Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, June 20, 2017

The Republican Party chairman in Georgia's 11th Congressional District said that the shooting at a congressional baseball practice near Washington, D.C., will result in a GOP win in the state's special House election, the Washington Post reported. Brad Carver, the GOP chairman, said the shooting will drive moderates and independents to vote for Republican Karen Handel, the Post reported. "I'll tell you what: I think the shooting is going to win this election for us," Carver told the Post Saturday. "Because moderates and independents in this district are tired of left-wing extremism. I get that there's extremists on both sides, but we are not seeing them."

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Ossoff is leading Handel by nearly 2 points in the latest poll in Tuesday's election for the open 6th District seat, which is expected to be the most expensive House election in U.S. history.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Republican Congressmen better hope this prediction doesn't work out because if it does you can depend on the assasination of at least one before every election going forward. If the GOP discovers that assasination bring victory then assasinations will become election strategy.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-20 08:40 AM | Reply

The GOP is filled with nothing but ghouls.

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2017-06-20 10:02 AM | Reply

I guess this is along the lines of, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

More proof that the 2 parties are morally bankrupt.

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 10:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"More proof that the 2 parties are morally bankrupt." - #3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 10:09 AM

"CU was about the federal government censoring political speech. 1st Amendment win!" - #15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-19 08:42 PM
Additional proof that the principle of causation is a foreign concept to you.

#4 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 10:19 AM | Reply

#4 | POSTED BY HANS

That made no sense.

But, as you may recall, I am "that dense" thus additional explanation is needed.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 10:40 AM | Reply

My most liberal relatives (aunts and uncles on my mom's side) completely agree with my Dad when he proclaims that both political parties are morally bankrupt.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 10:41 AM | Reply

""CU was about the federal government censoring political speech. 1st Amendment win!" - #15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-19 08:42 PM"

Utter nonsense, it was a decision intentionally made to benefit big money to buy elections. You can believe that the conservatives on the court are just deciding issues based on the law but we don't all have to be that gullible.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-20 10:47 AM | Reply

It is disgusting to accuse, person or party, would use assassination to win elections as a means to an end.

#8 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-06-20 10:49 AM | Reply

I'm all for banning organizations from giving money to influence elections. All contributions should be by a person.

That'll end all the issues with the corporation complaint...and unions, groups, associations, etc.

#9 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-06-20 10:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It is disgusting to accuse, person or party, would use assassination to win elections as a means to an end."

Unless, of course, the party you are accusing is secretly planning to take healthcare away from 20 million people and thereby kill millions. Don't ever tell me it is disgusting to accuse the Republican of being the criminal enterprise without morality that it is. You lost that argument when Richard Nixon blew up the Paris Peace talks because if Johnson had been able to end the Vietnam War Humphrey would have easily won that election but Nixon did blow it and cost the U.S. 25,000 soldiers lives just so he could be President. That's not conspiracy theory, that's fact. The Republican Party is a criminal conspiracy and has been for decades.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-20 11:02 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

"...thus additional explanation is needed." - #5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 10:40 AM

Of course it is.

Rank hypocrisy is calling both political parties morally bankrupt while at the exact same time applauding the very root of that bankruptcy.

"The kind of corruption the media talk about, the kind the Supreme Court was concerned about, involves the putative sale of votes in exchange for campaign contributions." - James L. Buckley
"Corruption is worse than prostitution. The latter might endanger the morals of an individual, the former invariably endangers the morals of the entire country." - Karl Kraus
"I think the notion that we have all the democracy that money can buy strays so far from what our democracy is supposed to be." - Ruth Bader Ginsburg
"Concentration of wealth yields concentration of power, particularly so as the cost of elections skyrockets, which kind of forces the political parties into the pockets of major corporations." - Noam Chomsky
"75% of Americans in 2014 believed the federal government is corrupt. According to a New York Times and CBS News poll in May, 84% think money has too much power in our system. That same poll found 85% of respondents support fundamentally changing or completely rebuilding our current system of financing campaigns. About two-thirds think our politics is dysfunctional, according to a September Washington Post/ABC News poll. And in 2014 the Wall Street Journal found that about 70% of Americans are angry and frustrated because our political system seems to only be working for insiders with money and power." -- Alan Simpson
"Let only individuals contribute -- with sensible limits per election. Otherwise, we are well on our way to ensuring that a government of the moneyed, by the moneyed, and for the moneyed shall not perish from the earth." -- Warren Buffett
"I will tell you that our system is broken. I give to many people, I give to everybody, when they call I give, and you know what? When I need something from them, two years, three years later, I call, they are there for me." -- Donald Trump
Again: Rank hypocrisy is calling both political parties morally bankrupt while at the exact same time applauding the very root of that bankruptcy.

Cause and effect, my dense friend.

Cause and effect.

#11 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 11:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Utter nonsense, it was a decision intentionally made to benefit big money to buy elections. You can believe that the conservatives on the court are just deciding issues based on the law but we don't all have to be that gullible.

#7 | POSTED BY DANNI

When you make these proclamations you never cite the Constitution, applicable laws and statutes, judicial precedents, etc.

It's always only about political outcomes.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 11:06 AM | Reply

Again: Rank hypocrisy is calling both political parties morally bankrupt while at the exact same time applauding the very root of that bankruptcy.
Cause and effect, my dense friend.

Are you arguing that CU, which undid parts of a law that had been on the books for less than a decade, is the root of the moral bankruptcy of both political parties?

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 11:08 AM | Reply

"Are you arguing that CU ... is the root of the moral bankruptcy of both political parties?" - #13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 11:08 AM

Money, especially unlimited money, is the root of moral bankruptcy of politics, my dense friend.

Cause and effect.

"I'm all for banning organizations from giving money to influence elections. All contributions should be by a person." - #9 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-06-20 10:50 AM
Bravo, Petrous.

#14 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 11:15 AM | Reply

"When you make these proclamations you never cite the Constitution, applicable laws and statutes, judicial precedents, etc."

We've been over hundreds of times and I would never blame one decision for all that is wrong with our system. I will say though that it is sort of funny that no other nations are still using electronic voting machines. That one weakness in our system is so provably hackable that it makes every election held using them to have a doubtful outcome. Most Americans have serious doubts about the integrity of our elections, you can't have a viable democracy in a country where the electorate doesn't believe the outcomes are honest.

#15 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-20 11:16 AM | Reply

In Great Britain campaigns are for a short time and very little money, in comparison to the U.S., is involved. Money should be taken out of politics, money is not speech, corporations are not people. We need a Constitutional Amendmend to accomplish those two things once and for all, we will never have a democracy we can trust until we do.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-20 11:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

As Et Al said, CU isn't about money.

CU. It struck a section of campaign finance law that prohibited corporations and unions from making "independent expenditures" within thirty days of a federal election. Specifically, CU was prohibited from showing "Hillary, The Movie" which it produced and proposed to pay for airing.
"Dark money" is the result of vagaries of the tax code where contributions can be made to certain 501(c) organizations without disclosing the donor. Granted dark money exploded after CU but the case is not what permitted it. The exact same contributions could have been made before CU.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 11:20 AM | Reply | Funny: 3

"CU isn't about money." - #17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag: Funny

#18 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 11:21 AM | Reply

Want to get some of the money out of national politics?

Pare the federal government back to its constitutionally-enumerated powers. If the government is much more (properly) limited in scope, there is much less to try and influence with money.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 11:22 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"...there is much less to try and influence with money." - #19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 11:22

I'll just have to add naïve to my ever-growing list of descriptors of you, my dense friend.

#20 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 11:24 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

JEFFJ, sometimes I don't know why you bother.

#21 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-06-20 11:25 AM | Reply

"JEFFJ, sometimes I don't know why you bother." - #21 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-06-20 11:25 AM

Indeed.

But, being both dense and naïve makes it somewhat difficult for jeffj to recognize that truth, visitor_.

#22 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 11:27 AM | Reply

The less power the federal government has, the less there is to try and influence.

The biggest government problem this country faces, IMO, is governance by bureaucracy.

Bureaucrats write "rules" that carry the weight of law and violation of said rules puts said violator in a guilty until proven innocent situation.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 11:28 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Pare the federal government back to its constitutionally-enumerated powers. If the government is much more (properly) limited in scope, there is much less to try and influence with money."

No. Our Congress has, over 200 years, decided there are many things the founders could never have imagined were necessary and decided to do those things. Gonna do away with FDA, FEC, SEC, FAA, baloney. That silly argument is just Libertarian nonsense. Other nations have good election systems and federal agencies as well.

#24 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-20 11:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Bureaucrats write "rules" that carry the weight of law and violation of said rules puts said violator in a guilty until proven innocent situation."

There is probably some truth to that but then again you can't really expect Congress to write every rule to regulate every problem especially to do with technical and otherwise complicated subjects.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-20 11:33 AM | Reply

"The less power the federal government has..." - #23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 11:28 AM

The only people who want "less power" are those who already have all the power and influence they want and need, and are only mouthing those words to placate the other group of people who was "less power": those who don't want "the other" to get anything "free," especially the "free" stuff they're already getting.

I don't suspect you fall into the former category, my dense friend.

"The biggest government problem this country faces, IMO, is governance by bureaucracy."

In 2015, 42.2 million Americans lived in food insecure households, including 29.1 million adults and 13.1 million children.

I'm sure when they're trying to fall asleep at night "governance by bureaucracy" is all they worry about.

#26 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 11:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I didn't say do away with those agencies, Danni.

Their scope needs to be much more narrow and with far more accountability to congress. A good start would be to pass the REINS Act.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 11:35 AM | Reply

"I didn't say do away with those agencies..." - #27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 11:35 AM

You said:

"Pare the federal government back to its constitutionally-enumerated powers." - #19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 11:22 AM
If you don't want to do away with those agencies, then tell us which "constitutionally-enumerated powers" authorizes, as Danni posted, the FDA, the FEC, the SEC, and the FAA.

YOYOW.

#28 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 11:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Pare the federal government back to its constitutionally-enumerated powers. If the government is much more (properly) limited in scope, there is much less to try and influence with money.

Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 11:22 AM | Reply

I don't think it means what you think that means.

#29 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-06-20 11:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Their scope needs to be much more narrow ..." - #27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 11:35 AM

So, should the FDA drop the "Food" part, or the "Drug" part? And, if so, who'll pickup the one that's dropped?

Or would Americans then have to choose between unsafe food or unsafe drugs?

#30 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 11:42 AM | Reply

The necessary and proper clause allows for the creation of those agencies.

It is not in dispute that congress has been ceding its powers to the Executive for the past few decades. That in itself is a major problem as congress is most closely tied to the people.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 11:44 AM | Reply

#10 | POSTED BY DANNI

"the party you are accusing is secretly planning to take healthcare away from 20 million people and thereby kill millions."

Before Obamacare, people died. During Obamacare, people died. People die with and without care. Your directed blame to a political party over issues involving healthcare is obscene. If people died after Obamacare because their care was deficient, are you blaming the democrats for that? I'm not. Do you know that some people have been affected by Obamacare positively, but some negatively. There's no avoiding the consequence, by either party, of an action taken. But, death due to one's health occurs with and without laws. Contribute the deaths of everyone in vehicle accidents to both parties. If the speed limit was 10mph, there would be less fatalities - but, someone will say this argument lacks merit - but a lower MPH would result in less deaths if lowered to 10.

There were five US Presidents during the Vietnam War. The first one is responsible for starting it. The rest could have ended it saving more lives. In the end, every president that sends a soldier to death and every president that fails to pull out immediately all troops, is responsible for any deaths along the way.

Is Obama responsible for the deaths during his tenure, or do they all fall on Bush?

Trump is responsible for every death of a soldier until he draws them out of harm's way. I don't blame Obama for current deaths, only for those he put in harms way.

#32 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-06-20 11:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The necessary and proper clause allows for the creation of those agencies." - #31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 11:44 AM

So anything (and everything) Congress decides is "necessary and proper" is AOK with you?

Doesn't leave much room for "paring."

As for Congress "ceding its powers to the Executive for the past few decades," get back to me when you've reconciled that with which party has held the Congressional majorities "for the past few decades," especially in the House.

#33 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 11:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That is a phony argument Petrous, real people will die when they take their healthcare coverage away from them. If this bill wasn't so awful it wouldn't be so secret that even Republican Senators don't know what's in it. I remember when they claimed that Obamacare was rammed down our throats, that was nothing compared to the cynical method they are trying to use to pass this garbage. I suspect they will pass it on Friday July 1 because it will hardly be noticed during a holiday weekend.

#34 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-20 12:00 PM | Reply

#32 I disagree. There isn't such a thing as responsibility when there isn't realistic chance of a trial and punishment for irresponsibility.

#35 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2017-06-20 12:02 PM | Reply

"...as congress is most closely tied to the people." - #31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 11:44 AM

Only in 8th grade civics class.

See: Gerrymander.

See also: Congressional reelection rates and Congressional approval ratings*

* - "My Congresscritter is the bee's knees. Its all those other ones which are the problem"

#36 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 12:02 PM | Reply

"Is Obama responsible for the deaths during his tenure, or do they all fall on Bush?"

They all fall on Bush. Obama couldn't just pull out 100% of our troops and leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves after all the sacrifices so many of them made but if we had never invaded none of those Americans would be dead today.

#37 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-20 12:14 PM | Reply

"The less power the federal government has, the less there is to try and influence."

That would just shift the problem to the states.

As though the Gerrymandered states are doing much better...

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-20 12:18 PM | Reply

#37 He could have pulled out 100%. So could Trump. It'll take an extraordinary person to be elected to make the decision and not someone afraid of political consequences.

"real people will die when they take their healthcare coverage away from them". Real people died since Obamacare has passed.

Real people will continue to die because of Obamacare - whether the R's pass anything or not.

#39 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-06-20 12:35 PM | Reply

Before Obamacare, people died. During Obamacare, people died. People die with and without care.

Yes but before Obamacare people died who would not have died with Obamacare. Can you point to a specific person and say if we had Obamacare that person would not have died? Of course not. But you can unequivically say that many of them would not have. You can unequivically say that there are people who get care now that would not have without Obamacare and some of them would have died without that care.

You can also unequivically say that if Republicansdon'tcare passes Many people who would get care and live under Obamacare will not get care and that more will die than if Obamacare stays in place.

Your logic is like saying some people die while wearing seatbelts so we don't need seatbelts

#40 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-06-20 12:37 PM | Reply

As for Congress "ceding its powers to the Executive for the past few decades," get back to me when you've reconciled that with which party has held the Congressional majorities "for the past few decades," especially in the House.

#33 | POSTED BY HANS

I know why it happened. Legislating is hard. It takes time. It requires persuasion. It requires compromise. It faces accountability to the voters.

Enacting an agenda via bureaucratic rule-making and through the courts is far easier, and both parties know it. Congress can then rip presidential overreach, throw their hands up in the air in disgust, and then do very little about it. The 4th branch of government has become the most powerful branch of government. Our system of checks and balances is being slowly eroded.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 12:46 PM | Reply

yes, I could point to someone who died because of Obamacare, but you don't want an individual accounting of it. That has been said many times on this site already.

"I lost my insurance." "I know someone who's premiums skyrocketed due to Obamacare." I know...I know...

You don't want to hear that, but it's true and so is someone dying because Obamacare failed. But, you reject personal or friends with experience.

Why does the R's have to do anything anyway? Isn't Obamacare working as planned or do you fear that someone may die because of how Obamacare was drafted?

It's just a bunch of BS - people will die no matter what the do. Obamacare helped many, but harmed many - but that's doesn't matter. Saving a life in exchange of ruining another is acceptable.

Instead of a National Healthcare program, it should have been National Life Insurance program. It's cheaper and the payout will help the family while they grieve.

#42 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-06-20 12:47 PM | Reply

"The less power the federal government has, the less there is to try and influence."
-----
That would just shift the problem to the states.
- Snoofy

Yes, it would. But then, Texas' problems would belong to Texas. Illinois' problems would belong to Illinois.

I think we can all agree that culturally and politically, Texas and California are pretty far apart. So, it would make sense that they have a bit more autonomy and control - live and let live.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 12:48 PM | Reply

"...it would make sense that they have a bit more autonomy and control - live and let live." - #43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 12:48 PM

Interestingly enough, just the very argument the leaders of the states of the Confederacy made.

Well, the "live and let live" part was only for their white population, but they definitely wanted that "autonomy and control" at the state level.

#44 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 12:52 PM | Reply

Yes, it would. But then, Texas' problems would belong to Texas. Illinois' problems would belong to Illinois.

I think we can all agree that culturally and politically, Texas and California are pretty far apart. So, it would make sense that they have a bit more autonomy and control - live and let live.

Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 12:48 PM | Reply

You're really short sighted. Not every state could sustain itself if it went your way. Your type of person was against the federal help during the Dust Bowl days. When a state runs into financial troubles where would they turn to???? It's not the UNITED States for nothing.

#45 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-06-20 12:56 PM | Reply

"Texas' problems would belong to Texas. Illinois' problems would belong to Illinois." - #43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 12:48 PM

A philosophy that would work well in an America of the 1700s. Maybe even in the earliest parts of the 1800s.

But following the Civil War, and certainly into the 20th century and now, the 21st century, "problems" do not always and conveniently confine themselves to arbitrarily-drawn political borders.

#46 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 12:57 PM | Reply

"It's not the UNITED States for nothing." - #45 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-06-20 12:56 PM

100% correct, Laura.

"Before the war, it was said 'the United States are' - grammatically it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war it was always 'the United States is', as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an 'is'." - historian Shelby Foote

#47 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 01:00 PM | Reply

You guys do realize that I am not advocating secession or slavery, right?

Is there no nuance to this? You guys (and gals) present this as either top-down centralized control or nihilism as if our options are binary.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 01:04 PM | Reply

Under federalism, we still have a federal government and it's a government that the Constitution enumerates considerable power to.

Having said that, the federal government is supposed to have limits to its power and the 10th Amendment was written for a reason - a reason that has little to do with slavery (which was codified elsewhere in the document).

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 01:06 PM | Reply

"II think we can all agree that culturally and politically, Texas and California are pretty far apart."

It must mean nothing to be an American to you, JeffJ

Rather than get indignant, maybe you could say what it means to you to be an American.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-20 01:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You guys do realize that I am not advocating secession or slavery, right?"

You're advocating that the States decide the slavery question for themselves.

The historical name for this position is States Rights.

You realize that, right?

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-20 01:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

ou're advocating that the States decide the slavery question for themselves.

No, I'm not.

Not even close.

It must mean nothing to be an American to you, JeffJ

I'm all about the melting pot - assimilation. It's progressives in the past couple of decades who have eschewed this concept in favor of multi-culturalism.

I'm not sure where the breakdown in communication is occurring - maybe it's on me. Your caricature of what I am advocating isn't even remotely close to what I am actually advocating.

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 01:48 PM | Reply

The less power the federal government has, the less there is to try and influence.
-Jiffy Pop

+++++++++++++
It's too bad YOUR Republican Party ISNT REALLY interested in smaller guberment like you believe it is.

#53 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2017-06-20 02:00 PM | Reply

"ou're advocating that the States decide the slavery question for themselves.
No, I'm not.
Not even close."

So then what are you advocating?

You don't think gay marriage should be decided by the Feds, right?

Why should slavery be different?

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-20 02:01 PM | Reply

First off, slavery and gay marriage - specifically, the state not recognizing a gay couple's marriage - are so many galaxies apart, to even draw equivalence is....goofy.

Secondly, the 13th and 14th Amendments settled the slavery issue.

Advocating for less central control and more federalism isn't advocating for the states to be able to resurrect the institution of slavery or anything like that.

Also, the states can't violate the Constitution and are subjected to all laws enacted by the federal government that fall within the scope of its constitutionally-enumerated powers. As it turns out, SCOTUS decided (I like the outcome, but found the jurisprudence to be questionable) that failing to recognize the marriage of a gay couple is a 14th Amendment violation.

I'm talking about a shift, a degree of change. I am not talking about taking a time machine back to the mid-19th Century.

#55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 02:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I'm all about the melting pot - assimilation. It's progressives in the past couple of decades who have eschewed this concept in favor of multi-culturalism. - #52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 01:48 PM

Because everyone just knows that Calle Ocho is a progressive idea.

As is Festa Italiana Milwaukee.

And St. Patrick's Day every year in Chicago.

And the The Polish Festival in Grand Rapids.

And Seafair Indian Days Pow Wow in Seattle.

And the Folkmoot Dance Festival in Waynesville, NC.

And the Annual Oktoberfest in Helen, Ga.

And the CAAMFest in San Fransisco.

And BorderFest in Hidalgo, Texas.

And the Annual Grandfather Mountain Highland Games in Linville, NC.

And Mardi Gras in New Orleans.

And Wurstfest in New Braunfels, Texas.

All those horrible, progressive events celebrating multi-culturalism in America.

How can you stand to live in such a country, jeffj?

#56 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 02:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hans,

There is a fundamental difference between keeping one's culture intact and assimilating as opposed to being a balkanized resident of this country under multi-culturalism. It's this rabid multi-culturalism that has resulted in this stupid obsession of condemning culture appropriation.

#57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 02:51 PM | Reply

I'm a fan of St. Patrick's Day and Cinco De Mayo. Great cultural events that we partake in as Americans.

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 02:52 PM | Reply

"I'm all about the melting pot - assimilation."

No, you think the states should be unique, not melted into one.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-20 03:12 PM | Reply

#58 those are commercial holidays for amateur drinkers.

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-20 03:13 PM | Reply

More proof that the 2 parties are morally bankrupt.

#3 | Posted by JeffJ

Yeah one of them is willing to let poor and sick people die so rich people can get richer.

The other one wants... help me think of something equally bad that democrats do.

#61 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-20 03:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"as opposed to being a balkanized resident of this country under multi-culturalism."

What choice do you have? Balkanization is just a bad word for Federalism, isn't it?

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-20 03:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"#58 those are commercial holidays for amateur drinkers."

I prefer Oktoberfest.....that's for more experienced drinkers.

#63 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-20 03:22 PM | Reply

"let poor and sick people die so rich people can get richer."

I expect that to be the slogan for the dem nominee for POTUS in 2020.

#64 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-20 03:23 PM | Reply

Do you understand the concept of the melting pot? We're all Americans and we celebrate that fact. But, since this country is a land of immigrants we also celebrate our culture.

Turning your arguments around, it would seem you are in favor of abolishing the states and their state governments and just be governed under a massive federal government.

Balkanization and federalism aren't remotely the same. Do you seriously not understand how federalism works?

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 03:24 PM | Reply

"There is a fundamental difference between keeping one's culture intact and assimilating as opposed to being a balkanized resident of this country under multi-culturalism." - #57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 02:51 PM

When all else fails, make something up.

And speaking of "balkanized," you've clearly never been to Calle Ocho.

Here's a helpful primer for those who don't understand this Fox News-inspired "multi-culturalism" that jeffj is talking about (just like their "War on Christmas"):

✔ Signs of the the melting pot (definitely here, and here and here) Good

? Possible signs of so-called "multi-culturalism" (here and here) Caution

☠ Definite signs of so-called "multi-culturalism" (here and here, and for godsake, HERE!) Be afraid, be very afraid.

#66 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 03:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Do you understand the concept of the melting pot?

Do you understand that when you melt things, they lose their individuality?

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-20 03:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Melting pot is ---- you learned in sixth grade and never bothered to realize it doesn't make a lick of sense.

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-20 03:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"But, since this country is a land of immigrants we also celebrate our culture." - #65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 03:24 PM

Exactly what you derisively call "multi-culturalism."

#69 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 03:31 PM | Reply

I agree with Snoofy. Melting pot my ass.

I live in a neighborhood where we keep the undesirables out. Same with my country club and my healthcare.

melting pot???? LOL whatever.

#70 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-20 03:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I live in a neighborhood where we keep the undesirables out. Same with my country club and my healthcare. melting pot???? LOL whatever." - #70 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-20 03:31 PM

Am I the only one who thinks eberly is the kinder, gentler 101Chairborne?

#71 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 03:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Carver told the Post Saturday. "I get that there's extremists on both sides, but we are not seeing them."

Who has a mirror?

#72 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-06-20 03:35 PM | Reply

I live in a neighborhood where we keep the undesirables out. Same with my country club and my healthcare.

melting pot???? LOL whatever.

Posted by eberly at 2017-06-20 03:31 PM | Reply

So you live in snootytown??? Don't take me to snootytown.

#73 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-06-20 03:37 PM | Reply

Let me explain it a different way.

What I am talking about is a combination of assimilation and people also maintaining their cultural heritage.

Learning to speak English is one example of this.

#74 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 03:37 PM | Reply

71

LOL....I just remember a scene in MASH where Charles is pissed that his sister was marrying an Italian and Col Potter was quoting "Give us your tired, your poor, etc" speech asking Charles to accept an Italian....Charles responds with "What do you think SLUMS are for???"

#75 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-20 03:39 PM | Reply

Cultural appropriation is the dumbest complaint that race baiters have come up with.

You'd have to be ignorant to the entirety of recorded history in order to believe that "cultural appropriation" is anything but standard human behavior.

Trying to pass yourself off as something you are not is different and people who are caught doing so deserved to be mocked.

#76 | Posted by Sully at 2017-06-20 03:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

My understanding of advocating for multi-culturalism is to maintain cultural identity without assimilating - instead of being an American from a Hispanic culture, one is simply a Hispanic who happens to be geographically located in the US.

#77 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 03:40 PM | Reply

LOL....I just remember a scene in MASH where Charles is pissed that his sister was marrying an Italian and Col Potter was quoting "Give us your tired, your poor, etc" speech asking Charles to accept an Italian....Charles responds with "What do you think SLUMS are for???"

#75 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Winchester's pompous arrogance was hilarious.

#78 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 03:41 PM | Reply

"I live in a neighborhood where we keep the undesirables out. Same with my country club and my healthcare. "

Yeah we were up in Boca Raton on Sunday, lots and lots of gated communities, my son commented that the traffic was very light. He said you ought to see it on weekdays when all the maids, gardners, tradesmen, etc. are all going out to these big homes, so while I'm sure you can keep the riff raff out you probably let all the service people in and I doubt they are all legal residents with green cards or that speak English for that matter.

#79 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-20 03:41 PM | Reply

Cultural appropriation is the dumbest complaint that race baiters have come up with.
You'd have to be ignorant to the entirety of recorded history in order to believe that "cultural appropriation" is anything but standard human behavior.
Trying to pass yourself off as something you are not is different and people who are caught doing so deserved to be mocked.

#76 | POSTED BY SULLY

No kidding. We had tacos for dinner last night. According to the SJW's we are to be condemned for cultural appropriation.

#80 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 03:42 PM | Reply

"What I am talking about is a combination of assimilation and people also maintaining their cultural heritage." - #74 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 03:37 PM

Exactly what you derisively call "multi-culturalism."

"Learning to speak English is one example of this."

Yep.

You've never been to Calle Ocho.

#81 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 03:43 PM | Reply

"According to the SJW's we are to be condemned for cultural appropriation." - #80 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 03:42 PM

When all else fails, make something up.

#82 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 03:44 PM | Reply

Robert De Niro played the role of Congrssman Scalise in the movie

#83 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-06-20 03:45 PM | Reply

"My understanding of advocating for multi-culturalism is to maintain cultural identity without assimilating - instead of being an American from a Hispanic culture..." - #77 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 03:40 PM

Your understanding is wrong.

Not that such a revelation is a surprise.

"...one is simply a Hispanic who happens to be geographically located in the US."

It is a wonder you get any sleep at night, with all those geographically-located people everywhere you look.

#84 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 03:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hans,

I don't know how else to phrase what I am talking about to get you to understand my POV.

Perhaps I can see if I can find something online that does a far better job of articulating this than I am doing.

Yeah we were up in Boca Raton on Sunday, lots and lots of gated communities, my son commented that the traffic was very light. He said you ought to see it on weekdays when all the maids, gardners, tradesmen, etc. are all going out to these big homes,

I don't think I would want to live like that. Yeah, if I came into a huge windfall I would certainly make upgrades to my house and drive a cool car, but I wouldn't move out of my neighborhood. I really like my neighborhood and our neighbors. Also, I like doing my own yard work and house cleaning.

#85 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 03:48 PM | Reply

We are more a stew pot than a melting pot. There's carrots over here and potatoes over there and some meat, onions, and celery in there too. If you deport one of the ingredients it just doesn't taste as good.

#86 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-06-20 03:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

When all else fails, make something up.

#82 | POSTED BY HANS

You think it's made up?

Have you not been paying attention to what is going on at college campuses across the country?

#87 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 03:50 PM | Reply

No kidding. We had tacos for dinner last night. According to the SJW's we are to be condemned for cultural appropriation.

#80 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-06-20 03:42 PM | REPLY
FLAG: doesn't know what cultural appropriation means

#88 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 03:50 PM | Reply

Have you not been paying attention to what is going on at college campuses across the country?

#87 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-06-20 03:50 PM | FLAG:

College activist groups scare you? What are you feelings on alt-righters and militias?

#89 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 03:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Great News. The United Nations Will Try To Outlaw Cultural Appropriation

Indigenous groups around the world are currently calling on the United Nations to make the appropriation of native cultures illegal, reports CBA News. A special committee has been asking for sanctions since 2001, long before Twitter and Instagram became the default ways for offended communities to call out BS and make their cases heard. This week, though, the ball is really getting rolling. Delegates from 189 countries are currently meeting in Geneva as part of a specialized international committee within the UN's World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

The committee is pushing for three pieces of international law to put sanctions place. This will expand international property regulations to protect indigenous property ranging from designs to language. The UN should "obligate states to create effective criminal and civil enforcement procedures to recognize and prevent the non-consensual taking and illegitimate possession, sale and export of traditional cultural expressions," James Anaya, dean of law at the University of Colorado, told the committee.


hotair.com

Perhaps this hasn't been on your radar. If not, I understand why you think I'm making stuff up as this is incredibly ridiculous.

I can cite countless other examples, if you'd like.

#90 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 03:53 PM | Reply

"You think it's made up?" - #87 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 03:50 PM

Of course it is.

"Have you not been paying attention to what is going on at college campuses across the country?"

Jeffj, some friendly advice:

TURN

OFF

FOX

NEWS

You're welcome.

#91 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 03:54 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Heck, check out the headlines on this page:

www.nationalreview.com

#92 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 03:55 PM | Reply

I

DON'T

WATCH

FOX

NEWS

You're welcome.

#93 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 03:56 PM | Reply

"I don't think I would want to live like that."

sure you do.

"...so while I'm sure you can keep the riff raff out you probably let all the service people in and I doubt they are all legal residents with green cards or that speak English for that matter."

well..yeah. business is business. But don't smile or wave at me or my kids. that's trouble......

#94 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-20 03:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#90 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 03:53 PM

Jeffj, Hotair? Really?

Ed Morrissey? Really?

ESCAPE

FROM

YOUR

EPISTEMIC

CLOSURE

It is rotting your brain.

#95 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 03:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Perhaps this hasn't been on your radar. If not, I understand why you think I'm making stuff up as this is incredibly ridiculous."

Had a glass of champagne from California lately? No? That is because champagne is a protected intellectual/cultural product that has to be from a certain region and possess certain qualities. There are many product just like it and have been for a good long while. I am not sure why you would object to native peoples asserting their rights in the same way.... oh, that's right: they aren't white.

#96 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 03:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#93 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 03:56 PM

You're doing an excellent job of parroting them, jeffj.

#97 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 03:59 PM | Reply

I can cite countless other examples, if you'd like.

#90 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-06-20 03:53 PM | FLAG:

Each one weaker than the last. We all know the real reason you oppose cultural sensitivity.

#98 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 04:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

FLAG: doesn't know what cultural appropriation means

#88 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 03:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

It doesn't mean anything because it isn't a criticism that is applied with anything approaching logical consistency.

To pretend that people who screech about this stuff do so in a way that isn't highly subjective and often hypocritical is to lie.

#99 | Posted by Sully at 2017-06-20 04:06 PM | Reply

Had a glass of champagne from California lately? No? That is because champagne is a protected intellectual/cultural product

Product. See the difference? Also, California produces sparkling wine that is as identical to Champagne as California Chardonnay is similar/identical to Chardonnay produced in France. The way SJW warriors frame it - it is cultural appropriation for me to drink Champagne since I am not French.

Each one weaker than the last. We all know the real reason you oppose cultural sensitivity.

#98 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

There is no logic to berating (or worse) a white girl for wearing hoop earrings under the rubric of cultural appropriation. Ditto for dread locks.

#100 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:07 PM | Reply

Republican Congressmen better hope this prediction doesn't work out because if it does you can depend on the assasination of at least one before every election going forward. If the GOP discovers that assasination bring victory then assasinations will become election strategy.

#1 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2017-06-20 08:40 AM | FLAG:

Good luck engaging in any productive discourse when you ascribe that level of malevolence to your political opponents. You don't believe that nonsense do you?

#101 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 04:07 PM | Reply

"College activist groups scare you?"

www.stltoday.com

some people are.

#102 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-20 04:07 PM | Reply

"I don't think I would want to live like that."
sure you do.

I'd have fun with the money but I wouldn't move into a gated community.

That just isn't me.

#103 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:08 PM | Reply

Better call an exterminator, Jeff.

You've been infested by virtue signalers.

LOL

#104 | Posted by Sully at 2017-06-20 04:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

OK Hans.

Don't like Hot Air.

Pick your source:

www.google.com

#105 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:10 PM | Reply

"Product. See the difference?"

Nope. Products are precisely what are at issue in the UN commission to which you called our attention.

"Also, California produces sparkling wine that is as identical to Champagne as California Chardonnay is similar/identical to Chardonnay produced in France."

Yet they cannot legally call it champagne. Why? Because champagne is a legally protected cultural product?

"The way SJW warriors frame it - it is cultural appropriation for me to drink Champagne since I am not French."

Ridiculous strawman.

"There is no logic to berating (or worse) a white girl for wearing hoop earrings under the rubric of cultural appropriation. Ditto for dread locks."

Are you okay with blackface comedy too?

#106 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 04:12 PM | Reply

Here Hans.

Perhaps this source is more palatable to you:

www.cbc.ca

#107 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:13 PM | Reply

Yet they cannot legally call it champagne. Why? Because champagne is a legally protected cultural product?

It has to do with the region in which it's produced. Just like only whisky that is solely produced in Scotland can be called scotch.

#108 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:14 PM | Reply

"I wouldn't move into a gated community."

Neither would I. I live in a nice neighborhood but I'm mostly spoofing.

#109 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-20 04:15 PM | Reply

I'd have fun with the money but I wouldn't move into a gated community.

That just isn't me.

Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:08 PM | Reply

Me either. Who wants to live like a snooty person anyways. I'd get my body fixed and then find a house in the country. If I ever got that self absorbed I'd hope someone would shoot me for being so haughty.

#110 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-06-20 04:15 PM | Reply

"The way SJW warriors frame it - it is cultural appropriation for me to drink Champagne since I am not French." - #100 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:07 PM

When all else fails, make something up.

And since when were you so against intellectual property rights (from your own source of hot air: "...as part of a specialized international committee within the UN's World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).")

But, apparently, when the intellectual property comes from "lesser" countries it is to be condemned.

You're so easy to read, jeffj.

#111 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 04:15 PM | Reply

"There is no logic to berating (or worse) a white girl for wearing hoop earrings under the rubric of cultural appropriation. Ditto for dread locks."
Are you okay with blackface comedy too?

#106 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

Yes. And I'd have no problem with blacks wiping white shoe polish on their faces and doing something similar.

#112 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:15 PM | Reply

It doesn't mean anything because it isn't a criticism that is applied with anything approaching logical consistency.
To pretend that people who screech about this stuff do so in a way that isn't highly subjective and often hypocritical is to lie.

#99 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2017-06-20 04:06 PM | FLAG:

What nonsense. By the same standards, any and every group is hypocritical and inconsistent. All the groups that opposed President Obama had a plurality of members saying different, even contradictory things, ranging from reasonable policy critiques to wild eyed conspiracy theories. Surely you wouldn't take that as grounds to throw out the lot of them without case by case analysis.

#113 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 04:17 PM | Reply

"Perhaps this source is more palatable to you" - #107 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:13 PM

As per my #111: Since when were you so against intellectual property rights?

#114 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 04:17 PM | Reply

"well..yeah. business is business. But don't smile or wave at me or my kids. that's trouble......"

We have residents both here in Ft. Lauderdale and in Boca who could teach classes in how to be condescending, rude and snooty. I doubt you have the entire personality training which it takes to be considered a rich ----- down here.

#115 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-20 04:20 PM | Reply

It has to do with the region in which it's produced. Just like only whisky that is solely produced in Scotland can be called scotch.

#108 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-06-20 04:14 PM | FLAG:

Right. In both cases, we are dealing with the protection of
cultural products.

#116 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 04:20 PM | Reply

As per my #111: Since when were you so against intellectual property rights?

#114 | POSTED BY HANS

I'm not. What is being discussed at the UN seems to go beyond intellectual property rights.

Is Taco Bell guilty of cultural appropriation?

How about Olive Garden?

PF Chang's?

#117 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:20 PM | Reply

Is Taco Bell guilty of cultural appropriation?

How about Olive Garden?

PF Chang's?

Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:20 PM | Reply

Taco Bell the source for extreme constipation relief.

#118 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-06-20 04:22 PM | Reply

Right. In both cases, we are dealing with the protection of
cultural products.

#116 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

That's not true. Bushmill's uses the same ingredients and the same processes to produce whisky that Macallan uses to produce whisky. Macallan, being that it's located in the Speyside region of Scotland, can call their product "scotch" or "scotch whisky". That is the only difference. Bushmill's isn't prohibited from producing a product that is essentially the same as Macallan. They just can't call it scotch.

#119 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:24 PM | Reply

"I doubt you have the entire personality training which it takes to be considered a rich ----- down here."

I'm sure you're right. I wasn't born with it. I don't run with real rich ------.

#120 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-20 04:24 PM | Reply

You've been infested by virtue signalers.

#104 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2017-06-20 04:09 PM | FLAG:

Better look up the definition of virtue signaling. Here's a free hint: anonymous online posting kind of defeats the point. Any other attempted ad hominems you'd care to try?

#121 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 04:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That's not true. Bushmill's uses the same ingredients and the same processes to produce whisky that Macallan uses to produce whisky. Macallan, being that it's located in the Speyside region of Scotland, can call their product "scotch" or "scotch whisky". That is the only difference. Bushmill's isn't prohibited from producing a product that is essentially the same as Macallan. They just can't call it scotch.

#119 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-06-20 04:24 PM | FLAG:

Which is a form of intellectual property protection. And one you are fine with... because it protects white people.

#122 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 04:26 PM | Reply

"Are you okay with blackface comedy too?" - #106 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN
"Yes." - #112 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:15 PM
Blackface is more than just burnt cork applied as makeup.
It is a style of entertainment based on racist Black stereotypes that began in minstrel shows...

The stock characters of blackface minstrelsy have played a significant role in disseminating racist images, attitudes and perceptions worldwide. Every immigrant group was stereotyped on the music hall stage during the 19th Century, but the history of prejudice, hostility, and ignorance towards black people has insured a unique longevity to the stereotypes. White America's conceptions of Black entertainers were shaped by minstrelsy's mocking caricatures and for over one hundred years the belief that Blacks were racially and socially inferior was fostered by legions of both white and black performers in blackface.

So tell us, jeffj: Are you more into the Jim Crow minstrel "humor," or the Zip ---- minstrel "humor."

Oh, and it is "nice" of you to be "okay" with people of color also engaging in racist humor ("...and doing something similar.").

I'd say that was mighty white of you, jeffj.

#123 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 04:26 PM | Reply

"Indigenous groups around the world are currently calling on the United Nations to make the appropriation of native cultures illegal, reports CBA News."

This offends you deeply why, exactly?

Do you get deeply offended when someone sellls knock-off Gucci bags? How about when that person gets shut down?

Does a cultural entity have to assimilate to our legal system to be protected?

My school team is called the Aztecs. I'm not Aztec. Was I a participant in some cultural appropriation?

#124 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-20 04:26 PM | Reply

Let's separate a couple of issues:

The UN is attempting to grapple with intellectual property rights - although when it comes to "culture" to me it seems like a task that is destined to fail. What's next? Do the Cherokee tribes sue Chrysler/Jeep for cultural appropriation?

#125 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:27 PM | Reply

Eberly isn't from rich country.

#126 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-06-20 04:28 PM | Reply

Yes. And I'd have no problem with blacks wiping white shoe polish on their faces and doing something similar.

#112 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-06-20 04:15 PM | FLAG:

Congratulations: you are a now confessed racist.

#127 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 04:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So tell us, jeffj: Are you more into the Jim Crow minstrel "humor," or the Zip ---- minstrel "humor."
Oh, and it is "nice" of you to be "okay" with people of color also engaging in racist humor ("...and doing something similar.").
I'd say that was mighty white of you, jeffj.

#123 | POSTED BY HANS

I honestly didn't know that about black-face humor. When Dirk made the comment I understood it to be white people wearing makeup to make themselves look black so they can play the role of a black person. It would be along the lines of a white guy auditioning and winning a part to play MLK in a movie and wearing makeup to make himself look black.

#128 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:30 PM | Reply

Which is a form of intellectual property protection. And one you are fine with... because it protects white people.

#122 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

So, is Taco Bell guilty of cultural appropriation?

#129 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:31 PM | Reply

Congratulations: you are a now confessed racist.

#127 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

Nope. I don't have a racist bone in my body. Never have, never will. Don't think you are going to shut me up either by calling me a racist. I don't play that game.

#130 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:33 PM | Reply

"I honestly didn't know that about black-face humor."

Like hell.

#131 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 04:34 PM | Reply

Better look up the definition of virtue signaling. Here's a free hint: anonymous online posting kind of defeats the point. Any other attempted ad hominems you'd care to try?

#121 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 04:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Dude, when Jeff mentioned hoop earings, you responded as if he was supporting blackface. Literally.

If that isn't virtue signaling of the most pathetic and desperate sort, I don't know what is.

I couldn't have pegged you more accurately if I was your mom.

#132 | Posted by Sully at 2017-06-20 04:35 PM | Reply

"What is being discussed at the UN seems to go beyond intellectual property rights."

Intellectual property rights are front and center in the information age, where physical scarcity is not a constraining factor.

For example your use of whatever hardware and software you are using to read this page is mostly via property rights granted a license, to which you were contractually bound to when you clicked "Yes."

The Doctrine of First Sale has been replaced with perpetual licensing.

#133 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-20 04:37 PM | Reply

And the fact that Jeff apparently didn't know what blackface really is doesn't change anything, Dirk.

You knew what it is when you made the ridiculous comparison.

#134 | Posted by Sully at 2017-06-20 04:37 PM | Reply

"I honestly didn't know that about black-face humor."
Like hell.

#131 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

It's true.

I was raised to treat all people with respect, regardless of skin color.

I was never exposed to it growing up because it's not something my parents exposed me to.

It's not something I would ever gravitate to either.

Have you ever watched Blazing Saddles?

#135 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:39 PM | Reply

I don't believe in cultural appropriation or intellectual property rights. If such things had been prohibited, we would have hardly any of the art, music, etc. we have today.
Even most classical music was stolen from folk tunes and ancient chants.

#136 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2017-06-20 04:40 PM | Reply

What nonsense. By the same standards, any and every group is hypocritical and inconsistent. All the groups that opposed President Obama had a plurality of members saying different, even contradictory things, ranging from reasonable policy critiques to wild eyed conspiracy theories. Surely you wouldn't take that as grounds to throw out the lot of them without case by case analysis.

#113 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Apples and oranges. I'm talking about people applying standards hypocritically, not different people disagreeing on what "cultural appropriation" is.

#137 | Posted by Sully at 2017-06-20 04:41 PM | Reply

Intellectual property rights are front and center in the information age, where physical scarcity is not a constraining factor.

Absolutely. I just don't know how it can be done from a cultural perspective.

Can I open up my own restaurant and sell tacos?

can I sell tacos if I call them something else?

#138 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:41 PM | Reply

"I honestly didn't know that about black-face humor."

JeffJ the things you don't know about racism in America could fill a book.

Too bad you never read those books.

Your ignorance is your bliss.

#139 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-20 04:41 PM | Reply

"Nope. I don't have a racist bone in my body. Never have, never will."

Sure you do. You are adopting a racist position right now, In This very discussion. Why, all I need to do is scroll up and look! There you are bashing multiculturalism. And there you are endorsing racist comedy! And there you are mocking efforts by native peoples to secure their cultural heritage from predation.

#140 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 04:42 PM | Reply

I read plenty of history books. You'd be surprised. I mostly tend toward the founding era as it is my time period of most interest.

#141 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:42 PM | Reply

The concept of white people playing black people and vice-versa is not offensive. They're actors, it's their job to be somebody else. It's the racist history of blackface in America that is offensive.
As usual, -------- ruined it for everyone else.

#142 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2017-06-20 04:43 PM | Reply

"II was raised to treat all people with respect, regardless of skin color."

You seemingly don't realize it, but implicit in that statement is the fact that respect varies based on skin color.

Why would you mention race if it doesn't matter???

#143 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-20 04:45 PM | Reply

I work in IT. Diwali, Holi and Navrati are celebrated with banquets at work. The project manager on one of my projects is a Frenchman. My next cube neighbor is from Egypt. I think its funny that a bunch of hillbillys who have never left the county where they were born think they even know what multiculturalism is

#144 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-06-20 04:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"appropriation of native cultures"

What exactly are we taking about here? Items that you can hold in your hand? Or styles? Or food?
Define it.

#145 | Posted by homerj at 2017-06-20 04:45 PM | Reply

You acknowledge the Founders were deeply racist, right? Lincoln too?

#146 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-20 04:46 PM | Reply

Jeff, either put on a helmet or run.

the purse swinging from the race baiters is going to be vicious.

#147 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-20 04:46 PM | Reply

And let's not forget that insular culturalism can be a prison too. I was listening to a woman on NPR complain that because she was Hispanic, people doubt her ability as a Continental Chef. They think she should only stay in her Ethnic bubble.

#148 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2017-06-20 04:47 PM | Reply

You are adopting a racist position right now, In This very discussion. Why, all I need to do is scroll up and look! There you are bashing multiculturalism.

I was bashing the concept of establishing permanent residence in this country and failing to assimilate or even try to assimilate.

And there you are endorsing racist comedy!

Nope.

And there you are mocking efforts by native peoples to secure their cultural heritage from predation.

And I've cited several examples and asked if they were cultural appropriation. You never answered.

On May 5, if I have a Cinco De Mayo party at my house - with sombreros, a taco bar, margaritas, Negra Modelo, and Netflix streaming episodes of Speedy Gonzalez - am I guilty of cultural appropriation?

#149 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:47 PM | Reply

Apples and oranges. I'm talking about people applying standards hypocritically, not different people disagreeing on what "cultural appropriation" is.

#137 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2017-06-20 04:41 PM | FLAG:

Moving the goalposts, but okay. Your argument is still nonspecific: all movements have hypocrites.

#150 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 04:47 PM | Reply

Throw in streaming of The Tijuana Toads while you are at it.

#151 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:48 PM | Reply

You acknowledge the Founders were deeply racist, right?

#146 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Yep.

#152 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:49 PM | Reply

"I think its funny that a bunch of hillbillys"

no funnier than someone who's closest they come to hillbillies is to watch the Beverly Hillbillies thinks they know what a real hillbilly is like.

#153 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-20 04:49 PM | Reply

Without cultural appropriation, you wouldn't have Jazz or Hip-Hop. The saxophone and turntable were both invented by white guys.

#154 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2017-06-20 04:49 PM | Reply

Your ignorance is your bliss.

#139 | Posted by snoofy at

Maybe his job gets in the way of his reading time.

#155 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-20 04:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Sure you do. You are adopting a racist position right now, In This very discussion. Why, all I need to do is scroll up and look! There you are bashing multiculturalism. And there you are endorsing racist comedy! And there you are mocking efforts by native peoples to secure their cultural heritage from predation.

#140 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 04:42 PM | Reply | Flag

This is the tool who said I was wrong to mention virtue signaling! LOL

Look, Jeff should have know about minstrel shows and blackface. You don't have to be racist to know what they are. If you watched Looney Toons as a kid you would have been familiarized....

But everyone has a few things that fall under "common knowledge" that they don't know about. It is just unforunate that this little gap in Jeff's knowledge created an opportunity for this little swarm of crappy holier than thou types to preen about.

#156 | Posted by Sully at 2017-06-20 04:50 PM | Reply

Why would you mention race if it doesn't matter???

#143 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Because we are talking about racial and cultural issues.

#157 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:50 PM | Reply

www.youtube.com

#158 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:52 PM | Reply

On May 5, if I have a Cinco De Mayo party at my house - with sombreros, a taco bar, margaritas, Negra Modelo, and Netflix streaming episodes of Speedy Gonzalez - am I guilty of cultural appropriation?

"No, it makes you a racist, of course. Where else can we go with that?"

-Boydsnoofy

#159 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-20 04:52 PM | Reply

#158

Could never get away with that today.

#160 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:52 PM | Reply

"II just don't know how it can be done from a cultural perspective."

Well go read the fine print on some bottles of champagne:
Chatmat bulk process, Methode Champagnois, or true Champagne.
That's one way.

#161 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-20 04:52 PM | Reply

What exactly are we taking about here? Items that you can hold in your hand? Or styles? Or food?
Define it.

#145 | POSTED BY HOMERJ

Exactly. That's why I've asked the questions I've asked. I totally get intellectual property rights. I don't know how, say, Mexico, can lay claim to the taco and burrito.

#162 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:54 PM | Reply

And let's not forget that insular culturalism can be a prison too. I was listening to a woman on NPR complain that because she was Hispanic, people doubt her ability as a Continental Chef. They think she should only stay in her Ethnic bubble.

#148 | POSTED BY TFDNIHILIST AT 2017-06-20 04:47 PM | FLAG:

This is a great point. Cultural exchange might be inevitable and isn't a problem by itself. The trick is to limit damaging, violent, and exploitative forms of appropriation: the commodification of ancient cultures into tacky products sold with no benefit (and real harm) to the group, the enforcement of stereotypes, engaging in mockery and victimization of a group (e.g. Blackface comedy).

#163 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 04:56 PM | Reply

"This is the tool who said I was wrong to mention virtue signaling! LOL"

One can't virtue signal anonymously, buffoon.

#164 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 04:57 PM | Reply

One can't virtue signal anonymously, buffoon.

#164 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 04:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

OK, deny it as you do it and put it in writing for anyone to read. Smart.

#165 | Posted by Sully at 2017-06-20 05:03 PM | Reply

--Without cultural appropriation, you wouldn't have Jazz or Hip-Hop. The saxophone and turntable were both invented by white guys

You mean I couldn't eat a Thai burrito with Indian basmatic rice while listening to John Coltrane? That would suck, dude.

#166 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-06-20 05:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

OK, deny it as you do it and put it in writing for anyone to read. Smart.

#165 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2017-06-20 05:03 PM | FLAG:

Smart enough to look up the definition of virtue signaling and realize it is a social strategy for increasing one's standing by publicly expression an even superficial support for a virtuous position: something that is not possible on an anonymous forum like this, idiot.

#167 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 05:05 PM | Reply

"Maybe his job gets in the way of his reading time."

Maybe yours doesn't.

#168 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-20 05:08 PM | Reply

"One can't virtue signal anonymously, buffoon."

then stop trying.

#169 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-20 05:11 PM | Reply

Yep, Boyd is a virtue signaler. Probably the worst case I've seen.
Somebody should call Boyd's wife and let her know so she can call his doctor.

Nice to see you Nullifidian.

#170 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-06-20 05:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Yep, Boyd is a virtue signaler. Probably the worst case I've seen."

Please. With troglodytes like you stalking the forum, I'd get more mileage signaling "vice." Or perhaps just "stupidity" (but then I would owe you for use of the franchise).

#171 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 05:17 PM | Reply

And we do so need a mistaken identity flag...

#172 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 05:18 PM | Reply

Well go read the fine print on some bottles of champagne:
Chatmat bulk process, Methode Champagnois, or true Champagne.
That's one way.

#161 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

That's more industry-specific than anything and it's really designed for the benefit of the consumers - so they know exactly what they are getting. It's even more intense in the whisky industry.

#173 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 05:23 PM | Reply

That's more industry-specific than anything and it's really designed for the benefit of the consumers - so they know exactly what they are getting. It's even more intense in the whisky industry.

#173 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-06-20 05:23 PM | FLAG:

You are quibbling. If it were as simple as that, why not just require all products identify where they come from? Why prohibit others from using labels like scotch or champagne? To protect a cultural product associated with a region.

So, why couldn't this be applied to many other products? What is your real objection?

#174 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 05:27 PM | Reply

The difference between what the EU does and what American SJW whine about is not subtle.

Theoretically, anyone with the resources to do so can buy land in the Champagne region of France, grow some grapes and then turn them into sparkling wine that can be sold as "Champagne". The logic behind the distinction is that grapes produced in this region have a distinct flavor and therefore only sparkling wine make in this region can be named after the region.

American SJWs based everything on race. Unevenly. They're not going to whine about a Mexican family running a pizzaria. But they'll whine about and Italian family running a Mexican restaurant. Has nothing to do the product itself. Has everything to do with selectively manufacturing racial grievances as a form of mental ------------.

#175 | Posted by Sully at 2017-06-20 05:30 PM | Reply

You are using a very specific example and are then applying it in the abstract.

Also, in the instance you mentioned, it's not cultural, it's regional. Piedmontese beef is specific to a region and there is nothing cultural about it.

#176 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 05:32 PM | Reply

Everyone agrees that wasteful or bad regulations should be removed. The GOP however has used that as a wedge to remove regulations that were designed for a valid purpose and served that purpose well.

Regulations are very rarely the drag on the economy republicans claim they are. Yes it costs money to run a business without polluting. That is a cost of doing business. It will be paid.

Doesn't it make more sense that the consumers of the product or service that create the pollution pay for the cleanup in the form of higher production costs rather than letting them pollute and using taxpayer money to clean up the mess later after our families have been poisoned?

#177 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-06-20 05:35 PM | Reply

"...I understood it to be white people wearing makeup to make themselves look black so they can play the role of a black person. It would be along the lines of a white guy auditioning and winning a part to play MLK in a movie and wearing makeup to make himself look black." - #128 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:30 PM

"And I'd have no problem with blacks wiping white shoe polish on their faces and doing something similar." - #112 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-20 04:15
Makeup or shoe polish?

I would hope you know that there's a difference between wiping shoe polish on your face in order to look like another race and wearing makeup to play the role of someone of a different race.

I suppose we probably shouldn't get into Mickey Rooney's role in Breakfast at Tiffanys.

#178 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 05:36 PM | Reply

"Theoretically, anyone with the resources to do so can buy land in the Champagne region of France, grow some grapes and then turn them into sparkling wine that can be sold as "Champagne". The logic behind the distinction is that grapes produced in this region have a distinct flavor and therefore only sparkling wine make in this region can be named after the region."

Even where this true about champagne, it wouldn't be true for countless other similarly protected products around the world, protected based on region and on the group doing the production.

"American SJWs based everything on race."

Ridiculous strawman.

#179 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 05:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You are using a very specific example and are then applying it in the abstract.
Also, in the instance you mentioned, it's not cultural, it's regional. Piedmontese beef is specific to a region and there is nothing cultural about it.

#176 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-06-20 05:32 PM | FLAG:

There are many examples and you supplied some yourself. As for the region, culture distinction, surely they arent so easily separated as that. And, of course, some products are defined exclusively by the group that makes them. The US has many such products (Moravian cookies, Shaker chairs, certain native textiles).

Again, what is your problem with this?

#180 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 05:42 PM | Reply

"Even where this true about champagne, it wouldn't be true for countless other similarly protected products around the world, protected based on region and on the group doing the production."

It is all based on similar logic. You can argue that it isn't true logic in all cases but the claims that protect these products are all similar.

'"American SJWs based everything on race."

Ridiculous strawman.'

You're full of it. What I said is completely accurate.

#181 | Posted by Sully at 2017-06-20 05:48 PM | Reply

"let poor and sick people die so rich people can get richer."

I expect that to be the slogan for the dem nominee for POTUS in 2020.

#64 | Posted by eberly

You realize democrats are the ones fighting FOR health care right?
Or do you live in foxland?

#182 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-20 05:51 PM | Reply

"Theoretically, anyone with the resources to do so can buy land in the Champagne region of France, grow some grapes and then turn them into sparkling wine that can be sold as "Champagne"." - #175 | Posted by Sully at 2017-06-20 05:30 PM

Not in theory or in practice:

Right to the name Champagne

The Champagne winemaking community, under the auspices of the Comité Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne (CIVC), has developed a comprehensive set of rules and regulations for all wine produced in the region to protect its economic interests.

#183 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 05:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"You realize democrats are the ones fighting FOR health care right?"

I'm saying they should lead with it. Put the issue out so big that nobody can ignore it.

Can you read? What is unclear about what I posted?

WTF is foxland? Are you retarded?

#184 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-20 05:59 PM | Reply

Not in theory or in practice:

Right to the name Champagne

The Champagne winemaking community, under the auspices of the Comité Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne (CIVC), has developed a comprehensive set of rules and regulations for all wine produced in the region to protect its economic interests.

#183 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 05:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Don't be obtuse. Anyone who follows the rules can call their sparkling wine Champagne.

My point is that the difference between EU rules and SJW cultural appropriation tantrums is that the EU regulations are not based on racist notions.

#185 | Posted by Sully at 2017-06-20 06:04 PM | Reply

"You realize democrats are the ones fighting FOR health care right?"

I'm saying they should lead with it. Put the issue out so big that nobody can ignore it.

Can you read? What is unclear about what I posted?

WTF is foxland? Are you retarded?

#184 | Posted by eberly

The grammar of your post suggested you think the dem 2020 candidate should advocate cutting health insurance so the rich can have a tax break. That is so backwards from reality it could only come from fox news, the source of most right wing lies.

But I see that your post was simply poorly worded, and you were actually advocating the 2020 dem candidate pointing out that repubs are taking health insurance away to help the rich.

#186 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-20 06:16 PM | Reply

"It is all based on similar logic."

Laughably untrue. Multiple counter examples have already been brought up.

"You're full of it. What I said is completely accurate."

Because you say so? No wonder you dislike social justice: you seem to have a great love of pretending to speak for groups not your own (to their detriment).

#187 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 06:17 PM | Reply

My point is that the difference between EU rules and SJW cultural appropriation tantrums is that the EU regulations are not based on racist notions.

#185 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2017-06-20 06:04 PM | FLAG:

Your point is moronic, since it fails to represent both the EU and "SJWs" accurately.

#188 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 06:18 PM | Reply

"My point is that the difference between EU rules and SJW cultural appropriation tantrums is that the EU regulations are not based on racist notions."

Lie down on the couch, and tell me about the "racist notion" you find at the heart of these tantrums.

#189 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-20 11:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Your point is moronic, since it fails to represent both the EU and "SJWs" accurately.

#188 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 06:18 PM | Reply

In reality, the EU policies being discussed here are not based on race. In reality, American SJWs base their cultural appropriation rants on race/ethnicity.

One has to wonder why you feel the need to defend racist idiots when the only way you can do so it to lie about their behavior. If you have to lie how they behave in order to defend them, you don't agree with them. You don't have to be an unthinking clown who knee jerks defends anyone who falls on your side of the imaginary left/right divide.

#190 | Posted by Sully at 2017-06-21 09:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Still not seeing the racism angle.... Must be because there isn't one.

#191 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-21 12:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Still not seeing the racism angle.... Must be because there isn't one.

#191 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-21 12:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Or it could just be that you're a disignenuous hack who isn't capable of intellectual honest where it pertains to anyone and everyone who is even superficially on your "side".

#192 | Posted by Sully at 2017-06-21 12:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Still not seeing the racism angle.... Must be because there isn't one.

#191 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-06-21 12:27 PM | REPLY

Got it in one: he is lying through his teeth.

While not a monolithic group, social justice activists definitely don't limit themselves to discussion of race (but also discuss gender, region, cultural and linguistic and religious affiliation, gender/sexuality, etc). Nor can Sully actually explain any reason why allowing native groups to legally protect their cultural products is at all different from what the EU and US do regularly.

#193 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-21 01:06 PM | Reply

Which cultural products need to be legally defended? Please be specific.

#194 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-21 01:17 PM | Reply

Nor can Sully actually explain any reason why allowing native groups to legally protect their cultural products is at all different from what the EU and US do regularly.

#193 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-21 01:06 PM | Reply

That is a seperate issue from "cultural appropriation" as the complaint is most often made in the US. Portraying yourself as being totally unfamiliar with the topic at hand is not as convincing a strategy as you seem to think it is.

#195 | Posted by sully at 2017-06-21 01:18 PM | Reply

"Or it could just be that you're a disignenuous hack who isn't capable of intellectual honest where it pertains to anyone and everyone who is even superficially on your "side"

I'm enjoying this role reversal, where I can't see the racism that's apparently "baked in" to wanting to keep your culture from being usurped. Must be because I'm a white usurper and blind to my own shortcomings, if I remember how this script goes.

#196 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-21 01:27 PM | Reply

Which cultural products need to be legally defended? Please be specific.

#194 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-06-21 01:17 PM | FLAG:

What intellectual properties in general need to be protected? Please be specific.

We will both come up with very long lists.

#197 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-21 01:27 PM | Reply

That is a seperate issue from "cultural appropriation" as the complaint is most often made in the US.

#195 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2017-06-21 01:18 PM | FLAG:

They are related. But yes, we are talking about a specific case. You seem to just want to knock down straw SJWs rather than discuss it rationally.

#198 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-21 01:29 PM | Reply

Which cultural products need to be legally defended? Please be specific.

#194 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-21 01:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Raw milk drinking.

#199 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-06-21 01:33 PM | Reply

Please provide a couple of specific examples of a "cultural" product that needs to be protected from being appropriated illegally.

I am not trying to play "gotcha" or anything dumb like that. I'm trying to better understand where you are coming from on this issue.

#200 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-21 01:34 PM | Reply

What is with you people and raw milk? A nice malty Assam with a spot of raw milk and honey is something everyone should try at least once.

#201 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-21 01:35 PM | Reply

What is with you people and raw milk? A nice malty Assam with a spot of raw milk and honey is something everyone should try at least once.

Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-21 01:35 PM | Reply

Raw milk in your mouth is heaven on earth. Wholesome deliciousness. Slides down a parched throat wonderfully.

#202 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-06-21 01:39 PM | Reply

Please provide a couple of specific examples of a "cultural" product that needs to be protected from being appropriated illegally.
I am not trying to play "gotcha" or anything dumb like that. I'm trying to better understand where you are coming from on this issue.

#200 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-06-21 01:34 PM | FLAG:

Look at the ones that already are: Shaker chairs and Moravian cookies in the US for instance. These are products made by small religious communities that have made them, in some cases, for centuries. They should have the same legal protections as others do.

Obvious examples for expansion would be native textiles and carvings and other concrete products. A case could also be made for, say, the literature and music of native peoples: I am not sure I should be able to go to an Indian reservation and collect stories and publish them without compensation for the tribe and some standardized means of "giving credit." That is obviously trickier.

#203 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-21 01:41 PM | Reply

OK. I appreciate your answer. I'd like to flesh it out a bit.

So, let's say I purchase this Moravian cookbook:

www.amazon.com

I then decide I am going to use the recipes in it and open up a small restaurant dedicated to Moravian food and I use the recipes (or slightly modified versions of them) in the cookbook I purchased and sell the food to patrons. What should be done about it? Or, what if I find a bunch of recipes posted on-line and do the same?

#204 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-21 01:46 PM | Reply

You seem to just want to knock down straw SJWs rather than discuss it rationally.

#198 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-21 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag

I don't need to attack strawmen because in this very thread we have luminaries like you equating a white girl wearing hoop earings with blackface. Similarly ridiculous racist complaints have been in the news over the past year as well.

You seem to want to both defend such behavior while denying it exists, which is not only unconvincing but amazingly stupid.

#205 | Posted by Sully at 2017-06-21 01:49 PM | Reply

The recipes online are part of why additional regulation would be helpful, since if they were copyrighted, one could request they be taken down.

As for the cookbook, what are the laws for something like that now? Can you open a Betty Crocker restaurant just for the price of a cookbook? Would it be different if you didn't call it a Betty Crocker restaurant? I suspect we are in murky territory here. Legal considerations aside, I would think giving credit would be the ethical thing to do.

#206 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-21 01:55 PM | Reply

"I don't need to attack strawmen because in this very thread we have luminaries like you equating a white girl wearing hoop earings with blackface. Similarly ridiculous racist complaints have been in the news over the past year as well."

Yeah, you love your sensational and poorly understood news stories. Nice attempted reversal by the way: SJWs as the "real" racists. Hilarious.

#207 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-21 02:05 PM | Reply

#208 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2017-06-21 02:19 PM | FLAG:

Shall we play "find the extremist on the other side?" I bet I'll win. People like you who use SJW as an insult tend to be actual Nazis or close enough. Speaking off, shouldn't you be off haunting reddit or petitioning for "men's rights" or something?

#209 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-21 02:27 PM | Reply

Yeah, you love your sensational and poorly understood news stories.

#207 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-21 02:05 PM | Reply:

You're bluffing. There is nothing more to these stories than what meets the eye. If you think that any one race of people has exclusive claim to hoop earings or dreadlocks, you're crazy and misinformed.

If there were some nuance to all this that we've been missing, you'd of pointed it out by now. Instead, you bluff at us with "you just don't understand". Or you try to equate blackface and hoop earings. If you could intelligently defend this stuff, you wouldn't have wasted all these posts floundering pathetically.

What I don't get is why you aren't able to just say "Yes, those are examples of crazy people but in other cases I believe there is something to cultural appropriation claims...". It seems to me that because these nuts are superfically on your "team", you can't just admit that they're all wrong. The closest you'll come is trying to revise their behavior in direct contradiction to reality.

#210 | Posted by sully at 2017-06-21 02:29 PM | Reply

"If there were some nuance to all this that we've been missing, you'd of pointed it out by now."

I have. I posted some great links on the "I don't believe in cultural appropriation" thread explaining the difference between cultural exchange and cultural appropriation. You should check them out.

"What I don't get is why you aren't able to just say "Yes, those are examples of crazy people but in other cases I believe there is something to cultural appropriation claims...". It seems to me that because these nuts are superfically on your "team", you can't just admit that they're all wrong."

I have conceded that there are extremists on both sides, and given explanations of what I think is worthwhile about concerns over cultural appropriation. And for my trouble, I get people like you coming along and howling about how Mexico is going to sue Taco Bell or what have you. Or how "jazz comes from cultural appropriation (sic), so cultural appropriation is always good!" Or "I don't care what people do with my (dominant) culture, so I should be able to do whatever I want to someone else's (marginalized, socially vulnerable) culture!"

#211 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-21 02:39 PM | Reply

I have. I posted some great links on the "I don't believe in cultural appropriation" thread explaining the difference between cultural exchange and cultural appropriation. You should check them out.

I just read the Salon link you posted. It was dripping with illogical Point A to Point B jumps. It was REALLY bad IMO. I don't say that as a personal insult to you, as I think, for the most part, you mean well. Every strength test I've ever taken I've always scored very high for empathy. I patiently read the Salon piece and tried really hard to understand the POV being put forth. I came away thinking, "How can any sane person buy into that drivel?"

#212 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-21 02:53 PM | Reply

"I have conceded that there are extremists on both sides, and given explanations of what I think is worthwhile about concerns over cultural appropriation. And for my trouble, I get people like you coming along and howling about how Mexico is going to sue Taco Bell or what have you. Or how "jazz comes from cultural appropriation (sic), so cultural appropriation is always good!" Or "I don't care what people do with my (dominant) culture, so I should be able to do whatever I want to someone else's (marginalized, socially vulnerable) culture!""

None of that what was anything I said and you tried to equate a white girl wearing hoops in her ear with blackface, which makes you one of the extremists if you stick by that.

#213 | Posted by sully at 2017-06-21 02:55 PM | Reply

I just read the Salon link you posted. It was dripping with illogical Point A to Point B jumps. It was REALLY bad IMO. I don't say that as a personal insult to you, as I think, for the most part, you mean well. Every strength test I've ever taken I've always scored very high for empathy. I patiently read the Salon piece and tried really hard to understand the POV being put forth. I came away thinking, "How can any sane person buy into that drivel?"

#212 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-06-21 02:53 PM | FLAG:

I quite liked and a definitely did not see the logical leaps to which you allude. Do you have a specific criticism in mind? Also, empathy (on an personal level) is very different from being able to read something sympathetically. The tone of the piece was a bit harsher than the other one I posted, admittedly.

#214 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-21 02:59 PM | Reply

None of that what was anything I said and you tried to equate a white girl wearing hoops in her ear with blackface, which makes you one of the extremists if you stick by that.

#213 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2017-06-21 02:55 PM | FLAG:

Hoop earrings might be a bad example, since they are hard to pin to one culture. But surely you can see how dressing in native "costume" for a lark or as a fashion statement can be of a kind (perhaps not of a degree) with the more explicit mockery of something like blackface comedy. To allude to one of the articles I mentioned, minorities dress in white fashion as a survival strategy: whites dress in minority dress for fun, as an affectation.

#215 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-21 03:03 PM | Reply

Hoop earrings might be a bad example, since they are hard to pin to one culture. But surely you can see how dressing in native "costume" for a lark or as a fashion statement can be of a kind (perhaps not of a degree) with the more explicit mockery of something like blackface comedy. To allude to one of the articles I mentioned, minorities dress in white fashion as a survival strategy: whites dress in minority dress for fun, as an affectation.

#215 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-21 03:03 PM | Reply

I honestly see nothing wrong with adopting the dress of another culture because you consider it fashionable. That has happened all through human history. I don't have one opinion about costumes. Depends on the costume. If a kid who isn't Japanese wants to be a samauri for Halloween, I think it would be ridiculous to complain about it. The one white guy who you can find at any 70's party wearing the pimp outfit and an afro wig is a douche and I wouldn't mind watching him have his ass kicked. White kids celebrating Cinco de Mayo by putting on an oversized sombrero at some point isn't a crime to me either. They sell oversized novelty sombreros in Mexico too. Adding elements to a costume to specifically perpetuate a negative stereotype would bother me though.

This is all largely subjective. I tend to think about intent more than "can someone possibly find this offensive from any angle". An exception is blackface because of its history here.

#216 | Posted by Sully at 2017-06-21 03:34 PM | Reply

#216

Well, well. It looks like we agree after all, at least on the basics. What you are describing here is at least along the lines of what I've been trying to say: cultural interaction is probably inevitable and isn't bad in and of itself. But whether or not a particular adoption of some cultural artifact or other is done in a respectful way is something that we should at least be thinking about carefully, even if it is not the sort of thing where we can unproblematically adopt strict rules and standards.

#217 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-21 03:44 PM | Reply

Sully, those are lovely earrings.

#218 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-21 04:21 PM | Reply

Sully, remind me, did Rachel Dolezal appropriate black culture?

Was there any reason to be critical if her for what she did? If so, what are the reasons.

#219 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-21 04:23 PM | Reply

I just remembered that in the early 90's a group of girls in my high school class came to school dressed as "rastas" for Halloween. They wore bajas with knit caps. They also took mops heads and died them black and wore those as wigs. And they had a light dusting of charcoal on their faces (looked more like dirt than makeup).

What was weird is that they were a very "holier than thou" clique that liked to tell everyone else why what they were doing is wrong. I didn't care for them and the feeling was largely mutual. I thought it was hilarious that they didn't know better and thought they would definitely get sent home. But nothing happened to them. I think a few people said something and they figure out to wash off the charcoal and then denied that it had ever been there. I was a little disappointed that they weren't call out. Maybe I was an SJW before it was fashionable. But probably more of a vindictive ass....

Anyway, the cool epilogue is that since not only were they not sent home but they were all on yearbook comittee and student council and that crap, there are more than a couple of pictures of them wearing these costumes in the yearkbook. Some of the pictures are even in color and were taken when they still had the charcoal on their faces. Anything close to these costumes would be considered a travesty today. So some day (that has probably already come) their children will stumble across these yearbooks and see the pics and think "Oh my God! My mother was total racist -------!" So maybe this new era of sensitivity isn't all bad.

#220 | Posted by Sully at 2017-06-21 04:24 PM | Reply

Sully, remind me, did Rachel Dolezal appropriate black culture?

Was there any reason to be critical if her for what she did? If so, what are the reasons.

#219 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-21 04:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

She tried to pass herself off as something she is not, which is not the same as wearing a piece of clothing typically associated with another culture. The reason to be criticial of her is that she was deceptive. Although she's probably mentally ill.

#221 | Posted by Sully at 2017-06-21 04:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"She tried to pass herself off as something she is not, which is not the same as wearing a piece of clothing typically associated with another culture."

Huh? She dressed black and did her hair black to be as black as she could. No?

#222 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-21 04:32 PM | Reply

"The reason to be criticial of her is that she was deceptive."

Her clothes, etc. weren't part of the deception? Heck even her job was a "black" job.

I don't think her being "deceptive" on issues that aren't anybody business in the first place is reason enough to be critical.

"Stolen valor" is already a stupid concept butw as being fully at idds with the First Amendment. But Stolen Blackness is just ------- retarded.

#223 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-21 04:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

...and it very well may have. Well, that and Ossoff not living in the very effing district he was running in *facepalm*

#225 | Posted by e1g1 at 2017-06-21 10:51 PM | Reply

When a black straightens their hair or dyes it red, blonde, etc., or wears high heels, is that not appropriating white/european culture?

#226 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-06-21 11:19 PM | Reply

Why isn't that assimilation, MSgt?

#227 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-21 11:21 PM | Reply

Right. For minorities, such "appropriation" is a survival strategy. For non minorities, it is a bit of fun.

#228 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-21 11:29 PM | Reply

Everyone has excuses for their double standards. People on the receiving end of hypocrisy don't have to buy the excuses for it.

#229 | Posted by Sully at 2017-06-22 09:42 AM | Reply

Everyone has excuses for their double standards. People on the receiving end of hypocrisy don't have to buy the excuses for it.

#229 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2017-06-22 09:42 AM | FLAG:

It is not a doubt standard. It is a single standard: adopting facets of a repressive dominant culture in order to survive is a very different thing from adopting facets of a minority culture to show how "hip" you are.

#230 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-22 09:01 PM | Reply

Selling the double standard of white versus non white is a very real thing.

You're not making excuses for it are you?

#231 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-23 12:11 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort