, if not worse. |
oh that white man is the real victim BS...
do you call your wife a c---? or a whore? I mean you especially probably do, but I mean to her face in a deragtory fashion...
you been out grabbing some pussy lately on your friends daughters and wives?
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14883
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2018 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 wrote: | Someday, maybe, xxxx will learn how to shrink the size of his pics
so that the format of this forum doesn't always get fucked up, but I'm not
holding my breath.
I altered my post so that it could be read w/o horizontal scrolling. |
Some of us own real mens monitors.... I mean my monitor is so big and has such high resolution that it makes yours and trumps seem tiny.
But back to the post if ever one needed to stand tall that picture does.....
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9300
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2018 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They must have interviewed Matty:
| Quote: | A new study finds that Trump voters weren’t losing income or jobs. Instead, they were concerned about their place in the world.
OLGA KHAZAN APR 23, 2018 SCIENCE
For the past 18 months, many political scientists have been seized by one question: Less-educated whites were President Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters. But why, exactly?
Was their vote some sort of cri de coeur about a changing economy that had left them behind? Or was the motivating sentiment something more complex and, frankly, something harder for policy makers to address?
After analyzing in-depth survey data from 2012 and 2016, the University of Pennsylvania political scientist Diana C. Mutz argues that it’s the latter. In a new article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, she added her conclusion to the growing body of evidence that the 2016 election was not about economic hardship.
“Instead,” she writes, “it was about dominant groups that felt threatened by change and a candidate who took advantage of that trend.”
“For the first time since Europeans arrived in this country,” Mutz notes, “white Americans are being told that they will soon be a minority race.” When members of a historically dominant group feel threatened, she explains, they go through some interesting psychological twists and turns to make themselves feel okay again. First, they get nostalgic and try to protect the status quo however they can. They defend their own group (“all lives matter”), they start behaving in more traditional ways, and they start to feel more negatively toward other groups.
This could be why in one study, whites who were presented with evidence of racial progress experienced lower self-esteem afterward. In another study, reminding whites who were high in “ethnic identification” that nonwhite groups will soon outnumber them revved up their support for Trump, their desire for anti-immigrant policies, and their opposition to political correctness.
Mutz also found that “half of Americans view trade as something that benefits job availability in other countries at the expense of jobs for Americans.”
Granted, most people just voted for the same party in both 2012 and 2016. However, between the two years, people—especially Republicans—developed a much more negative view toward international trade. In 2012, the two parties seemed roughly similar on trade, but in 2016, Hillary Clinton’s views on trade and on “China as a threat” were much further away from the views of the average American than were Trump’s.
Mutz examined voters whose incomes declined, or didn’t increase much, or who lost their jobs, or who were concerned about expenses, or who thought they had been personally hurt by trade. None of those things motivated people to switch from voting for Obama in 2012 to supporting Trump in 2016. Indeed, manufacturing employment in the United States has actually increased somewhat since 2010. And as my colleague Adam Serwer has pointed out, “Clinton defeated Trump handily among Americans making less than $50,000 a year.”
Meanwhile, a few things did correlate with support for Trump: a voter’s desire for their group to be dominant, as well as how much they disagreed with Clinton’s views on trade and China. Trump supporters were also more likely than Clinton voters to feel that “the American way of life is threatened,” and that high-status groups, like men, Christians, and whites, are discriminated against.
The Nationalist's Delusion
The Precarious Masculinity of 2016 Voters
White Evangelicals Believe They Face More Discrimination Than Muslims
This unfounded sense of persecution is far from rare, and it seems to be heightened during moments of societal change. As my colleague Emma Green has written, white evangelicals see more discrimination against Christians than Muslims in the United States, and 79 percent of white working-class voters who had anxieties about the “American way of life” chose Trump over Clinton. As I pointed out in the fall of 2016, several surveys showed many men supported Trump because they felt their status in society was threatened, and that Trump would restore it. Even the education gap in support for Trump disappears, according to one analysis, if you account for the fact that non-college-educated whites are simply more likely to affirm racist views than those with college degrees. (At the most extreme end, white supremacists also use victimhood to further their cause.)
These why-did-people-vote-for-Trump studies are clarifying, but also a little bit unsatisfying, from the point of view of a politician. They dispel the fiction—to use another 2016 meme—that the majority of Trump supporters are disenfranchised victims of capitalism’s cruelties. At the same time, deep-seated psychological resentment is harder for policy makers to address than an overly meager disability check. You can teach out-of-work coal miners to code, but you may not be able to convince them to embrace changing racial and gender norms. You can offer universal basic incomes, but that won’t ameliorate resentment of demographic changes.
In other words, it’s now pretty clear that many Trump supporters feel threatened, frustrated, and marginalized—not on an economic, but on an existential level. Now what? |
As I've said more than once, people who are secure in their masculinity have no need to make homophobic--or sexist--comments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9300
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| My new go to toilet. I don't drink coffee... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mat-ty
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 7850
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mac wrote: | They must have interviewed Matty:
| Quote: | A new study finds that Trump voters weren’t losing income or jobs. Instead, they were concerned about their place in the world.
OLGA KHAZAN APR 23, 2018 SCIENCE
For the past 18 months, many political scientists have been seized by one question: Less-educated whites were President Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters. But why, exactly?
Was their vote some sort of cri de coeur about a changing economy that had left them behind? Or was the motivating sentiment something more complex and, frankly, something harder for policy makers to address?
After analyzing in-depth survey data from 2012 and 2016, the University of Pennsylvania political scientist Diana C. Mutz argues that it’s the latter. In a new article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, she added her conclusion to the growing body of evidence that the 2016 election was not about economic hardship.
“Instead,” she writes, “it was about dominant groups that felt threatened by change and a candidate who took advantage of that trend.”
“For the first time since Europeans arrived in this country,” Mutz notes, “white Americans are being told that they will soon be a minority race.” When members of a historically dominant group feel threatened, she explains, they go through some interesting psychological twists and turns to make themselves feel okay again. First, they get nostalgic and try to protect the status quo however they can. They defend their own group (“all lives matter”), they start behaving in more traditional ways, and they start to feel more negatively toward other groups.
This could be why in one study, whites who were presented with evidence of racial progress experienced lower self-esteem afterward. In another study, reminding whites who were high in “ethnic identification” that nonwhite groups will soon outnumber them revved up their support for Trump, their desire for anti-immigrant policies, and their opposition to political correctness.
Mutz also found that “half of Americans view trade as something that benefits job availability in other countries at the expense of jobs for Americans.”
Granted, most people just voted for the same party in both 2012 and 2016. However, between the two years, people—especially Republicans—developed a much more negative view toward international trade. In 2012, the two parties seemed roughly similar on trade, but in 2016, Hillary Clinton’s views on trade and on “China as a threat” were much further away from the views of the average American than were Trump’s.
Mutz examined voters whose incomes declined, or didn’t increase much, or who lost their jobs, or who were concerned about expenses, or who thought they had been personally hurt by trade. None of those things motivated people to switch from voting for Obama in 2012 to supporting Trump in 2016. Indeed, manufacturing employment in the United States has actually increased somewhat since 2010. And as my colleague Adam Serwer has pointed out, “Clinton defeated Trump handily among Americans making less than $50,000 a year.”
Meanwhile, a few things did correlate with support for Trump: a voter’s desire for their group to be dominant, as well as how much they disagreed with Clinton’s views on trade and China. Trump supporters were also more likely than Clinton voters to feel that “the American way of life is threatened,” and that high-status groups, like men, Christians, and whites, are discriminated against.
The Nationalist's Delusion
The Precarious Masculinity of 2016 Voters
White Evangelicals Believe They Face More Discrimination Than Muslims
This unfounded sense of persecution is far from rare, and it seems to be heightened during moments of societal change. As my colleague Emma Green has written, white evangelicals see more discrimination against Christians than Muslims in the United States, and 79 percent of white working-class voters who had anxieties about the “American way of life” chose Trump over Clinton. As I pointed out in the fall of 2016, several surveys showed many men supported Trump because they felt their status in society was threatened, and that Trump would restore it. Even the education gap in support for Trump disappears, according to one analysis, if you account for the fact that non-college-educated whites are simply more likely to affirm racist views than those with college degrees. (At the most extreme end, white supremacists also use victimhood to further their cause.)
These why-did-people-vote-for-Trump studies are clarifying, but also a little bit unsatisfying, from the point of view of a politician. They dispel the fiction—to use another 2016 meme—that the majority of Trump supporters are disenfranchised victims of capitalism’s cruelties. At the same time, deep-seated psychological resentment is harder for policy makers to address than an overly meager disability check. You can teach out-of-work coal miners to code, but you may not be able to convince them to embrace changing racial and gender norms. You can offer universal basic incomes, but that won’t ameliorate resentment of demographic changes.
In other words, it’s now pretty clear that many Trump supporters feel threatened, frustrated, and marginalized—not on an economic, but on an existential level. Now what? |
As I've said more than once, people who are secure in their masculinity have no need to make homophobic--or sexist--comments. |
18 months later and poor old dumb Mac is still trying to figure out what happenend. But by all means continue with the bigotry it"s working great for us....
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mat-ty
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 7850
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MalibuGuru wrote: | | My new go to toilet. I don't drink coffee... |
Never stepped foot in one of those café latte mocha airhead cafes... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wsurfer
Joined: 17 Aug 2000
Posts: 1635
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mat-ty wrote: | | MalibuGuru wrote: | | My new go to toilet. I don't drink coffee... |
Never stepped foot in one of those café latte mocha airhead cafes... |
Maybe you two can meet in a public toilet somewhere...interesting encounter!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
