Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
That is the quote. Do you consider that hate speech?
Political Correctness
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
That is the quote. Do you consider that hate speech?
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Them black folk getting uppity again? You would think they would have a more favorable opinion of white people from the hundreds of years of slavery that still has not ended.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
prisonplanet
Agreed, prison planet is a laughable source. I prefer to look directly at the professor's own words.
But to be fair, we should provide context of the remarks he was supporting:
But I'm sure that was a one-off. I mean, we have all had a bad day, right?
Or, well, maybe a few bad days...
Shame on Prison Planet for making this guy look like a hateful racist! How dare they?
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Not sure why you're asking again (and again), when many of these issues have already been litigated by "lefties on this board". I know I personally, at least, have frequently made it known where I sit regarding more extreme and/or inane trends of speech-policing.
At this point, these "inquiries" of yours are just strawmen you can beat upon to further exorcise your frustrations. Moreover, they are a keen example of a neat little hypocrisy: performing that same broad-stroke painting that so roils you when it's done with respect to demonstrations like "Unite the Right" (I'll indulge and call it white power washing), yet doesn't seem to bother you at all when it involves not parsing strains of leftist activity and thinking (but I get it: a monolith is a much more convenient boogeyman).
sturg33
I
Yes. You have made your position clear. That while male opinions are less valuable than black female opinions.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Another famous willful misreading.
Eat **** if you don't want to have a discussion, then. Talk about fragility: the inflexibility of your reading apparatus in recent months has been pretty weak, as has your ability to have any discussion in good faith. The latter, at least, used to be a stronger suit of yours.
sturg33
I
I'll re-post this... Three different people shared these opinions.
Not much room for discussion when this is the stance of leftists on this board and in this country.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
I see you'd rather double-down on your intentional mis-reading of my statement than suspend beating your strawmen for a moment, so I'll just repost this ...
---
For good measure, I'll do a little more re-posting:
If a white guy said it, it would sound woefully self-interested and/or selfish—sort of like a white guy complaining on the internet about what he doesn't "get" to say anymore.
This is the power of promoting alterior and alternative voices: effecting a real diversity that is earnest and earned, not merely assumed or granted by historical structures of exclusion and privilege. As a self-professed lover of competitive, purportedly cream-to-the-top trials-by-market, I'd think you'd have no problem with white men having to re-earn their hereditary seats at the table.
This is the power of promoting alterior and alternative voices: effecting a real diversity that is earnest and earned, not merely assumed or granted by historical structures of exclusion and privilege. As a self-professed lover of competitive, purportedly cream-to-the-top trials-by-market, I'd think you'd have no problem with white men having to re-earn their hereditary seats at the table.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
That is, indeed, what I say in the first paragraph you've quoted.
In the second paragraph, I then go on to explore why sturg—a self-reported lover of competition—would be so troubled, anyways, if "white men [have] to re-earn their hereditary seats at the table".
sturg33
I
Nope. He said if one person says something it's fine, and if another person said the exact same damn line would be woefully selfish
"Promoting alterior and alternative voices" and "effecting a real diversity" don't seem like very competitively egalitarian approaches to me though.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
They very well are "competitively egalitarian approaches" if they're correcting a built-in handicap. We can argue both the short- and long-term efficacy of that specific approach, but they certainly begin with the intent of equalizing a competition heretofore structurally unequal.
Beyond that, though, I think it's also worth noting (within this "gotcha" game you're hoping to mount) that I also clarified that I don't think it's productive, ultimately, for institutions to act so hastily and cavalierly to punish uncomfortable (or even dissenting) voices—noting, indeed, that I actually agreed with sturg regarding his "google guy" cause célèbre.
But, for his part, sturg was so apoplectic over his boogeyman/strawman exaggeration of my "selfish" characterization that he couldn't receive or intelligently respond to any additional discursive inputs.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by your indifference to thoughtful reading, given that your mind also can't recognize the cognitive dissonance of upholding both (a) that it's outrageous to classify folks attending a white nationalist rally as "white nationalists", because they may have other (potentially distinct) motivations for attending, and (b) that those damn lefties are all the rotten same.
I'm just saying, irrespective of the merits of your approach, that it's not that hard to decipher that you believe one voice deserves 'special' consideration over the other. Sturg ran with it a little, sure, but he's not nearly as off-base as you've portrayed.
The 'competitive' playing field that I'm envisioning is turfed in natural equality (which I thought was pretty implicit with your notions of heredity and re-earning seats).
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...a4b781e34b1_story.html?utm_term=.b67282836f93
Maryland development under fire after selling homes only to Muslims
Then, last year, 46-year-old Faheem Younus, an infectious-disease doctor and an immigrant from Pakistan, teamed up with a different developer to build a retirement community for older Ahmadiyya Muslims, adherents of a branch of Islam who preach tolerance and face repression from other Muslims around the world.
“There are many Jewish, Christian communities — we’re not reinventing the wheel here,” Younus said.
“This will be a community of 49 spacious brand new homes (Villas) for Ahmadi Muslims with a dedicated mosque within walking distance,” read a website this year advertising the community. That language was later removed, replaced with an update that touted an “audio feed from the adjacent mosque” for the daily call to prayer — before that language also was removed.
....
Real estate agent Gina Pimentel filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development last month, claiming she couldn’t get information about the River Run units because Younus was “unlawfully privately marketing and selling only to Ahmadi Muslims.”
In an interview, Pimentel said she is not worried about Muslims living in the community, but about her business. She can’t earn a commission if she can’t sell homes, she said, and she was also concerned that lenders charging market interest rates might be cut out by Islamic rules against usury.
....
“It’s not about religion for me,” she said. “My husband’s Puerto Rican . . . do you want to live with 106 Puerto Ricans?”
....
Tim Iglesias, a professor at the University of San Francisco who specializes in fair-housing law, said the Ahmadis could be accused of discrimination by “steering” the homes toward Muslims — but Harford County could also face that charge for “treating the development differently . . . because they think that Muslims are going to be living there.”
“This is so complicated it would be perfect for a law school exam,” he said.
Younus will host additional meetings at the firehouse to try to convince the mostly white residents nearby that River Run is not a threat — and that anyone in the community can move there if they wish. Twenty-seven properties, he pointed out, remain on the market.
“This is not an exclusive community,” he said. “The only way you can prove me wrong is to buy a house there.”
Fascinating. I'm not sure why we have a problem with self-segregation, or what that woman's point was with the 106 Puerto Ricans comment.
Maryland development under fire after selling homes only to Muslims
Then, last year, 46-year-old Faheem Younus, an infectious-disease doctor and an immigrant from Pakistan, teamed up with a different developer to build a retirement community for older Ahmadiyya Muslims, adherents of a branch of Islam who preach tolerance and face repression from other Muslims around the world.
“There are many Jewish, Christian communities — we’re not reinventing the wheel here,” Younus said.
“This will be a community of 49 spacious brand new homes (Villas) for Ahmadi Muslims with a dedicated mosque within walking distance,” read a website this year advertising the community. That language was later removed, replaced with an update that touted an “audio feed from the adjacent mosque” for the daily call to prayer — before that language also was removed.
....
Real estate agent Gina Pimentel filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development last month, claiming she couldn’t get information about the River Run units because Younus was “unlawfully privately marketing and selling only to Ahmadi Muslims.”
In an interview, Pimentel said she is not worried about Muslims living in the community, but about her business. She can’t earn a commission if she can’t sell homes, she said, and she was also concerned that lenders charging market interest rates might be cut out by Islamic rules against usury.
....
“It’s not about religion for me,” she said. “My husband’s Puerto Rican . . . do you want to live with 106 Puerto Ricans?”
....
Tim Iglesias, a professor at the University of San Francisco who specializes in fair-housing law, said the Ahmadis could be accused of discrimination by “steering” the homes toward Muslims — but Harford County could also face that charge for “treating the development differently . . . because they think that Muslims are going to be living there.”
“This is so complicated it would be perfect for a law school exam,” he said.
Younus will host additional meetings at the firehouse to try to convince the mostly white residents nearby that River Run is not a threat — and that anyone in the community can move there if they wish. Twenty-seven properties, he pointed out, remain on the market.
“This is not an exclusive community,” he said. “The only way you can prove me wrong is to buy a house there.”
Fascinating. I'm not sure why we have a problem with self-segregation, or what that woman's point was with the 106 Puerto Ricans comment.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
It's not even my approach, so you yourself have already read too far when you say "that it's not that hard to decipher that (I) believe one voice deserves 'special' consideration over the other". But I don't think it's an approach without its merits, and I do understand and have some sympathy for its angle—and those two issues are what I set out to emphasize (which is distinct from outright advocacy).
I also understand and sympathize with white men who suddenly feel marginalized by this sort of trend—but much stronger than any understanding and sympathy here is my conviction that that sort of complaining at best is likely to be met with little more than a shrug from non-white, non-male individuals who've been dealing with that sort of marginalization much longer and more intensely; and at worst it represents a pretty acute confluence of historical amnesia, solipsism, and a blindness (purposeful or not) to the ways in which being white and being male still does confer advantages on its holders.
I think there's a strong argument to be made that a "playing field [...] turfed in natural equality" is a nice moral ideal, but practically theoretical until structural inequality is dismantled and discarded. Man is a naturally political animal; we do not exist outside these structures in any politically practical way.