Jump to content
Null

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Who knows? Maybe ANTIFA said they were going to show up or something. 

You sure have made a lot of posts on the topic if you don't know.

 

Edited by Proud Tiger
Link to post
Share on other sites




  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's difficult to believe that this explanation is necessary for an educated adult.

And there it is. The nitty gritty rhetoric of the alt-right exposing it's ugly head. "White people are the victims here! We're not being treated fairly!" The NAACP still exists for a reason. It d

It's also disturbing the event was a sellout.

23 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Now that is BS, like it or not. You inject the black and Jewish issues. 

I inject black and Jewish issues because they are the focus of his hate. Those two statements were lifted from him directly. 

Quote

Tell me.....why should a white group be placed in a different than the Black Lives Matter group?

What ICHY said. While there are a small number of black supremecy groups out there, the vast majority, including BLM seek equality, not supremacy. 

Edited by Bigbens42
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

You sure have made a lot of posts on the topic if you don't know.

I take the word of the city and university at face value. If they say there's a possibility of danger, I listen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bigbens42 said:

I inject black and Jewish issues because they are the focus of his hate. 

What ICHY said. While there are a small number of black supremecy groups out there, the vast majority, including BLM seek equality, not supremacy. 

I have no idea what ICHY said since he is on my ignore list. But I say baloney to what you say. Blacks have  much bigger recognition groups than white. There is the NCAAP, political to the core and not so much about equality anymore. Heck we have Black History MONTH. Do whites have even a day?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

I take the word of the city and university at face value. If they say there's a possibility of danger, I listen. 

Believe me, living in Auburn and being invoved in both city and university affairs, that is a big mistake on your part. Ask autigeremt  But I will ask you again, what do you think the danger was....from Auburn students or what?

Edited by Proud Tiger
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Believe me, living in Aubur and being invovled in both city and university affairs, that is a big mistake own your part. ask autigerment.  But I will ask you again, what do you think the danger was....from Auburn students or what?

Already answered. My answer is "I do not know."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bigbens42 said:

Already answered. My answer is "I do not know."

And there in lies the problem. I can tell you that a big majority of Auburn profs are very liberal or socialists. I don't know either but I don't doubt for a minute they just didn't want the guy speaking and "created" a "danger." In any event I'm off to bed. Hope you and your family have a blessed Easter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to love the irony in,,,the guy who wants free speech for hate, bragging about his ignore list and, asking for someone to be banned for no other reason than being politically left.

Edited by icanthearyou
  • Like 2
  • Facepalm 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I have no idea what ICHY said since he is on my ignore list. But I say baloney to what you say. Blacks have  much bigger recognition groups than white. There is the NCAAP, political to the core and not so much about equality anymore. Heck we have Black History MONTH. Do whites have even a day?

And there it is. The nitty gritty rhetoric of the alt-right exposing it's ugly head. "White people are the victims here! We're not being treated fairly!"

The NAACP still exists for a reason. It does a lot of good at the local level, running scholarships and helping give national attention to local issues

Regarding black history month, the short answer is “every day is white history day.”

Historical attention in the US is most often given to white people. White politicians, white leaders of industry, social and economic trends which were of greatest concern to white people or the impact of those trends on white people and so on. For any discussion of historical events to be primarily about the doings and concerns of people who somehow happen to be, white is the default condition.

Sometimes this is a consequence of a selection of topics which happens to exclude people who aren’t white men. For example, until recently all of our leading political figures, military leaders, industrialists and so on were white and even now the majority still are. That is a consequence of racism in the processes of selecting such people, but it’s not like someone discussing the personalities of the members of Lincoln’s cabinet can avoid talking exclusively about white men. And sometimes it’s more direct erasure of non-white people from places where they were active.

It presents a picture of history which is very white. Things like black history month act as a corrective. They’re a reminder that other people were there too, and that our history isn’t just one of wealthy white male legislators directing a white population which may have had a few non-white people on the fringes who didn’t matter. These people had their own lives and their own reactions to what was going on around them. They also contributed in ways that are sometimes overlooked. There are, for example, people (mostly white, of course) who regard emancipation as a gift given from whites to blacks, entirely ignoring generations of black activism in the run up to the civil war. There are those who think of America as a white Anglo country ignoring that we’ve always had a black minority. Those people are being ignored. Some are even completely unknown, when every school child knows about Washington and Jefferson. And that’s why we need to have black history month, but not white history day. We know about the white folks already. It’s the others who could use a little attention.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

And there it is. The nitty gritty rhetoric of the alt-right exposing it's ugly head. "White people are the victims here! We're not being treated fairly!"

The NAACP still exists for a reason. It does a lot of good at the local level, running scholarships and helping give national attention to local issues

Regarding black history month, the short answer is “every day is white history day.”

Historical attention in the US is most often given to white people. White politicians, white leaders of industry, social and economic trends which were of greatest concern to white people or the impact of those trends on white people and so on. For any discussion of historical events to be primarily about the doings and concerns of people who somehow happen to be, white is the default condition.

Sometimes this is a consequence of a selection of topics which happens to exclude people who aren’t white men. For example, until recently all of our leading political figures, military leaders, industrialists and so on were white and even now the majority still are. That is a consequence of racism in the processes of selecting such people, but it’s not like someone discussing the personalities of the members of Lincoln’s cabinet can avoid talking exclusively about white men. And sometimes it’s more direct erasure of non-white people from places where they were active.

It presents a picture of history which is very white. Things like black history month act as a corrective. They’re a reminder that other people were there too, and that our history isn’t just one of wealthy white male legislators directing a white population which may have had a few non-white people on the fringes who didn’t matter. These people had their own lives and their own reactions to what was going on around them. They also contributed in ways that are sometimes overlooked. There are, for example, people (mostly white, of course) who regard emancipation as a gift given from whites to blacks, entirely ignoring generations of black activism in the run up to the civil war. There are those who think of America as a white Anglo country ignoring that we’ve always had a black minority. Those people are being ignored. Some are even completely unknown, when every school child knows about Washington and Jefferson. And that’s why we need to have black history month, but not white history day. We know about the white folks already. It’s the others who could use a little attention.

It's difficult to believe that this explanation is necessary for an educated adult.

  • Like 6
  • Facepalm 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

And there in lies the problem. I can tell you that a big majority of Auburn profs are very liberal or socialists.

Auburn is about as conservative as a University can get. We're pretty routinely at the top of the list.

13 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I don't know either

Good!

13 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

but I don't doubt for a minute they just didn't want the guy speaking and "created" a "danger."

But that's a weird way to follow up "I don't know."

13 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

In any event I'm off to bed.

Night, Proud.

13 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Hope you and your family have a blessed Easter.

You do the same. About to go do my girls' baskets. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

And there in lies the problem. I can tell you that a big majority of Auburn profs are very liberal or socialists. I don't know either but I don't doubt for a minute they just didn't want the guy speaking and "created" a "danger." In any event I'm off to bed. Hope you and your family have a blessed Easter.

Plenty of socialists & liberals are pro free speech but are racists for equality and liberty,nope. Alt right views border on racism and that's an issue. Because liberty loving people don't want want a racist speaking on their college, it doesn't mean they are an enemy or evil.

Glad that guy isn't associated with our alma mater. He should not allowed near our school to spew hate. Take that crap to Tuscalooser.

Edited by Randman5000
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Randman5000 said:

Plenty of socialists & liberals are pro free speech but are racists for equality and liberty,nope. Your alt right views border on racism and that's the issue. Because liberty loving people don't want want a racist speaking on their college, it doesn't mean they are an enemy.

Glad that guy isn't associated with our alma mater. Take that crap to Tuscalooser.

There's an instinctive revulsion to such rhetoric that seems to be disappearing among certain groups, particularly younger folks, these days.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

And there it is. The nitty gritty rhetoric of the alt-right exposing it's ugly head. "White people are the victims here! We're not being treated fairly!"

The NAACP still exists for a reason. It does a lot of good at the local level, running scholarships and helping give national attention to local issues

Regarding black history month, the short answer is “every day is white history day.”

Historical attention in the US is most often given to white people. White politicians, white leaders of industry, social and economic trends which were of greatest concern to white people or the impact of those trends on white people and so on. For any discussion of historical events to be primarily about the doings and concerns of people who somehow happen to be, white is the default condition.

Sometimes this is a consequence of a selection of topics which happens to exclude people who aren’t white men. For example, until recently all of our leading political figures, military leaders, industrialists and so on were white and even now the majority still are. That is a consequence of racism in the processes of selecting such people, but it’s not like someone discussing the personalities of the members of Lincoln’s cabinet can avoid talking exclusively about white men. And sometimes it’s more direct erasure of non-white people from places where they were active.

It presents a picture of history which is very white. Things like black history month act as a corrective. They’re a reminder that other people were there too, and that our history isn’t just one of wealthy white male legislators directing a white population which may have had a few non-white people on the fringes who didn’t matter. These people had their own lives and their own reactions to what was going on around them. They also contributed in ways that are sometimes overlooked. There are, for example, people (mostly white, of course) who regard emancipation as a gift given from whites to blacks, entirely ignoring generations of black activism in the run up to the civil war. There are those who think of America as a white Anglo country ignoring that we’ve always had a black minority. Those people are being ignored. Some are even completely unknown, when every school child knows about Washington and Jefferson. And that’s why we need to have black history month, but not white history day. We know about the white folks already. It’s the others who could use a little attention.

There's a few problems with this. Not saying you are wrong, you're pretty spot on. Just problems with our society.

As a country we should not think of our history as divided into colors. "white" or "black" history, the feeling that a person can not be proud of parts of our history because the person who accomplished a great feat did not share our skin tone is crazy.

It is also never a good idea, and I believe part of our nations current problem with angry whites. To dismiss a persons complaints simply because of their skin color.

(Might rustle some jimmies with this but...) To tell a white man who is raising a complaint that he can not complain because the top 1% of our country has the same genitals and skin color is causing discontent among the 100+ million non-wealthy powerless whites. As we have seen with pretty much any race or genders complaints with treatment.... Some will take a peaceful and thoughtful approach, others will take a hateful or more militaristic approach.

 

 

I also believe black history month was started because racists in power were actively removing blacks from our history in class, whitewashing. Can't remember for sure, but that's what I thought it was anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

There's a few problems with this. Not saying you are wrong, you're pretty spot on. Just problems with our society.

As a country we should not think of our history as divided into colors. "white" or "black" history, the feeling that a person can not be proud of parts of our history because the person who accomplished a great feat did not share our skin tone is crazy.

Of course, and I wasn't suggesting that. Simply that a lot of major figures from our history would not receive the acknowledgment they deserve were it not for things that focus on them. The division that drives such marginalization, while a shell of what it once was, still exists whether we acknowledge it or not, and things like Black History Month and the NAACP that promote black interests still have their place.

37 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

It is also never a good idea, and I believe part of our nations current problem with angry whites. To dismiss a persons complaints simply because of their skin color.

(Might rustle some jimmies with this but...) To tell a white man who is raising a complaint that he can not complain because the top 1% of our country has the same genitals and skin color is causing discontent among the 100+ million non-wealthy powerless whites. As we have seen with pretty much any race or genders complaints with treatment.... Some will take a peaceful and thoughtful approach, others will take a hateful or more militaristic approach.

Yep. This is one of the traps when discussing things like white privilege. It deals with populations at large and doesn't really scale down. The white guy in West Virginia having enough trouble feeding his family and lost his livelihood, does not need to hear that his concerns are invalid.

37 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

I also believe black history month was started because racists in power were actively removing blacks from our history in class, whitewashing. Can't remember for sure, but that's what I thought it was anyway.

That was the case with a lot of black institutions, including things like HBCUs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

I have no idea what ICHY said since he is on my ignore list. But I say baloney to what you say. Blacks have  much bigger recognition groups than white. There is the NCAAP, political to the core and not so much about equality anymore. Heck we have Black History MONTH. Do whites have even a day?

Are you seriously comparing the NCAAP and honoring black history with blatant racism?

Man, that's warped!   It's indicative of racist thinking.

Edited by homersapien
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

And there in lies the problem. I can tell you that a big majority of Auburn profs are very liberal or socialists. I don't know either but I don't doubt for a minute they just didn't want the guy speaking and "created" a "danger." In any event I'm off to bed. Hope you and your family have a blessed Easter.

Highly educated people in general are more likely to be liberal.  

Liberals oppose hate mongering, be if from the alt right or from ISIS (for example).  People have a right to speak, but they don't have a right to force a city or university to enable them if it represents a danger.

You seem to think it's a bad thing for people to oppose such hate speech. Why? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mims44 said:

 

1 hour ago, Mims44 said:

As a country we should not think of our history as divided into colors. "white" or "black" history, the feeling that a person can not be proud of parts of our history because the person who accomplished a great feat did not share our skin tone is crazy.

That's exactly the point.  It's just not our history.

Edited by homersapien
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...