I know you know, but Warner’s first ‘appearance’ for the Rams was the last game in 1998. I know it really doesn’t qualify as a game because he only threw 11 passes, but i distinctly remember the debate on the AOL message boards back then about getting him into live action. It became apparently about half-way through 1998 that Banks wasn’t going to be the future, and lots of people wanted to see Warner play – largely because of how dominant he was in NFL Europe earlier that year.

zn wrote:

I can only tell you how I see it from my position in the big political grid.

Okay, I get it. I understand where you’re coming from, and those are good points. I can only respond (not disagree) this way. There’s a difference between having a reluctance to repudiate something and *being* something. My whole issue this whole time has been the quick-trigger of not only the media – but society – to hastily attach a label like ‘racist’ or ‘misogynist’ or ‘anti-Semite’ on someone that uses unaccepted speech, or isn’t a Champion of a cause, or is either directly or indirectly affiliated with someone else who *might* actually *be* one of those things. Maybe he marginalizes the problem, but that doesn’t, by default, make him the root of the problem. Not saying those are your views – I’m just thinking out loud.

That goes to what Zooey said above. People are so worried that they’ll be labeled nowadays, that it makes them go out of their way to clear up the misconception before it even hints at becoming an appearance. They’ll refuse to use certain words, or start sentences with qualifiers like “I have black friends”, or “I’m absolutely not a racist, so…”. It’s a defense mechanism brought about by conditioning. There are people out there who consider themselves to be Super-Hero social justice warriors, and they actively look for meta data in people that can give them cause to put you neatly into one of the piles of hate groups. They seek it out like a prize. They’ll twist words and conversations with the goal of making *that thing* manifest. It’s fucking annoying. And do you know what the backlash to that is? The alt-right movement. Not the lunatic fringe of the alt-right that builds bunkers and wants America to be White as fuck. We’re talking about the majority of the alt-right that *wants* to offend you. That *wants* you to feel uncomfortable. That *wants* you to go crazy with blood-lust when you see a real example of (manufactured) racism or misogyny or anti-Semitism pasted right in your face. They want to take away the hunt and just deliver that fat prized carcass right onto your doorstep. For sport. The alt-right is the terrorist organization against the PC police.

So unless or until people can just accept other people for being different, this back and forth will continue to grow and continue to gain more power. There are people who have biases or prejudices, and no amount of condemnation or rehabilitation is going to change that. So let them be who they are. Who cares? If a Klansman can’t find peace, then that’s his sorry lot in life. Similarly, if a racist-hunter can’t find peace, then that’s his or her lot as well. The struggle comes from needing to change people, and that’s going to be an eternal struggle. The one piece of advice my grandfather ever gave me that was worth a shit was exactly that. “Don’t try to change anyone to be more like you. You’ll just make them less interesting if you succeed.”

bnw wrote:

Because Hip Hop and Gangsta Rap are misogynist.

Yep. But it’s far more violent than misogyny. Also, although black women only make up 8% of the population, 22% of homicides that result from domestic violence happen to black women and 29% of all victimized women, making it one of the leading causes of death for Black women ages 15 to 35. That’s why I wanna know who “we” is.

zn wrote:

— X — wrote:

That’s because we’re both racist anti-Semites.

As a mod I consider this just a more light-hearted but still problematical version of name-calling and taunting.

It’s one thing to defend Bannon against charges of racism (the real issue is that he acts as if race isn’t an issue in the USA, but that’s another story.)

It’s another to get into this kind of taunting of posters who disagree, even if it is done jokingly.

In any way shape or form, public figures and writers posted here are fair targets, posters here are not. Agree or disagree with points made, and don’t go after posters, even in indirect ways.

This is not a debate topic, just me trying to keep an experiment (this forum) working.

….

Who said I was taunting anyone on the board? I was talking about how the mainstream media and the protesting millennials would view my opinions (as well as anyone who would appreciate or agree with them). They’re the ones calling people racists and anti-Semites. Are there any posters here doing that? No? Then I clearly wasn’t addressing them. I respect everyone on this board – some of whom I’ve known a long time – and would never taunt them or be spiteful towards them.

Hope that clears things up.

wv wrote:

You are getting good at these questions I like good questions.

Um…lets see….I dont really have a hard-and-fast definition of ‘alt-righters’. I just learned the term this year. When i use the term, I am generally thinking of folks
who are indeed “people of the RIGHT”, but who dont identify with the mainstream Reps. I think of people like Pat Buchannon as an Alt-righter. Maybe even Ross Perot.
Anti Nafta folks, with Tea-Party tendencies. Rightwing-Libertarian tendencies. That sort of thing. They have their ‘fringe’ wacko element like most political groups including leftists.

Someone in the link below asked if there was an “alt left” btw.

Cool, thanks. I, too, just came to learn of the umbrella term, but I’ve been aware of that population for a while. 4chan and the /r/ communities aren’t new. I think it’s negligent to use it as an umbrella label though. There are many different political views and ideologies associated with that population. I wouldn’t put *them* in any one particular category. Some are far right, some are fundamentalists, some are neoreactionaries, some are white nationalists, and some are just trolls. I think the trolls are being spotlighted and unfairly maligned, btw. They’re just trolls, and trolls troll for reaction. Most of Breitbart is comprised of trolls, and that was recently confirmed by one of their editors. They get a kick out of pushing the boundaries of what’s socially acceptable. I’d tell you to hang out with them on the sites they frequent, but I don’t think you’d enjoy it at all. But if you can suspend outrage, you’ll see it’s a troll contest to see how can be the most troll-y. I’m willing to bet most of them are markedly different in real life and while dealing with real people – particularly the people they insult for sport. Most are young people too, obviously. I can give you another real life example. My son (I’ll call him B) has had a best friend for a long time (going on 15 years) who’s black (I’ll call him L). They constantly troll each other with stereotypes of their race just for fun. For example, here’s an exchange I overheard them having while playing video games in his room. They were 17 at the time.

L: I’m hungry – got any food?
B: Just grilled chicken. That’s not how you like it though.
L: You saying we only like fried chicken?
B: You saying you don’t?
L: (laughing) No. Now go get your cracker food.
B: I’m not Jeffrey (from Fresh Prince of Bel-Air) Get it yourself.
L: Will your dad shoot me if he catches me walking through the house?
B: Probably.
L: Well then give me your sheet so he thinks he’s at a rally.
B: (laughing)

That’s just how the alt-right kids talk now. It’s nothing personal. And Breitbart isn’t racist or misogynist or anti-Semitic simply because they encourage the exchange of troll articles for purpose of providing humor and inciting moral outrage. It’s a game.

Jaws, of course.

I love Fishing. Taught both my kids to fish too, and they’re gonna pass that along. At first my daughter was all, “this is boring and stupid.” After a couple of weeks it became, “can we go to the bait store and get some shiners?” We only did freshwater though. No deep sea fishing on huge boats. Standing on the side of a river or canal, strategically targeting spots of water and changing lures to target different depths, trying to find the perfect combination. It’s almost like meditation.

There’s a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.
— Steven Wright

wv wrote:

Well, I dont know what “independent” means. Funded by “donations” ? Donations from Exxon? Donations from BP?

Independent as in not sponsored.
Donations via a PayPal button on their blog.

wv wrote:

btw, i do ‘get’ the fact that the ‘racism’ issue really sets you and bnw off. You guys react strongly and swiftly to that issue/belief.

I hope you do understand no-one is calling you guys racists. Some of us do indeed believe that part of the Republican strategy is to pull in the ‘racist bloc’ of white folks in the south. I think its been a ‘strategy’ for a long time. Doesn’t even mean Nixon/Bush/Reagan were ‘racists’ — just means they wanted that voting-bloc so they exploited the issue.

I could be wrong of course. I haven’t studied on it much. I might change my mind after further review, who knows.

w
v

I know *you guys* aren’t calling me a racist. That just happens to be the prevailing line of thought by the vocal majority of the left when it comes to describing Trump supporters. If we support Trump or Bannon or don’t actively speak out against political incorrectness, then it means we’re endorsers of racism or white supremacy, or whatever. Which, subsequently, and by default, means we’re also racists.

I understand the topic at hand, and I don’t entirely disagree with it. What I do have an issue with is the idea that Republicans are actively ‘pulling in racists’ with their policies or words. They’re not responsible for how racists interpret policy or political statements anymore than the left is responsible for the positions of Farrakhan or Sharpton or Jackson and all of their followers. Fucked up people are gonna be fucked up people.

But yeah, I’ll delve into it deeper with you. Who knows what we’ll find.

wv wrote:

All good questions. Now over the next few weeks lets all do a search now and then. See whats out there. I got no time the next few days.

K.

wv wrote:

Anybody wanna post any articles, thots on the Reps famous “Southern Strategy” ? Was/is it racist? Or just conservative?

============
link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/24/how-racism-explains-republicans-rise-in-the-south/
…Lee Atwater, an adviser to President Reagan, discussed the Republican Party’s “Southern strategy” in an interview in 1981, explaining that some white voters might subconsciously support conservative policies apparently unrelated to race, if those policies had different consequences for different races.

“You say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff and you get so abstract,” Atwater said. “You talk about cutting taxes and these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.”

More than two decades later, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman criticized that strategy.

“Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization,” he said in 2004. “I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.”

Yet research suggests the racial undertones of policy debates continue to affect some Americans’ political affiliations. A study published in 2013 concluded that white respondents to an online survey were more likely to identify with the tea party if they held anti-black sentiments.
===============

I have no doubt that there was some separation between black voters and the republican party several decades ago, but what’s perpetuating the racial divide now? Why do blacks feel they’re disenfranchised (if they do think that at all)? What is the left doing to assuage their concerns about race relations? If nothing, then they don’t care either. They’re also using them for political gain.

wv wrote:

Yet research suggests the racial undertones of policy debates continue to affect some Americans’ political affiliations. A study published in 2013 concluded that white respondents to an online survey were more likely to identify with the tea party if they held anti-black sentiments.

That’s lazy. Source? Questions they asked and form?

You’re probably a kraut.