Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 409

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

If someone is eating an apple and another person is just watching them eat the apple, which one has the more qualified opinion on the quality of that apple?

what exact quality of the apple are you talking about. Without tasting I can still testify to quality of how it looks and smells. Of course I can’t testify as to how it tastes unless I tasted it.

I think this exclusionary attitude again causes resentment both ways. Maybe Warbler doesn’t know about that specific apple, but then, perhaps he could offer a more objective perspective on other qualities of the apple, while the person eating the apple may be overly-concerned with the most salient qualities, such as flavor.

What if the person eating the apple gets food poisoning, and the other person doesn’t believe them, or says they need to get over it?

I’m not at all suggesting the person eating the apple shouldn’t have an opinion of greater importance. I’m simply saying they may have something to contribute. What if the non-apple eater had never tasted apple, but happens to know the many health benefits of apples? What if he’s never had that Fuji apple the first person is eating, but he’s had golden delicious and might have some unique contribution to the broader discussion if afford in general?

I’m not suggesting that white people can’t talk about race. If so I’d be a hypocrite.

but that is exactly what Frink is suggesting.

You’re colossally missing the point.

ok, you are right. Frink is not suggesting white people can’t talk about race, he suggesting white people shouldn’t talk about certain issues involving race.

So white people should argue in favor of using the n-word? Clearly they can, but they shouldn’t, right?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

It’s certainly not because I’ve been saying so, although I keep hearing that I have been for some reason.

But you have been saying so. You said that white people, especially Warbler, due to white privilege, should not have an opinion on certain non-white matters. You then said that you do believe white people can, but that contradiction basically leads one to infer that you are the judge of what they should and should not have an opinion about.

I think you would agree that people can support Trump, but that they shouldn’t. Apply that concept to the conversation we’re having now.

There is a difference between disagreeing with an opinion, and thinking one shouldn’t give an opinion.

If someone saying says they support Trump, I will tell them I think they are wrong to support Trump. I will not tell them say are wrong for saying they support Trump.

Have I or anybody else say that people are wrong for merely saying their opinions?

um, yes. Both you and Frink. multiple times.

Sorry, but… source?

Was I or was I not wrong saying my opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction?


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

I hate it when I close this thread and there’s immediately a new post to read.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

Was I or was I not wrong saying my opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction?

What was your opinion again? Was it that it was ok for them to have made that commercial, or was it that black people shouldn’t be offended by it?

Author
Time

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

It’s certainly not because I’ve been saying so, although I keep hearing that I have been for some reason.

But you have been saying so. You said that white people, especially Warbler, due to white privilege, should not have an opinion on certain non-white matters. You then said that you do believe white people can, but that contradiction basically leads one to infer that you are the judge of what they should and should not have an opinion about.

I think you would agree that people can support Trump, but that they shouldn’t. Apply that concept to the conversation we’re having now.

There is a difference between disagreeing with an opinion, and thinking one shouldn’t give an opinion.

If someone saying says they support Trump, I will tell them I think they are wrong to support Trump. I will not tell them say are wrong for saying they support Trump.

Have I or anybody else say that people are wrong for merely saying their opinions?

um, yes. Both you and Frink. multiple times.

Sorry, but… source?

Was I or was I not wrong saying my opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction?

I think your opinion is wrong, but I don’t think you were wrong to say it.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

If someone is eating an apple and another person is just watching them eat the apple, which one has the more qualified opinion on the quality of that apple?

what exact quality of the apple are you talking about. Without tasting I can still testify to quality of how it looks and smells. Of course I can’t testify as to how it tastes unless I tasted it.

I think this exclusionary attitude again causes resentment both ways. Maybe Warbler doesn’t know about that specific apple, but then, perhaps he could offer a more objective perspective on other qualities of the apple, while the person eating the apple may be overly-concerned with the most salient qualities, such as flavor.

What if the person eating the apple gets food poisoning, and the other person doesn’t believe them, or says they need to get over it?

I’m not at all suggesting the person eating the apple shouldn’t have an opinion of greater importance. I’m simply saying they may have something to contribute. What if the non-apple eater had never tasted apple, but happens to know the many health benefits of apples? What if he’s never had that Fuji apple the first person is eating, but he’s had golden delicious and might have some unique contribution to the broader discussion if afford in general?

I’m not suggesting that white people can’t talk about race. If so I’d be a hypocrite.

but that is exactly what Frink is suggesting.

You’re colossally missing the point.

ok, you are right. Frink is not suggesting white people can’t talk about race, he suggesting white people shouldn’t talk about certain issues involving race.

So white people should argue in favor of using the n-word? Clearly they can, but they shouldn’t, right?

I suppose if they feel people should use that term, they should say so. However, I would disagree with them, and I would find the strong terms to say so.

Is my reaction to the ESPN fantasy auction the same as arguing in favor of using the N-word?


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

It’s certainly not because I’ve been saying so, although I keep hearing that I have been for some reason.

But you have been saying so. You said that white people, especially Warbler, due to white privilege, should not have an opinion on certain non-white matters. You then said that you do believe white people can, but that contradiction basically leads one to infer that you are the judge of what they should and should not have an opinion about.

I think you would agree that people can support Trump, but that they shouldn’t. Apply that concept to the conversation we’re having now.

There is a difference between disagreeing with an opinion, and thinking one shouldn’t give an opinion.

If someone saying says they support Trump, I will tell them I think they are wrong to support Trump. I will not tell them say are wrong for saying they support Trump.

Have I or anybody else say that people are wrong for merely saying their opinions?

um, yes. Both you and Frink. multiple times.

Sorry, but… source?

Was I or was I not wrong saying my opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction?

I think your opinion is wrong, but I don’t think you were wrong to say it.

Well Frink certainly thought I was wrong for saying it.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

It’s certainly not because I’ve been saying so, although I keep hearing that I have been for some reason.

But you have been saying so. You said that white people, especially Warbler, due to white privilege, should not have an opinion on certain non-white matters. You then said that you do believe white people can, but that contradiction basically leads one to infer that you are the judge of what they should and should not have an opinion about.

I think you would agree that people can support Trump, but that they shouldn’t. Apply that concept to the conversation we’re having now.

There is a difference between disagreeing with an opinion, and thinking one shouldn’t give an opinion.

If someone saying says they support Trump, I will tell them I think they are wrong to support Trump. I will not tell them say are wrong for saying they support Trump.

Have I or anybody else say that people are wrong for merely saying their opinions?

um, yes. Both you and Frink. multiple times.

Sorry, but… source?

Was I or was I not wrong saying my opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction?

I think your opinion is wrong, but I don’t think you were wrong to say it.

Well Frink certainly thought I was wrong for saying it.

yhwx said:

Sorry, but… source?

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

Was I or was I not wrong saying my opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction?

What was your opinion again? Was it that it was ok for them to have made that commercial, or was it that black people shouldn’t be offended by it?

I think it was that people were making too much of a big deal about it.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

If someone is eating an apple and another person is just watching them eat the apple, which one has the more qualified opinion on the quality of that apple?

what exact quality of the apple are you talking about. Without tasting I can still testify to quality of how it looks and smells. Of course I can’t testify as to how it tastes unless I tasted it.

I think this exclusionary attitude again causes resentment both ways. Maybe Warbler doesn’t know about that specific apple, but then, perhaps he could offer a more objective perspective on other qualities of the apple, while the person eating the apple may be overly-concerned with the most salient qualities, such as flavor.

What if the person eating the apple gets food poisoning, and the other person doesn’t believe them, or says they need to get over it?

I’m not at all suggesting the person eating the apple shouldn’t have an opinion of greater importance. I’m simply saying they may have something to contribute. What if the non-apple eater had never tasted apple, but happens to know the many health benefits of apples? What if he’s never had that Fuji apple the first person is eating, but he’s had golden delicious and might have some unique contribution to the broader discussion if afford in general?

I’m not suggesting that white people can’t talk about race. If so I’d be a hypocrite.

but that is exactly what Frink is suggesting.

You’re colossally missing the point.

ok, you are right. Frink is not suggesting white people can’t talk about race, he suggesting white people shouldn’t talk about certain issues involving race.

So white people should argue in favor of using the n-word? Clearly they can, but they shouldn’t, right?

I suppose if they feel people should use that term, they should say so. However, I would disagree with them, and I would find the strong terms to say so.

Is my reaction to the ESPN fantasy auction the same as arguing in favor of using the N-word?

[Never mind, we’re stuck in a time loop.]

Author
Time

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

It’s certainly not because I’ve been saying so, although I keep hearing that I have been for some reason.

But you have been saying so. You said that white people, especially Warbler, due to white privilege, should not have an opinion on certain non-white matters. You then said that you do believe white people can, but that contradiction basically leads one to infer that you are the judge of what they should and should not have an opinion about.

I think you would agree that people can support Trump, but that they shouldn’t. Apply that concept to the conversation we’re having now.

There is a difference between disagreeing with an opinion, and thinking one shouldn’t give an opinion.

If someone saying says they support Trump, I will tell them I think they are wrong to support Trump. I will not tell them say are wrong for saying they support Trump.

Have I or anybody else say that people are wrong for merely saying their opinions?

um, yes. Both you and Frink. multiple times.

Sorry, but… source?

Was I or was I not wrong saying my opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction?

I think your opinion is wrong, but I don’t think you were wrong to say it.

Well Frink certainly thought I was wrong for saying it.

yhwx said:

Sorry, but… source?

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

darthrush said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

In other racial news…

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/08/15/espn-apology-fantasy-football-auction

Yikes. Great timing.

Is this really that big of a deal? They weren’t selling black people, they were doing a FANTASY auction of football players. It also included white players. According to the article you linked too, auctions are common in fantasy football.

"Auction drafts are a common part of fantasy football, and ESPN’s segments replicated an auction draft with a diverse slate of top professional football players. Without that context, we understand the optics could be portrayed as offensive, and we apologize,” ESPN said in a statement to USA TODAY Sports.

I’ve done Fantasy for many years now and this story proves that if someone does something as simple as taking something out of context, they’ll get offended real quick.

Just once I wish you guys could admit that maybe just maybe black people could have an issue with something that you guys don’t.

Just once I wish that you guys could admit that "maybe just maybe* just because some black people have an issue with something, doesn’t automatically make it a valid complaint.

Ok, good to know. Please be sure to let black people know each time what they are allowed to have an issue with, so they can stop making the same mistake of being offended.

*sigh*

Fact: People sometimes get offended at things that aren’t reasonable to be offended over.

Once again, thanks for clarifying that for black people. I’m sure they feel much better now.

Do disagree with the fact that I stated? Are you saying it never happens that someone gets offended at something that wasn’t reasonable to get offended at? That never happens???

If a black person says they are offended because Jack White won’t change his name to Jack Black, I wouldn’t consider that reasonable. If a black person says they are offended because an ESPN sketch includes something that is reminiscent of a slave auction, I’m not gonna argue. I get that it’s fantasy football (I play) and I get that white players were there too. It’s clear ESPN did not do it intentionally. But it looks bad and there’s no reason us white people should be lecturing black people for pointing that out.

I was not lecturing anyone. I was giving my opinion. White people are allowed to have opinions and say them.

Your opinion (and darthrush;s and mfm’s) is that black people should not be upset that something with at least tangential racial connotations happened. That’s a lecture, no matter how much you want to dress it up as opinion.

And this isn’t about what you are allowed to do, it’s about what you should (or in this case should not) do. You have the right to tell people to get over racial things. But you shouldn’t.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

Was I or was I not wrong saying my opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction?

What was your opinion again? Was it that it was ok for them to have made that commercial, or was it that black people shouldn’t be offended by it?

I think it was that people were making too much of a big deal about it.

Ok, so it’s the latter. I believe you are wrong to tell black people they shouldn’t be offended by it.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

If someone is eating an apple and another person is just watching them eat the apple, which one has the more qualified opinion on the quality of that apple?

what exact quality of the apple are you talking about. Without tasting I can still testify to quality of how it looks and smells. Of course I can’t testify as to how it tastes unless I tasted it.

I think this exclusionary attitude again causes resentment both ways. Maybe Warbler doesn’t know about that specific apple, but then, perhaps he could offer a more objective perspective on other qualities of the apple, while the person eating the apple may be overly-concerned with the most salient qualities, such as flavor.

What if the person eating the apple gets food poisoning, and the other person doesn’t believe them, or says they need to get over it?

I’m not at all suggesting the person eating the apple shouldn’t have an opinion of greater importance. I’m simply saying they may have something to contribute. What if the non-apple eater had never tasted apple, but happens to know the many health benefits of apples? What if he’s never had that Fuji apple the first person is eating, but he’s had golden delicious and might have some unique contribution to the broader discussion if afford in general?

I’m not suggesting that white people can’t talk about race. If so I’d be a hypocrite.

but that is exactly what Frink is suggesting.

You’re colossally missing the point.

ok, you are right. Frink is not suggesting white people can’t talk about race, he suggesting white people shouldn’t talk about certain issues involving race.

So white people should argue in favor of using the n-word? Clearly they can, but they shouldn’t, right?

I suppose if they feel people should use that term, they should say so. However, I would disagree with them, and I would find the strong terms to say so.

Is my reaction to the ESPN fantasy auction the same as arguing in favor of using the N-word?

[Never mind, we’re stuck in a time loop.]

*sigh*


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

It’s certainly not because I’ve been saying so, although I keep hearing that I have been for some reason.

But you have been saying so. You said that white people, especially Warbler, due to white privilege, should not have an opinion on certain non-white matters. You then said that you do believe white people can, but that contradiction basically leads one to infer that you are the judge of what they should and should not have an opinion about.

I think you would agree that people can support Trump, but that they shouldn’t. Apply that concept to the conversation we’re having now.

There is a difference between disagreeing with an opinion, and thinking one shouldn’t give an opinion.

If someone saying says they support Trump, I will tell them I think they are wrong to support Trump. I will not tell them say are wrong for saying they support Trump.

Have I or anybody else say that people are wrong for merely saying their opinions?

um, yes. Both you and Frink. multiple times.

Sorry, but… source?

Was I or was I not wrong saying my opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction?

I think your opinion is wrong, but I don’t think you were wrong to say it.

Well Frink certainly thought I was wrong for saying it.

yhwx said:

Sorry, but… source?

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

darthrush said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

In other racial news…

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/08/15/espn-apology-fantasy-football-auction

Yikes. Great timing.

Is this really that big of a deal? They weren’t selling black people, they were doing a FANTASY auction of football players. It also included white players. According to the article you linked too, auctions are common in fantasy football.

"Auction drafts are a common part of fantasy football, and ESPN’s segments replicated an auction draft with a diverse slate of top professional football players. Without that context, we understand the optics could be portrayed as offensive, and we apologize,” ESPN said in a statement to USA TODAY Sports.

I’ve done Fantasy for many years now and this story proves that if someone does something as simple as taking something out of context, they’ll get offended real quick.

Just once I wish you guys could admit that maybe just maybe black people could have an issue with something that you guys don’t.

Just once I wish that you guys could admit that "maybe just maybe* just because some black people have an issue with something, doesn’t automatically make it a valid complaint.

Ok, good to know. Please be sure to let black people know each time what they are allowed to have an issue with, so they can stop making the same mistake of being offended.

*sigh*

Fact: People sometimes get offended at things that aren’t reasonable to be offended over.

Once again, thanks for clarifying that for black people. I’m sure they feel much better now.

Do disagree with the fact that I stated? Are you saying it never happens that someone gets offended at something that wasn’t reasonable to get offended at? That never happens???

If a black person says they are offended because Jack White won’t change his name to Jack Black, I wouldn’t consider that reasonable. If a black person says they are offended because an ESPN sketch includes something that is reminiscent of a slave auction, I’m not gonna argue. I get that it’s fantasy football (I play) and I get that white players were there too. It’s clear ESPN did not do it intentionally. But it looks bad and there’s no reason us white people should be lecturing black people for pointing that out.

I was not lecturing anyone. I was giving my opinion. White people are allowed to have opinions and say them.

Your opinion (and darthrush;s and mfm’s) is that black people should not be upset that something with at least tangential racial connotations happened. That’s a lecture, no matter how much you want to dress it up as opinion.

And this isn’t about what you are allowed to do, it’s about what you should (or in this case should not) do. You have the right to tell people to get over racial things. But you shouldn’t.

Well, OK, then.

I’m mostly done for now because I have other things to do. Ugh.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

If someone is eating an apple and another person is just watching them eat the apple, which one has the more qualified opinion on the quality of that apple?

what exact quality of the apple are you talking about. Without tasting I can still testify to quality of how it looks and smells. Of course I can’t testify as to how it tastes unless I tasted it.

I think this exclusionary attitude again causes resentment both ways. Maybe Warbler doesn’t know about that specific apple, but then, perhaps he could offer a more objective perspective on other qualities of the apple, while the person eating the apple may be overly-concerned with the most salient qualities, such as flavor.

What if the person eating the apple gets food poisoning, and the other person doesn’t believe them, or says they need to get over it?

I’m not at all suggesting the person eating the apple shouldn’t have an opinion of greater importance. I’m simply saying they may have something to contribute. What if the non-apple eater had never tasted apple, but happens to know the many health benefits of apples? What if he’s never had that Fuji apple the first person is eating, but he’s had golden delicious and might have some unique contribution to the broader discussion if afford in general?

I’m not suggesting that white people can’t talk about race. If so I’d be a hypocrite.

Then I think we’re in agreement.

Author
Time

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

It’s certainly not because I’ve been saying so, although I keep hearing that I have been for some reason.

But you have been saying so. You said that white people, especially Warbler, due to white privilege, should not have an opinion on certain non-white matters. You then said that you do believe white people can, but that contradiction basically leads one to infer that you are the judge of what they should and should not have an opinion about.

I think you would agree that people can support Trump, but that they shouldn’t. Apply that concept to the conversation we’re having now.

There is a difference between disagreeing with an opinion, and thinking one shouldn’t give an opinion.

If someone saying says they support Trump, I will tell them I think they are wrong to support Trump. I will not tell them say are wrong for saying they support Trump.

Have I or anybody else say that people are wrong for merely saying their opinions?

um, yes. Both you and Frink. multiple times.

Sorry, but… source?

Was I or was I not wrong saying my opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction?

I think your opinion is wrong, but I don’t think you were wrong to say it.

Well Frink certainly thought I was wrong for saying it.

yhwx said:

Sorry, but… source?

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

Was I or was I not wrong saying my opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction?

What was your opinion again? Was it that it was ok for them to have made that commercial, or was it that black people shouldn’t be offended by it?

I think it was that people were making too much of a big deal about it.

Ok, so it’s the latter. I believe you are wrong to tell black people they shouldn’t be offended by it.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

It’s certainly not because I’ve been saying so, although I keep hearing that I have been for some reason.

But you have been saying so. You said that white people, especially Warbler, due to white privilege, should not have an opinion on certain non-white matters. You then said that you do believe white people can, but that contradiction basically leads one to infer that you are the judge of what they should and should not have an opinion about.

I think you would agree that people can support Trump, but that they shouldn’t. Apply that concept to the conversation we’re having now.

There is a difference between disagreeing with an opinion, and thinking one shouldn’t give an opinion.

If someone saying says they support Trump, I will tell them I think they are wrong to support Trump. I will not tell them say are wrong for saying they support Trump.

Have I or anybody else say that people are wrong for merely saying their opinions?

um, yes. Both you and Frink. multiple times.

Sorry, but… source?

Was I or was I not wrong saying my opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction?

I think your opinion is wrong, but I don’t think you were wrong to say it.

Well Frink certainly thought I was wrong for saying it.

yhwx said:

Sorry, but… source?

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

darthrush said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

In other racial news…

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/08/15/espn-apology-fantasy-football-auction

Yikes. Great timing.

Is this really that big of a deal? They weren’t selling black people, they were doing a FANTASY auction of football players. It also included white players. According to the article you linked too, auctions are common in fantasy football.

"Auction drafts are a common part of fantasy football, and ESPN’s segments replicated an auction draft with a diverse slate of top professional football players. Without that context, we understand the optics could be portrayed as offensive, and we apologize,” ESPN said in a statement to USA TODAY Sports.

I’ve done Fantasy for many years now and this story proves that if someone does something as simple as taking something out of context, they’ll get offended real quick.

Just once I wish you guys could admit that maybe just maybe black people could have an issue with something that you guys don’t.

Just once I wish that you guys could admit that "maybe just maybe* just because some black people have an issue with something, doesn’t automatically make it a valid complaint.

Ok, good to know. Please be sure to let black people know each time what they are allowed to have an issue with, so they can stop making the same mistake of being offended.

*sigh*

Fact: People sometimes get offended at things that aren’t reasonable to be offended over.

Once again, thanks for clarifying that for black people. I’m sure they feel much better now.

Do disagree with the fact that I stated? Are you saying it never happens that someone gets offended at something that wasn’t reasonable to get offended at? That never happens???

If a black person says they are offended because Jack White won’t change his name to Jack Black, I wouldn’t consider that reasonable. If a black person says they are offended because an ESPN sketch includes something that is reminiscent of a slave auction, I’m not gonna argue. I get that it’s fantasy football (I play) and I get that white players were there too. It’s clear ESPN did not do it intentionally. But it looks bad and there’s no reason us white people should be lecturing black people for pointing that out.

I was not lecturing anyone. I was giving my opinion. White people are allowed to have opinions and say them.

Your opinion (and darthrush;s and mfm’s) is that black people should not be upset that something with at least tangential racial connotations happened. That’s a lecture, no matter how much you want to dress it up as opinion.

And this isn’t about what you are allowed to do, it’s about what you should (or in this case should not) do. You have the right to tell people to get over racial things. But you shouldn’t.

Well, OK, then.

I’m mostly done for now because I have other things to do. Ugh.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Can we just assume you’re going to agree with everything he says so you can spare us 30 more posts with the same gif?

It is of course a loop of somebody determinedly clapping something they know is wrong out of arrogance.

VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

It’s certainly not because I’ve been saying so, although I keep hearing that I have been for some reason.

But you have been saying so. You said that white people, especially Warbler, due to white privilege, should not have an opinion on certain non-white matters. You then said that you do believe white people can, but that contradiction basically leads one to infer that you are the judge of what they should and should not have an opinion about.

I think you would agree that people can support Trump, but that they shouldn’t. Apply that concept to the conversation we’re having now.

There is a difference between disagreeing with an opinion, and thinking one shouldn’t give an opinion.

If someone saying says they support Trump, I will tell them I think they are wrong to support Trump. I will not tell them say are wrong for saying they support Trump.

Have I or anybody else say that people are wrong for merely saying their opinions?

um, yes. Both you and Frink. multiple times.

Sorry, but… source?

Was I or was I not wrong saying my opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction?

I think your opinion is wrong, but I don’t think you were wrong to say it.

Well Frink certainly thought I was wrong for saying it.

yhwx said:

Sorry, but… source?

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

Was I or was I not wrong saying my opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction?

What was your opinion again? Was it that it was ok for them to have made that commercial, or was it that black people shouldn’t be offended by it?

I think it was that people were making too much of a big deal about it.

Ok, so it’s the latter. I believe you are wrong to tell black people they shouldn’t be offended by it.

That’s not your opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction, that’s your opinion on black people’s opinion of it. Big difference.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Ryan McAvoy said:

TV’s Frink said:

Can we just assume you’re going to agree with everything he says so you can spare us 30 more posts with the same gif?

It is of course a loop of somebody determinedly clapping something they know is wrong out of arrogance.

bullsh**

btw, did you even read what chyron8472 said in those posts that I was clapping?


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

It’s certainly not because I’ve been saying so, although I keep hearing that I have been for some reason.

But you have been saying so. You said that white people, especially Warbler, due to white privilege, should not have an opinion on certain non-white matters. You then said that you do believe white people can, but that contradiction basically leads one to infer that you are the judge of what they should and should not have an opinion about.

I think you would agree that people can support Trump, but that they shouldn’t. Apply that concept to the conversation we’re having now.

There is a difference between disagreeing with an opinion, and thinking one shouldn’t give an opinion.

If someone saying says they support Trump, I will tell them I think they are wrong to support Trump. I will not tell them say are wrong for saying they support Trump.

Have I or anybody else say that people are wrong for merely saying their opinions?

um, yes. Both you and Frink. multiple times.

Sorry, but… source?

Was I or was I not wrong saying my opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction?

I think your opinion is wrong, but I don’t think you were wrong to say it.

Well Frink certainly thought I was wrong for saying it.

yhwx said:

Sorry, but… source?

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

Was I or was I not wrong saying my opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction?

What was your opinion again? Was it that it was ok for them to have made that commercial, or was it that black people shouldn’t be offended by it?

I think it was that people were making too much of a big deal about it.

Ok, so it’s the latter. I believe you are wrong to tell black people they shouldn’t be offended by it.

That’s not your opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction, that’s your opinion on black people’s opinion of it. Big difference.

well, my opinion about the ESPN fantasy auction, is that it is no big deal. An auction is something normally done in fantasy football leagues and it contained white players.

And no, it wasn’t my opinion on black people’s opinion of it(probably not all black people think the same thing about it), it was my opinion on anybody opinion of it whom was making a big deal about it.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

In short, I have an opinion about the fantasy auction. I don’t believe it is that big of a deal. I don’t think the complaints about it are reasonable. I don’t why it is wrong to state that opinion. I especially don’t know why my skin color makes it wrong to state that opinion.

If you disagree with my opinion, tell me I am wrong instead of telling me shouldn’t state it.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

215 posts have been made in this thread today, not including this one.

In other news:

That’s Trump near his lowest approval and disapproval ratings.

Author
Time

yhwx said:

215 posts have been made in this thread today, not including this one.

Someone once told me you’re supposed to be proud of your child’s accomplishments. Why, then, do I feel so hollow?

I can no longer call myself a Star Wars fan. I’m sick of the same played-out aesthetics/tropes being remixed/regurgitated time-&-time again; I’m sick of the deteriorating characterization/worldbuilding which have been in play since 1983; I’m sick of the toxic fanboys from all ideological camps; I’m sick of the capitalist pigs who refuse to allow this IP into the public domain where it rightly belongs. So while I may still admire the first two films for their technical achievements and characters, I’m no longer capable of enjoying Star Wars in any capacity due to the reasons delineated above.