DescentBB

...hilarity ensues.

http://m.fastcompany.com/3043852/this-i ... about-race

never been IN a Starbucks, to date.

callmeslick wrote:never been IN a Starbucks, to date.

Grats! But what the CEO of Starbucks just did sounds like the ham handed white man's guilt you ooze all over the bb.

maybe to you, but then, you think we were planning to shoot down Israeli planes, and that Muslims everywhere are out to kill us. Don't lecture me(us) about stupidity, you've demonstrated ample evidence of your own by this point. Witness your 7323rd 'funny' Obama mockery.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/f ... ar-BBimKiI


hell, give them credit for trying. Still too cheap to buy their crap, when I'm retired and can make myself fresh ground Kona or chicory coffee from NOLA and fill a travel mug. Ironic, the campaign's intent was to 'raise the level of discourse', yet seems to bring the nutosphere front and center. Witness the OP.......

callmeslick wrote: hell, give them credit for trying.

...which is what 'progressives' do. A symbolic 'try' is better than an actual solution.

ThunderBunny wrote:

callmeslick wrote: hell, give them credit for trying.

...which is what 'progressives' do. A symbolic 'try' is better than an actual solution.

if you don't start out trying you never get a solution. The most dangerous thing in life is certainty, and especially someone with moral certainty or easy solutions.

callmeslick wrote: The most dangerous thing in life is certainty, and especially someone with moral certainty or easy solutions.

WOW! I think you just described yourself and the left slick. Congrats!

not really. In fact, I'll have to dig up a recent study that showed that 'liberal' thinkers were the ones willing to explore,and think out of the box. You see, 'trying', which you belittle, is how progress occurs. At least, it's worked that way for the past few thousand years, since the Bronze age.

a good summary of the foundation work....will find the most recent studies later, if you wish me to hammer the point home:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/inter ... ervatives/

Yea, I looked into those studies a few months ago, can’t really see how they apply to real life, because some of the best problem solvers I have ever known are conservatives and some of the most emotional arm flailing foot pounding people are liberals.

Liberals seem to be more willing to change than conservatives, but only seem to be willing to change along pre prescribed political lines…I for one tend to offer far more compromises on this board than all the liberals combined.

As well as solutions to problems, all of which are poopood upon, but I never hear any alternatives, other than the stock ones.

I’d put my ACC up against anyone anywhere anytime.

in a sense, I'd agree with you....a lot of self-identifying liberals who I know, especially the most far-left types, are rather insular in their own right(hell, they gleefully reject me as a right-wing spokesperson, fergawdsakes), and WILL only accept change on their narrowly defined terms. That is precisely why I, and quite a few other moderate-progressive types rail against them, and actively work to defeat their attitude. If you think I'm harsh on 'conservatives' in here, you should read what I've published under my own name about Progressives, especially around resistance to consensus-building and making coalitions with folks who are sympathetic on core issues but don't toe the exact line.
What I see, most commonly, is that MOST people are a mix of BOTH types of neural makeup, and thus not ideologues. The ideologues will never move this nation anywhere, whether they be right or left wing in variety.

Try to do the right thing?
The response:
'Feed me my coffee and feed my need to be angry but don't you dare suggest we can all come together and have a rational discussion!'

Silly man went right up against the approved narrative. Holder was right, there are cowards who won't talk about race.

huh?

sorry, I had just read this before posting my comments. I was operating under the assumption you guys and gals were aware of the reaction the Starbucks attempt has received...

the original articles I read indicated as much. Doesn't, as I pointed out, mean the attempt wasn't in good faith, with hopes for a better level of humanity.

I prefer my coffee nice and light.

callmeslick wrote:the original articles I read indicated as much. Doesn't, as I pointed out, mean the attempt wasn't in good faith, with hopes for a better level of humanity.

I didn't take issue with the attempt. I'm ridiculing the reaction.

Spidey wrote:I prefer my coffee nice and light.

I prefer mine rich and flavorful......but, the only specific coffee place I ever go to might be Cafe Du Monde in NOLA.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:the original articles I read indicated as much. Doesn't, as I pointed out, mean the attempt wasn't in good faith, with hopes for a better level of humanity.

I didn't take issue with the attempt. I'm ridiculing the reaction.

fair enough......how often, though, in this day and age, do sound attempts get met with human stupidity?

Every round table discussion on race I ever watched, turned into a blame whitey forum, so I turned the show off after that.

And every time someone black like Cosby or Williams tries to tell the truth, they get shouted down.

There is no "honest" debate to be had.

Spidey wrote:Every round table discussion on race I ever watched, turned into a blame whitey forum, so I turned the show off after that.

And every time someone black like Cosby or Williams tries to tell the truth, they get shouted down.

There is no "honest" debate to be had.

If you are speaking of Juan Williams, I've sat through several sound debates involving him, especially when he was back on Public Radio. Part of the phenomenon you see is that all too often, the white participants cannot grasp or simply deny the existence of white privilege. Since that is both a fact and a daily reality, denial of it is going to stifle real discourse.

oh, another point, Spidey.....could you point me to where Bill Cosby EVER addressed race relations? I've heard him address problems in the black community from his perspective, but I've never heard him go on to the relationships between whites and blacks in society. Please, link me to those, and preferably, ones that show him getting 'shouted down'.

the problem with the way white privilege is brought up is it is used as an excuse to justify stupid 'solutions'.
For example, affirmative action is a great idea to address the disparity. Blanket insistence on Quotas is often a very stupid way to implement affirmative action type corrections to the problems.

But if you try to make the distinction you are told you don't understand white privilege....or you get called a racist etc.
I understand it better then most of the people who wield it as bully's gavel.

When you ask someone to break down net-result-examples of 'privilege' white people have today you find they are usually not something that can be turned off or re-distributed.
You can keep the focus on the past as justification for anger and generating a desire for restitution that can't happen or you can focus forward...make sure opportunities are not selectively withheld...address laws that discriminate...clamp down on organizations that don't seek to have equality.

You can't 'fix history' by implementing some kind of revenge though and unfortunately being the advocate for those things is what gives people power by appealing to the vengeful nature of his fellow man.

I've mentioned this before but it bears repeating because it is a great example of how the narrative that so many people depend on to perpetuate their place of power in 'the discussion about race (that they want to limit) has become a serious roadblock to a solution.

The example is, when Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, was exposed for making racist comments he lost his basketball team and was banned from the NBA for it.
It was reacted to by a civil rights advocate by his lamenting that’This just shows how we are in many ways still back in the days of Jim Crow’ etc.

That is a typical use of the problematic narrative and how completely ridiculous it is!
And what an opportunity missed to really build some positive momentum toward the goal of racial harmony.

What happened isn’t in any way a sign of lingering Jim Crow. If it was the story would be that Sterling was laughing with his racist peers, the other owners of NBA teams, sharing drinks and cigars as they teased him for getting caught up in some trivial bad publicity that won’t result in anything except a 'handful of angry negroes complaining’.

Instead, not our our black President nor our black Attorney General, nor any other person who might have the power and desire to step up and challenge the 'alleged' Jim Crow system, had to do a damn thing about it!!

In about a weeks time Sterlings peers and industry rejected him out of their own good character with no need to be urged by anyone.
Sterling lost his rights to owning his multi million dollar NBA team and was banned from the industry without any action required by a court or national guard or sheriff or civil rights attorney, etc. etc. No one had to fabricate any false witnesses or slogans based on lies...no one had to loot...etc.

The difference between the ‘Jim Crow days’ and the reality couldn’t be any more profound nor is there any need for improvement in the way it was remedied.

To stand up and say this event is proof that we are polarized still is borderline pathological. This was an opportunity to send the message to everyone that we are really getting somewhere when society takes care of problems like Sterling. A time for a quick pat on the back for ourselves to enjoy the fruits of the labor of all who have fought for equality. A reaction that would unite people instead of divide them.

no one in their right mind is debating that Jim Crow laws aren't around anymore. No one really thinks that white privilege hasn't subsided, somewhat at least. No one is suggesting that progress has not been made in race relations. No, what is being suggested it that the Obama presidency and other related events of the past decade or so have marked the progress so emphatically, that the last vestiges of inherent racism have been raised, and, in the current 24-hour news cycle, amplified to a great degree. This will, in the clarity of hindsight, be seen as the end of the process that will likely be complete in less than 50 years. Much of the stimulus for racism we see and hear about today is that the formerly supremely empowered white males are panicked by the reality, and acting out, childishly. Likewise, some of the players in the minority community see their dwindling usefulness and importance vastly curtailed, and they lash out in an opposing direction. As I say, time will show this to be a very productive point in the progress.....it just feels a bit rough in the here and now.

No, I was referring Walter Williams.

And Cosby likes to refer to race relations in the context of moving to the next step. IE: what comes after civil rights, and believes many of the solutions are in the hands of the black community.

As far as linking to an episode of being shouted down, this is something from memory, and I have no patience to wade through all of the results based on the latest sex scandal…hope you understand.

completely understood. I know Cosby deals with black community issues, and is a contrarian(a sensible one, much of the time), but the matter of race relations or lingering effects of discrimination aren't something I've ever heard him venture into, possibly out of fear for his profession, not that THAT helped, in the long run.

meanwhile, in a quick return to reality, 2015:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/politics/ ... index.html


'making progress' is not 'problem solved'.

callmeslick wrote:meanwhile, in a quick return to reality, 2015:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/politics/ ... index.html


'making progress' is not 'problem solved'.

From your link:

"We don't know what happened out there, if it is a suicide, a homicide, that is why we investigate these types of cases to determine exactly what happened,"

And posting a link about a dead black man, who may have hung himself in a suicide, so you can imply racism is alive and well in spite of your having no evidence isn't 'solving problems' either slick...
You just can't help but keep that narrative alive huh? ★■◆● the truth just keep it alive.

oh, come on.......how many people commit suicide by hanging in a public spot like that? Sure, it 'might' have been, but wanna bet it wasn't?

callmeslick wrote:oh, come on.......how many people commit suicide by hanging in a public spot like that? Sure, it 'might' have been, but wanna bet it wasn't?

A public spot?

He was hanging there for weeks unseen by anyone.

His hands were not tied. The man had serious issues. He murdered a woman to get money to pay a $10 court fine. 20+ years in prison for it. Last seen dropped off at a casino.

I'd say the odds are even money right now.

But let's keep it on track...the odds aren't the focus. The focus is you holding this up in this conversation as proof of a lynching.
Why do you need to hold up a possible lynching as proof to support your position in the debate?

And of course the lefts use of the "Back of the bus" statement regarding Ms Lynch just shows how desperate the left is to keep the race issue burning.

woodchip wrote:And of course the lefts use of the "Back of the bus" statement regarding Ms Lynch just shows how desperate the left is to keep the race issue burning.

everyone, on both sides of this debate, steps over the lines, or feels compelled to. Doesn't mean the issue isn't real, though.

If the narrative was changed from: we are still living in Jim Crow conditions...'every time you don't vote another black church is burned'...etc and instead framed things in realistic perspective we would be able to build momentum toward getting rid of the existing racial discrimination. Instead we are polarized and divided as the default point for any proposed solution. Hell just stopping the lies would be a big improvement.

But if the Democrats did that they would lose votes. And they have determined losing votes is worse than handicapping the efforts to build racial harmony in America.

I think that's why slick had to go find a link to a lynching, even if it wasn't one. Have to keep that narrative alive because otherwise all this talk about doing things that will bring us together will sink in and cost his team points. He will rationalize and justify it but we all know it is bullcrap.

Will Robinson wrote:If the narrative was changed from: we are still living in Jim Crow conditions...'every time you don't vote another black church is burned'...etc

really? Who says such things?

But if the Democrats did that they would lose votes. And they have determined losing votes is worse than handicapping the efforts to build racial harmony in America.

nonsense. Utter nonsense, and this is part of the issue. Race baiting by the right is having exactly the negative effect you wish to blame on the Dems.

I think that's why slick had to go find a link to a lynching, even if it wasn't one. Have to keep that narrative alive because otherwise all this talk about doing things that will bring us together will sink in and cost his team points. He will rationalize and justify it but we all know it is bullcrap.

no, I posted that to illustrate that merely because we have made progress, and substantial progress, since my youth in the segregated south, we aren't done the process, yet. Nothing more intended. I fleshed out that thinking before the post, by the way......

callmeslick wrote:...everyone, on both sides of this debate, steps over the lines, or feels compelled to. Doesn't mean the issue isn't real, though.

And right on cue the rationalization is delivered.

There is a big problem here slick. Both sides are prone to hyperbole and poisonous rhetoric but there is no equivalent to "★■◆●" that the rightwing can throw in the face of their base. And every time your team cites 'another church burned' as a get out the vote or stay angry campaign they are fabricating the ultimate bogey man to radically skew the perception of the level of white hatred towards minorities.

It keeps people on both sides from having any motivation to try and step into the middle and extend a hand.
A recent example of the negative effects of this is the race card fatigue that was suspected to be the Grand Jury's motive for bringing no charges against the cops in the Eric Gardner death. The ridiculous narrative that was sending Furguson into riots was playing out in front of them at the time and they were feeling like 'here it goes again'.
'Hands up Don't Shoot' is coming back to bite us all in the ass.

Slick, what front line people on the right are race baiting? You know people comparable to Obama, Sharpton, Durbin et al.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:If the narrative was changed from: we are still living in Jim Crow conditions...'every time you don't vote another black church is burned'...etc

really? Who says such things?

That's the same indignant response you gave last time I mentioned it...and then I posted the clip of the campaign commercial complete with explosion sound effects and whips cracking etc. and you came up with some lame excuse to try and dismiss it...if I remember you said since it was a State level campaign ad it doesn't count' Lol!

So go look it up if you want to deny it again.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:...But if the Democrats did that they would lose votes. And they have determined losing votes is worse than handicapping the efforts to build racial harmony in America.

nonsense. Utter nonsense, and this is part of the issue. Race baiting by the right is having exactly the negative effect you wish to blame on the Dems.

Your assesment of what is "utter nonsense" is invalid based on your penchant for using it like a crutch.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I think that's why slick had to go find a link to a lynching, even if it wasn't one. Have to keep that narrative alive because otherwise all this talk about doing things that will bring us together will sink in and cost his team points. He will rationalize and justify it but we all know it is bullcrap.

no, I posted that to illustrate that merely because we have made progress, and substantial progress, since my youth in the segregated south, we aren't done the process, yet. Nothing more intended. I fleshed out that thinking before the post, by the way......

And I remind you again what you posted is not evidence of what you claim it is. You couldn't find a genuine illustration to offer so you used a possible lynching and justified it just as I predicted.
Stop spinning in circles.

What the guys are saying here is illustrated in the media coverage of the bus chant…all the focus is on the video, and the evil racists, meanwhile the utter disgust shown by most people is largely overlooked.

There will always be racism, the important thing is how a society reacts to it, and whether it is condoned or admonished.

woodchip wrote:Slick, what front line people on the right are race baiting? You know people comparable to Obama, Sharpton, Durbin et al.

they are FAR more active whipping up angry old white guys than anyone on the other side, and the comparison isn't even close,at this point in time.