@Stingray3906's banner p

Stingray3906


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2024 May 30 22:05:31 UTC

				

User ID: 3082

Stingray3906


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2024 May 30 22:05:31 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 3082

In fact, if you tried to form a vigilante group to stop the criminals, the government would instead go after you and destroy you.

This has happened in the city near where I live. They conceal carry, and while they haven't been told to stop or arrested, they've faced criticism from the mayor for carrying and for taking the law into their own hands.

I'm really indifferent on whether they capitalize both or not. To each their own.

See my response to lurker.

You're right, those are both fair points. Let me clarify. I started doing it about two years ago when more and more media outlets began doing it. It seemed like the right thing to do, so as to not offend anyone in text-based conversation.

I haven't been here long enough to know what is accepted and what isn't, but it is my personal preference to capitalize the word black when talking about a Black person/people.

After I typed that, I realized it was actually through asking ChatGPT, not Google. My bad.

The question is what sort of person would object to not capitalizing black, if white isn't also capitalized.

Why can't black be capitalized but not white? I don't think it's necessary in this case to capitalize both. It's the same sort of thing when people counter "Black Lives Matter," by saying, "All Lives Matter". The former statement isn't being made to belittle the lives that aren't black, but rather, to affirm that Black lives truly matter to them and worthy of the same protections in society that non-Black people have. Capitalizing Black in the context of race but not white is done for a similar reason: there is a greater consensus that Black people have enough shared experiences that their identity should be recognized. As it stands right now, the same cannot be said for white people.

Whose guidance? Were these advisors "trained marxists", holders of PhDs in critical race theory, or did they ask for the opinions of people who do not see race as that important? I think it was the former, so their decision is just laudering what they wanted to do anyway through academics.

Do you have any evidence to suggest they were "trained Marxists"?

  • -14

I was tired of dealing with the groupthink and circlejerking on Reddit and I Googled "forums that allow for nuanced and respectful political discussion".

If I didn't capitalize the word "black" in my sentence, there could be people here who would demand I capitalize it. What would you have me do?

Also, from the link you provided:

After a review and period of consultation, we found, at this time, less support for capitalizing white. White people generally do not share the same history and culture, or the experience of being discriminated against because of skin color. In addition, AP is a global news organization and there is considerable disagreement, ambiguity and confusion about whom the term includes in much of the world.

It would appear that this decision made by the AP wasn't just something they decided out-of-the-blue. They sought guidance, they considered it, and decided that for now, this is the best way to handle it.

  • -13

I mean, I'm progressive and I acknowledge the nuance in gender and race issues in our country. Race isn't a monolith. Gender is not a monolith. I would reject any fellow progressive's premise that every white person is inherently racist and that every man is anti-feminist, simply because there is a non-zero amount of white people who aren't racist and a non-zero amount of men who are anti-feminist. There are white people on the right who aren't racist, there are Black people on the left who are racist. There are conservative feminist men and liberal misogynist men. There are non-straight conservative black men, and straight, liberal white men.

The list goes on. People don't ever fit neatly into specific boxes. The whole point of progressivism, to me, is to allow for intersectionality so we can have collective conversations about how to make our country better.

Couple of thoughts:

1: Perhaps the DNC only cares about white men insofar as it helps Kamala get elected, no more no less.

2: I think that the whole "white cops bad" angle of police violence died once we had several high-profile incidents involving Black police officers, such as Tyre Nichols.

I'm off Reddit now, but when I was on, /r/law was pretty non-political up until Trump's indictments started happening. After that, it became wall-to-wall Trump-bashing and any legal analysis was biased towards seeing him lose. Completely non-objective.

I'm gonna be honest. None of this shit is good for my health. Just this whole presidential cycle, the constant hysterics and nonsense about this judge or that prosecutor or some bureaucrat.

That is why it is prudent to limit general media intake.

Yeah, I watched the first debate, because I wanted to see a primary source first hand before the spin machine got to it. That was sad. Biden was old, but Trump seemed old too, just not as much by comparison.

What is the point of the debates, now? I have a general enough idea of what each candidate wants to if elected, enough to make a decision at the polls, so why do I need to watch them?

Does RFK Jr. become more relevant now that Biden dropped out?

No

I find it very fascinating that people are yelling about which of two elderly white men with questionable cognitive abilities should run our country. It just blows my mind that our politics have gotten to this point.

It sounds like the Biden Democrats are using the same style of populist rhetoric that Republicans are using to try and deflect from Biden's poor debate performance and his responses to calls to step down.

If so many Americans are as politically disillusioned as polling suggests, why haven't we seen that translate into even lower voter turnout? Why haven't we seen more political groups that meet the needs of disillusioned?

I'm not swayed by Biden saying, "I'm fine," nor am I swayed by Trump saying, "I'm fine". Would Kamala be a better nominee? Guess it depends on who you ask.

It is rather interesting to me that the DNC is having an internal meltdown over something they should have forecasted when Biden's campaign started.

I'm so apathetic about the presidential election that at this point, it may be better to "suffer" another four years with Trump at the helm and let 2028 be an open field.

New England Republicans tend to lean moderate to slightly right of center. It is rare to encounter one who supports Trump.

Controversial in the sense that its history not exactly cut and dry. It's certainly not controversial that all women should have the right to vote.

  1. Wait for the convention to do what? Take the cognitive test? Move to replace Biden as the nominee?

  2. If Biden wins, he will probably select the most loyal cabinet possible, as Trump attempted to do when he was in office.

What I think Biden should do, if he really wants to set the record straight, is address the nation directly from the White House about his health, being completely transparent about whatever is going on with him. I don't think we have the full picture of the situation, and everything we hear about it is either in a news article, an opinionated tweet or a one-line quote. We need to hear about what's going on, no holds barres, direct from the source.

But, I kind of get it- the early suffragettes would be a complicated group for modern leftists:

feminism! Women fighting for their rights! Yay! But it's entirely white women. Mostly upper class. Probably they said some things that would be considered racist by today's standards. boo. Also they were highly religious. As I understand it, voting rights was almost a secondary issue for them- what they really wanted was prohibition. Bring their husbands home from the pub and send them to church! very harsh on any sort of open display of sexuality. No doubt they'd be super against homesexuality, if they even mentioned it at all.

All of this is why I question the appropriateness of telling the story in the format of a musical.

To me, that's an exception to the rule. Hamilton has a diverse cast and a unique style of music (and written by a non-caucasian man) that made it extremely marketable.

Well it sounds like to me, these protestors simply want the appropriate context applied to the show. Was it right to interrupt the show? I'd say no. But to write off their concerns as meritless, I'm not so sure of that.