This topic has been locked by a moderator.
Is it really this hard for you guys to put yourself in someone else’s shoes for a moment? Someone who isn’t the majority in this country, be it numerical majority (white) or power majority (male)?
This post was gratuitous but maybe some could benefit from this book.
The book description must have been written before 2008, at one point it talks about black people not being able to be President.
Is it really this hard for you guys to put yourself in someone else’s shoes for a moment? Someone who isn’t the majority in this country, be it numerical majority (white) or power majority (male)?
Maybe I would have found it more moving if I were black and/or a woman, I don’t know.
I guess my ultimate question is why you would have to be black and/or female to have a positive reaction to the speech rather than “meh” but I’m willing to drop it at this point.
You already answered that with this:
But seriously, why are we actually discussing Oprah being elected? Why is anyone anywhere discussing it?
She made a big and inspiring speech.
meh.
Pfft. Good grief.
I just didn’t think it was that great or that moving.
What was it about, Warbler?
Racism, sexism, sexual harassment/assault, “me too”, advancement of African Americans and women, etc.
So…stuff that doesn’t affect you?
Probably not as much as they do women and minorities, but I still consider them to be important issues.
Definitely not as much as them.
Is it really this hard for you guys to put yourself in someone else’s shoes for a moment? Someone who isn’t the majority in this country, be it numerical majority (white) or power majority (male)?
Why is it a requirement to get all fired up about this speech? That if one doesn’t get fired up about it, that automatically indicates that one must be unable to remotely identify with others?
Why is it so hard for you to put yourself in someone else’s shoes who does not share your opinion and not be critical of them?
When the plain truth is spoken loud n’ clear to an audience of that size it should be applauded no matter how well you thought it was delivered.
When did I say I wouldn’t have applauded if I had been in the audience?
You don’t have to be in the same room to be in the audience.
So when you watched it the first time, you stood up and applauded just like the audience did?
Dismissing it with a “Meh” shows you to be uncaring. Not saying you are, but that’s the picture your reaction paints.
Sorry, I mean to sound uncaring. I do care. The speech just didn’t move me.
Is it really this hard for you guys to put yourself in someone else’s shoes for a moment? Someone who isn’t the majority in this country, be it numerical majority (white) or power majority (male)?
This post was gratuitous but maybe some could benefit from this book.
The book description must have been written before 2008, at one point it talks about black people not being able to be President.
It’s from 2006 and Senator Obama is discussed in the book and the author mocks the idea he might become president.
The blue elephant in the room.
Is it really this hard for you guys to put yourself in someone else’s shoes for a moment? Someone who isn’t the majority in this country, be it numerical majority (white) or power majority (male)?
Why is it a requirement to get all fired up about this speech? That if one doesn’t get fired up about it, that automatically indicates that one must be unable to remotely identify with others?
Why is it so hard for you to put yourself in someone else’s shoes who does not share your opinion and not be critical of them?
When the plain truth is spoken loud n’ clear to an audience of that size it should be applauded no matter how well you thought it was delivered.
When did I say I wouldn’t have applauded if I had been in the audience?
You don’t have to be in the same room to be in the audience.
So when you watched it the first time, you stood up and applauded just like the audience did?
“Applaud” doesn’t mean “stand n’ cheer”.
Is it really this hard for you guys to put yourself in someone else’s shoes for a moment? Someone who isn’t the majority in this country, be it numerical majority (white) or power majority (male)?
Maybe I would have found it more moving if I were black and/or a woman, I don’t know.
I guess my ultimate question is why you would have to be black and/or female to have a positive reaction to the speech rather than “meh” but I’m willing to drop it at this point.
You already answered that with this:
But seriously, why are we actually discussing Oprah being elected? Why is anyone anywhere discussing it?
She made a big and inspiring speech.
meh.
Pfft. Good grief.
I just didn’t think it was that great or that moving.
What was it about, Warbler?
Racism, sexism, sexual harassment/assault, “me too”, advancement of African Americans and women, etc.
So…stuff that doesn’t affect you?
Probably not as much as they do women and minorities, but I still consider them to be important issues.
Definitely not as much as them.
I give up (again).
Is it really this hard for you guys to put yourself in someone else’s shoes for a moment? Someone who isn’t the majority in this country, be it numerical majority (white) or power majority (male)?
Why is it a requirement to get all fired up about this speech? That if one doesn’t get fired up about it, that automatically indicates that one must be unable to remotely identify with others?
Why is it so hard for you to put yourself in someone else’s shoes who does not share your opinion and not be critical of them?
When the plain truth is spoken loud n’ clear to an audience of that size it should be applauded no matter how well you thought it was delivered.
When did I say I wouldn’t have applauded if I had been in the audience?
You don’t have to be in the same room to be in the audience.
So when you watched it the first time, you stood up and applauded just like the audience did?
“Applaud” doesn’t mean “stand n’ cheer”.
Is it really this hard for you guys to put yourself in someone else’s shoes for a moment? Someone who isn’t the majority in this country, be it numerical majority (white) or power majority (male)?
Why is it a requirement to get all fired up about this speech? That if one doesn’t get fired up about it, that automatically indicates that one must be unable to remotely identify with others?
Why is it so hard for you to put yourself in someone else’s shoes who does not share your opinion and not be critical of them?
When the plain truth is spoken loud n’ clear to an audience of that size it should be applauded no matter how well you thought it was delivered.
When did I say I wouldn’t have applauded if I had been in the audience?
He didn’t literally mean you in the audience.
Is it really this hard for you guys to put yourself in someone else’s shoes for a moment? Someone who isn’t the majority in this country, be it numerical majority (white) or power majority (male)?
Why is it a requirement to get all fired up about this speech? That if one doesn’t get fired up about it, that automatically indicates that one must be unable to remotely identify with others?
Why is it so hard for you to put yourself in someone else’s shoes who does not share your opinion and not be critical of them?
When the plain truth is spoken loud n’ clear to an audience of that size it should be applauded no matter how well you thought it was delivered.
When did I say I wouldn’t have applauded if I had been in the audience?
You don’t have to be in the same room to be in the audience.
So when you watched it the first time, you stood up and applauded just like the audience did?
“Applaud” doesn’t mean “stand n’ cheer”.
Is it really this hard for you guys to put yourself in someone else’s shoes for a moment? Someone who isn’t the majority in this country, be it numerical majority (white) or power majority (male)?
Why is it a requirement to get all fired up about this speech? That if one doesn’t get fired up about it, that automatically indicates that one must be unable to remotely identify with others?
Why is it so hard for you to put yourself in someone else’s shoes who does not share your opinion and not be critical of them?
When the plain truth is spoken loud n’ clear to an audience of that size it should be applauded no matter how well you thought it was delivered.
When did I say I wouldn’t have applauded if I had been in the audience?
He didn’t literally mean you in the audience.
I missed that post.
Is it really this hard for you guys to put yourself in someone else’s shoes for a moment? Someone who isn’t the majority in this country, be it numerical majority (white) or power majority (male)?
Maybe I would have found it more moving if I were black and/or a woman, I don’t know.
I guess my ultimate question is why you would have to be black and/or female to have a positive reaction to the speech rather than “meh” but I’m willing to drop it at this point.
You already answered that with this:
But seriously, why are we actually discussing Oprah being elected? Why is anyone anywhere discussing it?
She made a big and inspiring speech.
meh.
Pfft. Good grief.
I just didn’t think it was that great or that moving.
What was it about, Warbler?
Racism, sexism, sexual harassment/assault, “me too”, advancement of African Americans and women, etc.
So…stuff that doesn’t affect you?
Probably not as much as they do women and minorities, but I still consider them to be important issues.
Definitely not as much as them.
I give up (again).
Oh well.
Is it really this hard for you guys to put yourself in someone else’s shoes for a moment? Someone who isn’t the majority in this country, be it numerical majority (white) or power majority (male)?
Why is it a requirement to get all fired up about this speech? That if one doesn’t get fired up about it, that automatically indicates that one must be unable to remotely identify with others?
Why is it so hard for you to put yourself in someone else’s shoes who does not share your opinion and not be critical of them?
When the plain truth is spoken loud n’ clear to an audience of that size it should be applauded no matter how well you thought it was delivered.
When did I say I wouldn’t have applauded if I had been in the audience?
You don’t have to be in the same room to be in the audience.
So when you watched it the first time, you stood up and applauded just like the audience did?
“Applaud” doesn’t mean “stand n’ cheer”.
The speech just didn’t move me, I don’t know what else to say.
Is it really this hard for you guys to put yourself in someone else’s shoes for a moment? Someone who isn’t the majority in this country, be it numerical majority (white) or power majority (male)?
This post was gratuitous but maybe some could benefit from this book.
The book description must have been written before 2008, at one point it talks about black people not being able to be President.
It’s from 2006 and Senator Obama is discussed in the book and the author mocks the idea he might become president.
I assume he no longer does that.
Is it really this hard for you guys to put yourself in someone else’s shoes for a moment? Someone who isn’t the majority in this country, be it numerical majority (white) or power majority (male)?
This post was gratuitous but maybe some could benefit from this book.
The book description must have been written before 2008, at one point it talks about black people not being able to be President.
It’s from 2006 and Senator Obama is discussed in the book and the author mocks the idea he might become president.
I assume he no longer does that.
I wager that’s right…the author is black and was incredulous that America would elect a black person. So I assume he was pleasantly surprised.
The blue elephant in the room.
Next year, copyrights expire again maybe!!
The blue elephant in the room.
Next year, copyrights expire again maybe!!
I’m thinking it will actually happen this time. The reason is we spent the past decade trying to get every other country in the world to coordinate their copyright terms, and I doubt anyone thinks we’ll be able to pull that off again.
And Congress looking to reauthorize warrantless wiretapping of Americans: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/us/politics/nsa-surveillance-privacy-section-702-amendment.html
The blue elephant in the room.
Oprah appeals to the more liberal minded people. But if you want Trump gone, we need someone that will appeal to the moderate and conservative-light people. Obviously the liberals are going to vote for the Democrat whoever it is. But the moderates and conservative-light people need to be won over.
I don’t want someone who will appeal to conservatives. That Would inhibit the potential good that a genuine liberal president can do.
The Person in Question
Oprah appeals to the more liberal minded people. But if you want Trump gone, we need someone that will appeal to the moderate and conservative-light people. Obviously the liberals are going to vote for the Democrat whoever it is. But the moderates and conservative-light people need to be won over.
I don’t want someone who will appeal to conservatives. That Would inhibit the potential good that a genuine liberal president can do.
I said moderates and conservative-light people. What would really inhibit the potential good that a genuine liberal President could do, is if a Conservative was elected. Liberals + moderates + conservative-lights = election win for Dems.
I’ll keep pining away for a true conservative president.
The blue elephant in the room.
I consider myself quite liberal. However, I would be perfectly fine with a conservative president who wasn’t also an anti-environmental Bible thumper. It perplexes me why “conservative” has come to be associated largely with these two things. I’m fine with the concept of less government and more freedoms, but I’m not religious and don’t see the logic in governing our country with a 2000-year-old unchanging cryptic Aramaic hodge-podge that nobody even has an original copy of. I also consider our planet a beautiful and precious place and want leaders who care that it be preserved for the future… why isn’t that considered “conservative”?
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
I consider myself quite liberal. However, I would be perfectly fine with a conservative president who wasn’t also an anti-environmental Bible thumper. It perplexes me why “conservative” has come to be associated largely with these two things. I’m fine with the concept of less government and more freedoms, but I’m not religious and don’t see the logic in governing our country with a 2000-year-old unchanging cryptic Aramaic hodge-podge that nobody even has an original copy of. I also consider our planet a beautiful and precious place and want leaders who care that it be preserved for the future… why isn’t that considered “conservative”?
Pretty much this.
I don’t think I’d mind nearly as much at how personally terrible this president is if he at least cared about the planet. I still wouldn’t vote for him, but his bloviating could more safely be ignored.
You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)
Words mean what you want them to mean. Today’s small government conservative is a classical liberal. And also, as of Trump, a Democrat 😉
The problem for small government conservatives is that they’ve never really had a party to call home. Reagan actively courted libertarians and Republicans since then have worked small government sound bites into all their speeches, but they never actually were much of a small government party when they were in power – only promoting small government policies that extended much beyond tax cuts as a means of opposing Democrats when they were out of power.
Puggo, liberals and the Democratic Party have become hostile to religion, traditional Christianity in particular. And liberals are demagogic on the environment, which nowadays mostly refers to global warming. And so the false idea tha conservatives are theocrats who don’t care about the environment exists.
If a person’s moral and ethical views are based in religion I see nothing wrong with that. And we do expect a leader to carry their morals and ethics into the job. That’s all a far cry from governing our country by the dictates of the Bible. If one disagrees with certain moral and ethical view, that’s fine. But they are not illegitimate just because they’re religious. The First Amendment imposes certain limitations but was never meant to purge religion in the way some advocate.
On the environment too we find mere disagreement painted as improper.
To CatBus’s point, people on both sides have good reason to feel underwhelmed by their respective parties.
The blue elephant in the room.
Liberals and Democrats are not hostile to religion and Christianity in particular. Secularism is not hostile to people’s personal beliefs. Also, since so many Republicans were willing to vote for Trump, that shows that they’re pretty willing to throw their traditional Christian morals into the dumpster when their candidate is the complete antithesis of their supposed values. I’m not aware of anyone denying candidates their right to subscribe to whatever religion they want. People vote against candidates based on their religiosity, but that’s everyone’s right and is completely different. As for the environment, disagreeing that mankind is having an adverse effect on our planet that will irreversibly damage it and our own living conditions if we don’t address it immediately is improper because it’s the wrong position. Climate change denial is objectively untrue. It’s patently false. I see no reason to debate it. It’s like debating whether or not setting your own hair on fire would damage your scalp.
The Person in Question
http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/11/politics/daca-deal-obstacles-flake-white-house/index.html
President Donald Trump, using vulgar terms, rejected a pitch Thursday from a bipartisan team of senators on a compromise immigration deal to protect DACA participants while increasing border security.
“Why do we want all these people from ‘shithole countries’ coming here?” Trump told senators in the Oval Office, a source briefed on the meeting told CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/11/politics/daca-deal-obstacles-flake-white-house/index.html
President Donald Trump, using vulgar terms, rejected a pitch Thursday from a bipartisan team of senators on a compromise immigration deal to protect DACA participants while increasing border security.
“Why do we want all these people from ‘shithole countries’ coming here?” Trump told senators in the Oval Office, a source briefed on the meeting told CNN.
Disgusting man, that Trump…