You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#201 Re: The Garden » Racial Discussion » 263 weeks ago
I appreciate the thoughtful response. This isn't an easy topic to discuss. But BLM wasn't really what I wanted to discuss here. What I'd really love to focus on is the systematic part of racism and how we fix that. If we agree that on an individual level most of us can get along with people of other races, there has to be something systematically that we can address to actually make a difference instead of protesting endlessly. We can debate BLM to death, but it won't change anything.
I'd like to focus on things that can lead to real change for the ones impacted directly.
#202 Re: The Garden » Racial Discussion » 263 weeks ago
In the politics thread, I mentioned that (from what I have seen at least and I have lived in both Chicago and the south, so I have seen different areas), the racial divide doesn't really exist on the micro-level. Yes, there are racist white people and there are racist black people (and other races as well), but for the most part people of different races coexist fine at work, in communities, in sports leagues (professional and community), at bars and eateries, etc.
So if most people aren't the issue, what is? It can't be the few outwardly racist people. I hear a lot about systematic racism, but some (SOME, not ALL) of that is more socioeconomic than it is racial. Why is it that at the macro-level people feel we have all these huge issues that don't exist at the micro-level? I'm not asking because I don't think it can exist, but I'd like to understand it better. To do that, I think we need to drill down further.
Do blacks in urban areas have disadvantages over blacks in more rural areas? I know schools get funding through property taxes. Inner city schools (logically thinking) aren't as well funded as suburban schools. Not sure about farming communities, but that would be an interesting study to tell if this is a racial or economic issue). I understand why people can't afford to move to the suburban schools, but why couldn't the move to more rural communities? Cost of living is lower than suburban cities and probably not much more (if any) than the inner city. What keeps people in the inner city? It used to be the jobs, but I don't think that's the case any more. It makes sense that people went there years ago; why do they stay there? How much of a difference would it make if they moved out of the inner city?
#203 The Garden » Racial Discussion » 263 weeks ago
- buzzsaw
- Replies: 28
I want to pull this out of the politics thread because this is not an anything goes subject. Please keep posts on topic and do NOT post anything that could be considered a racial slur or overtly insensitive. I will absolutely report anyone violating this.
#204 Re: Guns N' Roses » Matt Sorum's book leaks online. » 263 weeks ago
I was bored, so read the book today. There's definitely some bitterness from him. These books are interesting reads if nothing else because it's interesting how different people view things (or remember things) differently. I like reading the different perspectives on events.
There's a lot of this I can't relate to because I've never gone into business with someone...the only business I ever owned was a sole proprietorship. I can see where it would hurt if others in the partnership didn't value you the same way you value yourself. From his perspective, he got screwed over a couple times. Maybe he did. Some of that is his own fault for trusting people. It shouldn't be this way, but it's a dog eat dog world.
That said, he's done pretty well for himself and while he could have done better had some different things happened along the way, he's had an interesting life and experienced things (for better or worse) that most people never will.
The book itself is terrible. It's just not well written. Some boring chapters; some that could have been expanded on. It's not surprising it got dropped. If you're not a GnR fan, there's really no point in reading the book. He's done so much and worked with so many that he could have made it more appealing to more groups of people. A book more like The Dirt could have been more appealing to a bigger audience.
#205 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 264 weeks ago
buzzsaw wrote:I've never in my life met someone that has it pointed out over and over to then how they're wrong, quoted their words proving they were wrong, and yet here we are 8 (maybe...not going to count) pages later trying to absolve themselves of having done anything wrong. It's just stunning. So unwilling to admit he fucked up. Grasping for straws. Changing the narrative. Denying things he's quoted as saying. It's amazing.
Have a nice day mitch is now my response to everything. Most places would have banned him (again) by now, but that's cool. I'll just treat him like the two year old that he's acting like until he grows up.
I posted my source for my claim about military funding. I’ll bet you didn’t even click on it.
The US budget and the discretionary budget added together show a huge piece of the pie from varying degrees over the last 50 years from 50% to approaching 70%
If you choose not to look or understand that that’s on you.
Nope. You know why? I wasn't involved in that discussion either. Don't care about the details. We spend so other countries don't have to. That's the extent of my involvement in that discussion. It's like you just hit reply and spew things without understanding who you're talking to and what you're talking about.
Have a nice day mitch.
#206 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 264 weeks ago
buzzsaw wrote:mitchejw wrote:Ok so you’re saying when i quote you you think I’m putting words in your mouth? I’m just trying to engage you. That’s it. I’ve learned something.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID:
buzzsaw wrote:Please explain how this applies to Iraq. Those aren’t the reasons we originally went there.
THAT'S THE WHOLE QUOTE. I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to someone else, and you replied to MY POST asking about something I never said, asked about, or mentioned.
For some reason I replied to you and here is your further response (we've been through all of this already once):
mitchejw wrote:And maybe that was The deception. They sold the whole thing to the public based on lies and the real agenda was to find a reason to get there so we could police it. I think that goes all the way back to the original question Irish asked.
This has NOTHING to do with what I posted that you responded to. NOTHING. I didn't even use the word Iraq in my original post...I said Middle East. You aren't the victim mitch, you're the disease. Wasn't talking to you, wasn't talking about why we went to Iraq, wasn't talking about a deception or any other way you want to try to twist this that you're being picked on.
All I’m trying to tell you is that i use the reply button indiscriminately...it’s just a means to post ...and sometimes I’m replying to everyone...i didn’t know it was that important you that when i reply to you i need to only end specifically...i view this as more of a round table discussion.
Considering I wasn't at all talking about what you posted about, that's an interesting use of the reply button.
Have a nice day mitch.
#207 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 264 weeks ago
A Private Eye wrote:Do you not think Trumps presidency is a symptom of the mainstream left having already headed too far left more most people?
Disagree. How is the US headed too far left? What policies have been enacted that leads to this conclusion? Obama governed as a moderate.
Trump won because Hiliary took the midwest and PA for granted. If you want to be totally honest, he represents a minority of the worst that this country has to offer.
Interesting take.
#208 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 264 weeks ago
You don’t get to dictate what conversation others have. Irish asked when did Americans start to distrust their government/become so partisan, and offered Iraq as a possible start date. He’s not American, so he can be forgiven for not intimately knowing the 1990s (or any decade before that, since any would qualify) and immediately understanding that Americans believe all kinds of crazy shit and can point to virtually any event as some catastrophe. I don’t think we’re unique in this regard, but the world’s media isn’t pointing a spotlight and broadcasting dissent in any other nation like the US. So our shit gets a lot more focused attention and limited context than their own internal strife. Be honest, do you even know who the president of Ireland is?
No one here is interested in arguing about the justification of the war. It’s been over for 9 years. You’re free to post about it, but you don’t get to demand everyone change the topic and participate with you because you want to create an argument about Iraq. You’re free to believe Americans didn’t hold any animosity towards the truthfulness of their government until March 2003.
What really happened is you entered a thread uninformed, parroting some talking point you saw on social media. It was objectively wrong on its face, and really had nothing to do with what was being discussed.
You repeatedly and exclusively manufacture arguments so you can try to toss strikes and knock over all the pins. Rarely do your posts even attempt to acknowledge what the poster you’re replying to said, let alone respond to what they said. And when pressed to provide a citation for one of your wild claims (like Neo Nazis having anything to do with the riots that occurred last weekend), you ignore the request or link something you clearly didn’t read that doesn’t support your point.
Example:
Poster 1 :”these far left antifa types need to be held accountable for their actions.”
Mitch: “I don’t even know what antifa is, but these neo Nazi boogaloo boys are out threatening to kill people in Chicago”
Poster 1: “after researching the boogaloos boys, I find information that says they haven’t participated in any violence, and aren’t neo nazis. They seem to be very close to antifa”
Mitch: “you don’t even know what antifa is, but I do. I’m going to completely ignore the mounds of evidence of antifa’s violence and not mention them. But this is definitely neo nazis and you need to acknowledge that. Please defend neo nazis to make this easy.”
Poster 1: “Can you provide any evidence the boogaloo boys are neo nazis or members of the violent protests last weekend? It was clearly antifa. Did you even read the articles that contradict your view?”
Mitch: “Here’s a graph my nephew made of the atmospheric pressure on Mars relative to the amount of racial attacks my sister graphed based on a 20 sided die she rolled. How can you not see this is Neo Nazis!”
Poster 1: “....”
Mitch: “why won’t you guys play with me”
LOL
#209 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 264 weeks ago
I've never in my life met someone that has it pointed out over and over to then how they're wrong, quoted their words proving they were wrong, and yet here we are 8 (maybe...not going to count) pages later trying to absolve themselves of having done anything wrong. It's just stunning. So unwilling to admit he fucked up. Grasping for straws. Changing the narrative. Denying things he's quoted as saying. It's amazing.
Have a nice day mitch is now my response to everything. Most places would have banned him (again) by now, but that's cool. I'll just treat him like the two year old that he's acting like until he grows up.
#210 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 264 weeks ago
buzzsaw wrote:mitchejw wrote:We’re going in circles on this...i asked him if i was still addressing his OP. He said yes.
End of story.
YOU WEREN'T RESPONDING TO HIM MITCH, YOU WE'RE RESPONDING TO ME.
End of mutherfucking story. You are worthless and I will no longer waste my time on you. Don't respond to any post I make. You don't even exist any more.
Ok so you’re saying when i quote you you think I’m putting words in your mouth? I’m just trying to engage you. That’s it. I’ve learned something.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID:
mitchejw wrote:Listen, I'd be thrilled to stay out of most of the international conflicts that we get into, so I'm certainly not an advocate of any of this. But the reality is we are the free world's police force whether we like it or not. That's why many of those countries don't spend like we do. If we didn't, they'd have no choice but to spend more.
People globally may view us negatively, but we get the first call from anyone facing issues they don't know how to solve regardless of what that issue is. You cannot expect us to bail countries out when they are in trouble then expect us to walk away allowing whatever it was to happen again. We're going to protect our interests. You can't have one without the other. Not the way things are now or have been since WWI. Regardless of why we were in the Middle East, just leaving wasn't an option. Obama wanted to do it and knew he couldn't. If we're going to be everybody's big brother, there's a cost that goes along with it.
Please explain how this applies to Iraq. Those aren’t the reasons we originally went there.
THAT'S THE WHOLE QUOTE. I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to someone else, and you replied to MY POST asking about something I never said, asked about, or mentioned.
For some reason I replied to you and here is your further response (we've been through all of this already once):
buzzsaw wrote:mitchejw wrote:Please explain how this applies to Iraq. Those aren’t the reasons we originally went there.
It doesn't matter any more why we went there. Get into reality mitch. We're there. We can't just leave and even your god Obama didn't just leave for a reason. Stop and absorb that. Life isn't fantasy land. There are consequences for everything. NOTHING comes without a cost and not all cost is financial cost.
And maybe that was The deception. They sold the whole thing to the public based on lies and the real agenda was to find a reason to get there so we could police it. I think that goes all the way back to the original question Irish asked.
This has NOTHING to do with what I posted that you responded to. NOTHING. I didn't even use the word Iraq in my original post...I said Middle East. You aren't the victim mitch, you're the disease. Wasn't talking to you, wasn't talking about why we went to Iraq, wasn't talking about a deception or any other way you want to try to twist this that you're being picked on.
