You know what @Peter? How about we call a truce? You and I will never see eye to eye, but this thread is approaching 2000 views and has completely taken the spotlight off of more suitable conversations on these forums. It's gotten sordid and unbecoming and after thinkin about it some more, it's really no longer appropriate.
Keep your Twiiter blocks in place. I don't care. But I'm going to remain on these boards for the foreseeable future as long as I'm allowed and I'd like to discuss something other than you on here. If you want to continue with the snark and ankle-biting, that's on you, because I will respond, but otherwise it's time to move on.
It's a way to make Caucasians (I hate the term "white") feel like frauds & entitled, taking everything for granted.
Why do you hate the term “white”? Frankly, I find the term “Caucasian” doesn’t really describe me as well as the term “white,” because I have no known ancestors from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, or the broader South Caucasus region. Caucasian is a dated term from a less scientifically knowledgeable time.
I've talked about this before, but the term “white privilege” has become an ineffective way to communicate the basic concept it was originally meant to describe. It's now loaded down—by all sides—with ideas and feelings it was never meant to convey or represent. It now means different things to different people, and rarely does it mean what it was originally intended to mean. I don’t use the term anymore for that reason (except to explain why I no longer use it).
All that aside, it originally was just a shorthand way of saying that today’s whites have advantages over people of color that we don’t realize because of how this country was established. It was meant only to be the beginning of a dialogue. Not a guilt-trip, or an accusation, or a condemnation, just the beginning of a dialogue to make whites aware of the realities of being a person of color living in our country.
"you don't know what it's like to have to think about the color of your skin all the time."
Correct, I don't, but only because I don't give a shit about the color of skin. Remove it & we all look a like. If I inquire "I don't understand why you have to think about it all the time" I'm told "that's because you're white privileged"
I’m sorry you haven’t found anyone willing to actually discuss it with you, as I have. Maybe I'm an exception, but I’ve found more people of color who are willing to have a meaningful conversation about it than not. And if you can, have that conversation face to face, not over the internet. Why not have some face to face real talk with Peter for a start?
Nope. One of my college roommates (for three years) was Vietnamese. Born in Vietnam and came across the Pacific on an overcrowded boat when he was three or four as the U.S. military was pulling out of the country. (I was with him on the day he was sworn in as a U.S. citizen, but that’s another story.) He worked his ass off to get into college, and he worked his ass off while he was there. His mom would have killed him if he hadn’t. And I know it will sound stereotypical, but all my Asian-American friends (most being first- or second-generation) have told me about the high expectations their parents placed on them, and how hard their parents made them work in school. That’s not privilege, that’s drive.
Anyone promoting a sense of entitlement among the “have-nots,” and favoring the displacement of responsibility to others or the culture at large for ones fate, where the “not so successful” blame their unhappiness on those more successful is misguided and promoting ideas devoid of personal responsibility or any sense of self reliance.
Crap. Just when things were starting to go well. This isn’t about responsibility or blame or entitlement, it’s about equal opportunity and awareness. Don’t take this the wrong way, but have you ever discussed this stuff face to face with a person of color? If not, I would encourage you to do so. If, like Matt, you’ve tried and haven’t been able to have a meaningful dialogue, I encourage you to keep trying. Unlike with Matt, I will not suggest you start with Peter. :)
Don't take this the wrong way, but have you ever discussed this stuff face to face with a person of color? If not, I would encourage you to do so. If, like Matt, you’ve tried and haven’t been able to have a meaningful dialogue, I encourage you to keep trying. Unlike with Matt, I will not suggest you start with Peter. :)
Yes I have Eric. And I believe it's possible they may have a different perspective than you and Peter.
The majority don't feel they've been victimized. A few who are politically "liberal" sometimes sound like they do, but that isn't the majority. Maybe it's because they realize how blessed they are to be in America, a land of opportunity, and how much better it is here than when they were back in their native country. Not everyone focuses on skin color, but everyone, including me, has had someone threaten them and included a comment on their skin-color. I think that's universal. Also, it's possible I don't hang out with enough people who have been thrown shade by white people to have developed a sense that all white people are privileged. Look at pro-sports, the pop music industry, and even the presidency - race relations and opportunities are much better than when our parents were our age, and yet "victim mentality" is all the rage in some people's minds. Most blacks I know think SJW's are generally foolish, and the Hispanics I know are vehemently against illegal immigration (but maybe they're all secretly racist?) Those who came from the hood who had no father are far more prone to the victim-mentality than those with two-parent homes and a system of faith. Not everything has to do with race.
Most of the "people of color" that I have intimate discussions with also share the same faith as I do, so I realize there may be some skewed perspectives not factored in, such as a lack of "hope" - but none of them support people disrespecting the national anthem on 9-11 or support the riots caused by BLM. We all live in the same neighborhoods, go to the same churches, or served together in the same battalion, and we all get upset over pretty much the same things. I'm disappointed that you feel that my discussions on race with my friends, co-workers, or neighbors hasn't resulted in a perspective that you can agree with, or that we've covered the topics you think may be relevant, but I don't think that's how it works. These are just everyday relationships, after all. We judge each other on character, not skin color.
Glad I finally posted a comment to someone else on this particular thread that you felt required correction. However, you and I haven't reached the same conclusions on race, but I thank you very much for the "privilege-splaining" anyways. I know you're just trying to be helpful :)
That's great to hear! I should clarify that the people of color I talk with don't describe themselves as "victims" per se, and they also love living in America and realize how lucky they are to be here. None of them support rioting either, but some of them have participated in peaceful protests, because they believe that while things are much better than they were 30, 40 years ago, there is still inequality in our country.
Maybe the difference in our experiences comes from the areas in which we live. Here in North Carolina the state legislature recently passed several voting restrictions into law (which were just overturned in court) that were specifically aimed at making it harder for blacks to vote. And a lot of the people of color I hang out with come from large urban cities, namely Philadelphia and New York. Perhaps they've simply had different experiences in their lives than the people you've talked to.
Glad I finally posted a comment to someone else on this particular thread that you felt required correction. However, you and I haven't reached the same conclusions on race, but I thank you very much for the "privilege-splaining" anyways. I know you're just trying to be helpful :)
This is why I try to avoid talking about anything political with you (or online in general). You'll start out with a great, detailed, reasonable explanation of your position, and then you'll throw in unnecessary snark that implies the person you're addressing is being an asshole. Maybe you read some tone into my post you felt was snark, but I assure you there was none there. My asking if you'd had these types of discussions with people of color was an honest question. It was not meant to imply you had not, I simply wanted to know what has informed your opinions. The Peter joke was simply an attempt at a little levity in a thread that's been rather negative.
I try very hard to be careful with my wording in posts like this. I rarely use sarcasm in posts on serious topics, and when I do, I try to make it very obvious. If you read anything like that in my last post or anything I've written in this post, then I failed, and I apologize for that. I'm just trying to have an open conversation.
Glad I finally posted a comment to someone else on this particular thread that you felt required correction. However, you and I haven't reached the same conclusions on race, but I thank you very much for the "privilege-splaining" anyways. I know you're just trying to be helpful :)
This is why I try to avoid talking about anything political with you (or online in general). You'll start out with a great, detailed, reasonable explanation of your position, and then you'll throw in unnecessary snark that implies the person you're addressing is being an asshole. Maybe you read some tone into my post you felt was snark, but I assure you there was none there. My asking if you'd had these types of discussions with people of color was an honest question. It was not meant to imply you had not, I simply wanted to know what has informed your opinions. The Peter joke was simply an attempt at a little levity in a thread that's been rather negative.
I consider myself gifted with sarcasm, so it's liberally sprinkled throughout much of my commentary, especially in a thread where I've been engaged in a heated exchange. I've just noticed that most of your responses to my posts are corrective, sometimes deservedly so (typing the wrong cover artist in a 'Comic Cover a Day (Is Awesome)' thread, but also here when you disagree with me politically and assume that I'm not as informed or experienced on these matters as you are. We just view these things differently. Neither is necessarily incorrect. You did a splendid job resisting the urge to correct anyone you 'agree' with throughout most of this thread, (especially in regards to people you've actually done interviews with where you appear to be far more even handed in addressing their mistakes). Sorry if my coy ending there implied you were an asshole for doing that, or that I thought of you that way, Eric. If my response made me appear to think of you as being an asshole. I assure you that I do not. We just have different opinions, and those differences are sometimes partisan.
Maybe the difference in our experiences comes from the areas in which we live. Here in North Carolina the state legislature recently passed several voting restrictions into law (which were just overturned in court) that were specifically aimed at making it harder for blacks to vote. And a lot of the people of color I hang out with come from large urban cities, namely Philadelphia and New York. Perhaps they've simply had different experiences in their lives than the people you've talked to.
Here is where you might be presenting your view as the informed view, and mine as the uninformed view. So it won't surprise you to learn that I don't believe requiring voter ID is nearly as discriminatory as you believe. Why? Because nearly EVERY Western democracy has some form of voter ID laws. The law you referenced in NC required those casting ballots in-person to show one of six qualifying IDs, although voters facing “reasonable impediments” could fill out a form and cast a provisional ballot. You failed to mention that the people of North Carolina who voted for the requirement had their votes overturned by a 3-judge appeals panel populated by all-Democratic appointees. There's a partisan factor at work.
When I went to a courthouse recently and walked through the metal detector, the guard asked for my ID. We were different ethnicities. Was he a racist? A TSA agent did the same thing when I last flew on a jet. Was she a racist too? Did you know an ID is also required to purchase tobacco? Or that an ID is required to drive? To buy a firearm from a retailer To buy alcohol To check out a library book To see an R-rated movie To buy fireworks
I could go on, but you already know those requirements aren't racist, or we would've heard that by now. They're in place to prevent people from doing something they aren't eligible to do.
Voting is a cornerstone of our democratic republic and a substantial political act reserved only for American citizens. If people who want to vote haven't been responsible enough to use the two to four years between voting cycles to take the necessary steps to be able to prove they are a US citizen by acquiring 1 of up to 6 allowable forms of ID to vote, should they really even be voting? It's a pretty serious deal.
And you mentioned Philadelphia, were you aware that 59 voting divisions in Philadelphia recorded ZERO votes for Romney in 2012? That's right - 100% of the vote went to Obama. Do you think there is a voter ID law in Philly? You'd be wrong. No ID whatsoever is required. Just show up and vote, whoever you are, from wherever you are, no matter whether you're even from this county, the state, or the country. In fact, say whoever you are too. They won't bother to check if you've already voted. Just vote the 'right' way and don't say anything...
Whether the Democrats want to admit it or not, there is voter fraud in this country, and there is as much, if not more, of a case to made for it than anecdotal evidence of voter suppression in 2016. One could argue that it's FAR more racist to claim that the average black/brown US citizen CAN'T acquire any of six acceptable forms ID in order to vote on election day. And again, in NC, the voters without ID could still vote - if they described a reasonable impediment or difficulty - and those managing the voting booths were not allowed to question the truth of their declaration. For example, if the voter checks “lack of transportation” as a reason they didn't have an ID to vote, then the polling personal were not allowed to challenge the voter’s access to a bus route or other means of transportation. They still got to vote. Hardly sounds "racist" to me.
I get that you may think disenfranchising is a far greater problem than voter fraud, and you may not even believe voter fraud exists, although you can only calculate voter fraud that gets discovered. Not requiring an ID makes it very difficult to catch voter fraud and with somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 million people who are in the country illegally, I think asking US citizens to prove they're eligible to vote in our elections is far from racism, it's logical - no matter what the DNC and vast numbers of left-leaning publications and pundits like to claim.
I consider myself gifted with sarcasm, so it's liberally sprinkled throughout much of my commentary, especially in a thread where I've been engaged in a heated exchange.
Fair enough, but surely doing what you do for a living you are aware how disruptive it can be to a conversation when someone takes it the wrong way. Read you post without the paragraph and again with the last paragraph—I find there to be a dramatic difference in how I want to respond to your post. On the whole, I find sarcasm like that, particularly in a thread filled with heated responses, only builds on the existing tension rather than relieves it. Maybe that’s just me.
I've just noticed that most of your responses to my posts are corrective, sometimes deservedly so (typing the wrong cover artist in a 'Comic Cover a Day (Is Awesome)' thread, but also here when you disagree with me politically and assume that I'm not as informed or experienced on these matters as you are. We just view these things differently. Neither is necessarily incorrect.
I correct everyone on this forum when I happen to know the facts. Sorry, I can’t help it. It’s the editor side of my personality.
As for you and politics in particular, I try not to assume you’re not as informed or experienced, just differently informed and experienced. That’s why I ask questions. I'm genuinely curious as to how others reach their opinions, and how others’ experiences differ from mine. If I ever come across otherwise, I apologize, because that is not my intent. I don’t believe I’m a know-it-all, though I realize I might come across that way. I’m a want-to-know-more guy. That’s why I do what I do for a living.
Here is where you might be presenting your view as the informed view, and mine as the uninformed view. So it won't surprise you to learn that I don't believe requiring voter ID is nearly as discriminatory as you believe.
I’m not opposed to requiring photo ID. I have absolutely no problem with that at all. Even though getting photo ID is a pain in the butt (lines at the DMV, amiright?), it would only need to be done once every few years. That’s not so terrible a burden to ask.
What I have a problem with is eliminating early voting and same-day registration. Not everyone has the flexibility to get to the polls on Election Day. We don’t, as in Australia and other countries, have a required day off from work to make sure everyone has the time to do so. So many people today work two jobs on top of their family requirements—I’m one of them. I usually lose money when I vote since it means taking time off from work, but luckily my schedule flexibility and transportation options make it relatively easy to do so, and I can afford to lose an hour’s worth of work. Not everyone is as fortunate. Personally, I think Election Day should be a paid national holiday. Maybe that’s not a practical approach, but it’s how I feel about it.
I also have a problem with the emails from the Republican party specifically requesting the voting statistics of minority voters (when they voted, when they registered, how many had a valid form of voter ID, etc.) before introducing the bill that targeted those specific voters. You can argue whether it was racially motivated or simply a matter of trying to eliminate voters who overwhelmingly vote for the opposing party—it doesn’t matter, because the result is the same.
I’m not opposed to requiring photo ID. I have absolutely no problem with that at all. Even though getting photo ID is a pain in the butt (lines at the DMV, amiright?), it would only need to be done once every few years. That’s not so terrible a burden to ask.
We don’t, as in Australia and other countries, have a required day off from work to make sure everyone has the time to do so. So many people today work two jobs on top of their family requirements—I’m one of them. I usually lose money when I vote since it means taking time off from work, but luckily my schedule flexibility and transportation options make it relatively easy to do so, and I can afford to lose an hour’s worth of work. Not everyone is as fortunate. Personally, I think Election Day should be a paid national holiday. Maybe that’s not a practical approach, but it’s how I feel about it.
I can certainly get behind that line of thought. The fact that neither party pushes for this indicates all sides are taking partisan stances to adversely affect the voting turn-out in their favor. And if the Democratic party were truly sincere about enabling more people to be registered, eligible, and out to vote, then their push would be for Saturday voting, easier access to registration, and/or paid leave or holiday on election day as you suggest - not eliminating ID requirements to vote. And to their credit, there are some pundits on both sides that do push for those things, but they're in the minority. That still shouldn't be an excuse to eliminate voter IDs.
All these wolf-cries of "racism" just happen to be the weapon of choice for liberals against anyone they disagree with.
Yes, it's clear that all of this tension and snapping is just a roundabout way of saying we are ALL bummed that no one confirmed for @ShaneKelly that Speed Reader was indeed part of "The Great Space Coaster" show.
Comments
Keep your Twiiter blocks in place. I don't care. But I'm going to remain on these boards for the foreseeable future as long as I'm allowed and I'd like to discuss something other than you on here. If you want to continue with the snark and ankle-biting, that's on you, because I will respond, but otherwise it's time to move on.
Truce?
I've talked about this before, but the term “white privilege” has become an ineffective way to communicate the basic concept it was originally meant to describe. It's now loaded down—by all sides—with ideas and feelings it was never meant to convey or represent. It now means different things to different people, and rarely does it mean what it was originally intended to mean. I don’t use the term anymore for that reason (except to explain why I no longer use it).
All that aside, it originally was just a shorthand way of saying that today’s whites have advantages over people of color that we don’t realize because of how this country was established. It was meant only to be the beginning of a dialogue. Not a guilt-trip, or an accusation, or a condemnation, just the beginning of a dialogue to make whites aware of the realities of being a person of color living in our country. I’m sorry you haven’t found anyone willing to actually discuss it with you, as I have. Maybe I'm an exception, but I’ve found more people of color who are willing to have a meaningful conversation about it than not. And if you can, have that conversation face to face, not over the internet. Why not have some face to face real talk with Peter for a start?
The majority don't feel they've been victimized. A few who are politically "liberal" sometimes sound like they do, but that isn't the majority. Maybe it's because they realize how blessed they are to be in America, a land of opportunity, and how much better it is here than when they were back in their native country. Not everyone focuses on skin color, but everyone, including me, has had someone threaten them and included a comment on their skin-color. I think that's universal. Also, it's possible I don't hang out with enough people who have been thrown shade by white people to have developed a sense that all white people are privileged. Look at pro-sports, the pop music industry, and even the presidency - race relations and opportunities are much better than when our parents were our age, and yet "victim mentality" is all the rage in some people's minds. Most blacks I know think SJW's are generally foolish, and the Hispanics I know are vehemently against illegal immigration (but maybe they're all secretly racist?) Those who came from the hood who had no father are far more prone to the victim-mentality than those with two-parent homes and a system of faith. Not everything has to do with race.
Most of the "people of color" that I have intimate discussions with also share the same faith as I do, so I realize there may be some skewed perspectives not factored in, such as a lack of "hope" - but none of them support people disrespecting the national anthem on 9-11 or support the riots caused by BLM. We all live in the same neighborhoods, go to the same churches, or served together in the same battalion, and we all get upset over pretty much the same things. I'm disappointed that you feel that my discussions on race with my friends, co-workers, or neighbors hasn't resulted in a perspective that you can agree with, or that we've covered the topics you think may be relevant, but I don't think that's how it works. These are just everyday relationships, after all. We judge each other on character, not skin color.
Glad I finally posted a comment to someone else on this particular thread that you felt required correction. However, you and I haven't reached the same conclusions on race, but I thank you very much for the "privilege-splaining" anyways. I know you're just trying to be helpful :)
Maybe the difference in our experiences comes from the areas in which we live. Here in North Carolina the state legislature recently passed several voting restrictions into law (which were just overturned in court) that were specifically aimed at making it harder for blacks to vote. And a lot of the people of color I hang out with come from large urban cities, namely Philadelphia and New York. Perhaps they've simply had different experiences in their lives than the people you've talked to. This is why I try to avoid talking about anything political with you (or online in general). You'll start out with a great, detailed, reasonable explanation of your position, and then you'll throw in unnecessary snark that implies the person you're addressing is being an asshole. Maybe you read some tone into my post you felt was snark, but I assure you there was none there. My asking if you'd had these types of discussions with people of color was an honest question. It was not meant to imply you had not, I simply wanted to know what has informed your opinions. The Peter joke was simply an attempt at a little levity in a thread that's been rather negative.
I try very hard to be careful with my wording in posts like this. I rarely use sarcasm in posts on serious topics, and when I do, I try to make it very obvious. If you read anything like that in my last post or anything I've written in this post, then I failed, and I apologize for that. I'm just trying to have an open conversation.
When I went to a courthouse recently and walked through the metal detector, the guard asked for my ID. We were different ethnicities. Was he a racist?
A TSA agent did the same thing when I last flew on a jet. Was she a racist too?
Did you know an ID is also required to purchase tobacco?
Or that an ID is required to drive?
To buy a firearm from a retailer
To buy alcohol
To check out a library book
To see an R-rated movie
To buy fireworks
I could go on, but you already know those requirements aren't racist, or we would've heard that by now. They're in place to prevent people from doing something they aren't eligible to do.
Voting is a cornerstone of our democratic republic and a substantial political act reserved only for American citizens. If people who want to vote haven't been responsible enough to use the two to four years between voting cycles to take the necessary steps to be able to prove they are a US citizen by acquiring 1 of up to 6 allowable forms of ID to vote, should they really even be voting? It's a pretty serious deal.
And you mentioned Philadelphia, were you aware that 59 voting divisions in Philadelphia recorded ZERO votes for Romney in 2012? That's right - 100% of the vote went to Obama. Do you think there is a voter ID law in Philly? You'd be wrong. No ID whatsoever is required. Just show up and vote, whoever you are, from wherever you are, no matter whether you're even from this county, the state, or the country. In fact, say whoever you are too. They won't bother to check if you've already voted. Just vote the 'right' way and don't say anything...
Whether the Democrats want to admit it or not, there is voter fraud in this country, and there is as much, if not more, of a case to made for it than anecdotal evidence of voter suppression in 2016. One could argue that it's FAR more racist to claim that the average black/brown US citizen CAN'T acquire any of six acceptable forms ID in order to vote on election day. And again, in NC, the voters without ID could still vote - if they described a reasonable impediment or difficulty - and those managing the voting booths were not allowed to question the truth of their declaration. For example, if the voter checks “lack of transportation” as a reason they didn't have an ID to vote, then the polling personal were not allowed to challenge the voter’s access to a bus route or other means of transportation. They still got to vote. Hardly sounds "racist" to me.
I get that you may think disenfranchising is a far greater problem than voter fraud, and you may not even believe voter fraud exists, although you can only calculate voter fraud that gets discovered. Not requiring an ID makes it very difficult to catch voter fraud and with somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 million people who are in the country illegally, I think asking US citizens to prove they're eligible to vote in our elections is far from racism, it's logical - no matter what the DNC and vast numbers of left-leaning publications and pundits like to claim.
As for you and politics in particular, I try not to assume you’re not as informed or experienced, just differently informed and experienced. That’s why I ask questions. I'm genuinely curious as to how others reach their opinions, and how others’ experiences differ from mine. If I ever come across otherwise, I apologize, because that is not my intent. I don’t believe I’m a know-it-all, though I realize I might come across that way. I’m a want-to-know-more guy. That’s why I do what I do for a living. I’m not opposed to requiring photo ID. I have absolutely no problem with that at all. Even though getting photo ID is a pain in the butt (lines at the DMV, amiright?), it would only need to be done once every few years. That’s not so terrible a burden to ask.
What I have a problem with is eliminating early voting and same-day registration. Not everyone has the flexibility to get to the polls on Election Day. We don’t, as in Australia and other countries, have a required day off from work to make sure everyone has the time to do so. So many people today work two jobs on top of their family requirements—I’m one of them. I usually lose money when I vote since it means taking time off from work, but luckily my schedule flexibility and transportation options make it relatively easy to do so, and I can afford to lose an hour’s worth of work. Not everyone is as fortunate. Personally, I think Election Day should be a paid national holiday. Maybe that’s not a practical approach, but it’s how I feel about it.
I also have a problem with the emails from the Republican party specifically requesting the voting statistics of minority voters (when they voted, when they registered, how many had a valid form of voter ID, etc.) before introducing the bill that targeted those specific voters. You can argue whether it was racially motivated or simply a matter of trying to eliminate voters who overwhelmingly vote for the opposing party—it doesn’t matter, because the result is the same.
All these wolf-cries of "racism" just happen to be the weapon of choice for liberals against anyone they disagree with.