-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
American politics
- Thread starter Danishfurniturelover
- Start date
thfcsteff
George Hunt
Taking this statement in isolation, I could not disagree more. A "polite society" is possible whether you have pennies or millions. The "polite society" You talk of contains some very nasty and prejudicial hypocrites.
Daisuk
Dimitar Berbatov
Hahahaha. What a loser.
Can't help but think about what their master plan was. Let's say they'd actually get a hold of Pelosi for instance - what would they do? What was their plan? Did they think their storming was backed by more powerful people than it actually was? I keep reading about it being such a well thought out plan - but what was the plan exactly?
thfcsteff
George Hunt
They're always monitoring the content on their sites, issuing temporary bans and what-not, so your point holds no real merit. Like any great giant capitalist empire, they're allowed to be hypocritical. Sorry. Those are the "rules" of a "free" society.
Another thing. It wasn't a political decision, it was a (far, far too late IMO) ethical one based on not being the vehicle through which outright, multiply-proven lies are disseminated repeatedly to the population.
greatwhitenorf
Edgar Davids
I reckon y'all are rememberizin' another mighty fine actor - Slim Pickens - who rode that nuke.
He had another great role -they're all mostly bit part supporting roles - in the classic Mel Brooks comedy, Blazing Saddles. He plays a railway foreman overseeing construction of a new line and when the black workers and white cowboy supervisors start to slack off singing silly songs, he rides up and utters this immortal line:
The whole scene is here with Cleavon Little singing I Get A Kick Outta You:
Last edited:
thfcsteff
George Hunt
Incredible.
A statement so lacking in context it is dangerous.
Your assumption is dangerous.
Your (hopeful) inability to clearly articulate what you're trying to say is dangerous.
These are times where clarity of language is vital, and often requires careful attention to context.
I think it's an outrageous statement, given the nature of its implied assumption, which is clearly that unless someone says loudly, "You did not get the job because you're black" then racism cannot be considered a reason.
Before he died, my father was the victim of quiet, persistent racism. He was singled out and quietly ridiculed, mocked and mentally abused by several people; it completed the break in his mental health. He was forced into early retirement, got a "settlement" to avoid the court case because he did not want to go through it (again, his mental health was broken by this) and in the end those issues contributed to his life quality demise. I know these literal examples bother you because they contain things such as "context" and "emotion" but they also contain facts. Don't ever, ever think racism requires a clear statement; inference, whether singular or repeated, can be as powerful as drip torture if you're the victim, and denying it is a dark form of gaslighting.
Last edited:
You've been in the US too long Steff - come back over here and get some good old class ambition back in you!
Those aren't the rules applied to publishers though.
By controlling what is posted then they have shown editorial control. That means they can't claim the content on their site is not of their making.
thfcsteff
George Hunt
Your definition of class and mine are miles apart. I would be genuinely interested for you to define the term from your perspective; what, to you, is "class ambition?" Again, genuine question.
You're right, my statement was merely an example.
But there has to be far more than > didn't get the job > must have been my skin colour
thfcsteff
George Hunt
I am not a lawyer and do not have the legal wordage to either confirm or deny legally what you've said.
However, they are conduits for the content of others and are not an editorial content creator.
They give the platform for YOU to create the content.
Thus when the owners feel they no longer want to be a conduit for someone's contributions/flimflam, they can absolutely boot them off.
Until FB, twitter, instagram, etc, directly enter one of my contributions and alter it (whether editorially or image-wise) they are not "creating content" and it is absolutely NOT of their making/creation.
Controlling what they host is simply that. Nothing else.
thfcsteff
George Hunt
Go on then, what?
A desire for one's descendants to start further up the class ladder than oneself.
Something other than the opinion of the person who didn't get the job.
Something unbiased and objective
That was the law until about 15 years ago.
It was decided that platforms such as this and Twitter were responsible for their content and most countries agreed.
Since then Twitter and Facebook (and more successfully, Google) have argued that they don't, but also want to choose which content they allow.
greatwhitenorf
Edgar Davids
Ooohh. Fight! Fight! Fight!
AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
Could you just imagine a ghastly world where those silly black/brown/female/lgbtq/etc folk were allowed to have lived experiences without being shouted down and told what their experiences actually are. How awful would that be.
