Political Gallery

[Spirit]

Wait ... Trump's on the right?

 

 

[RallyMo]

1 hour ago, Geoff said:

Wait ... Trump's on the right?

 

 

The far right, idiot.

[Jason]

[Amazing Larry]

[Spirit]

5 hours ago, RallyMo said:

The far right, idiot.

 

How far?  Like, alt far?

 

[Spirit]

19 minutes ago, Lhalo said:

 

Did they actually say that?

 

 

[Amazing Larry]

Yes. I was next in line.

[Jason]

[Jason]

 

[Jason]

[Jason]

[the dude abides]

 

[Taylor]

On 7/28/2018 at 8:41 AM, Jason said:

"Drunk white people doing stupid shit"

[Amazing Larry]

[RallyMo]

9 hours ago, Lhalo said:

I honestly don't know, so I'm asking:

Is this another case of somebody's tweets/statements being taken out of context kind of like what we saw with that guy Cernovich and his responses to Patton Oswalt's comments?  It was quite shocking to me how blatantly Cernovich mischaracterized those comments just to score points against somebody he didn't like.

Specifically, were her comments used in a manner that a person with a reasonably functional brain could interpret as sarcasm rather than actual honest to goodness racism? 

[Blarg]

1 hour ago, RallyMo said:

...a person with a reasonably functional brain...

There is the problem. That majority of society has been pushed aside for louder voices.

[RallyMo]

10 minutes ago, Blarg said:

There is the problem. That majority of society has been pushed aside for louder voices.

Agreed, but you have guys like @Lhaloand @Make Angels Great Again that have apparently looked into this instance enough to push it on this board, so I assume they've taken a deeper dive here to justify running with the banner. I really haven't given it any time so I don't know, but I'm generally pretty cynical of things like that because they can certainly be stated in jest.

[Make Angels Great Again]

She says she was being sarcastic (of course she would), but I don't know. She says she was "counter trolling" people that were messaging her hateful/racist things. I don't doubt she receives hateful messages, but pretty much every public figure does. That doesn't give her an excuse to post vile things.

The NYT pushing it to the side in her hiring just reeks of hypocrisy when racism is such a prevalent talking point.

[RallyMo]

48 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

She says she was being sarcastic (of course she would), but I don't know. She says she was "counter trolling" people that were messaging her hateful/racist things. I don't doubt she receives hateful messages, but pretty much every public figure does. That doesn't give her an excuse to post vile things.

The NYT pushing it to the side in her hiring just reeks of hypocrisy when racism is such a prevalent talking point.

I really don't know what to say as some of that seems that it's far more likely to be said in jest than seriously and some vice versa.

I will say that there is CLEARLY some missing context, as many of the clipped images of tweets have short lines that were cut off from above indicating that they are responses to the tweets of others. Additionally, they're formatted in such a way as to suggest that something specifically provoked them and possibly her to react in kind.

It's really important to know context in cases like this.

You would think that we all absolutely hated the Angels if a guy like Cernovich got his hands on the search function here.

[Make Angels Great Again]

1 hour ago, RallyMo said:

 I really don't know what to say as some of that seems that it's far more likely to be said in jest than seriously and some vice versa.

 I will say that there is CLEARLY some missing context, as many of the clipped images of tweets have short lines that were cut off from above indicating that they are responses to the tweets of others. Additionally, they're formatted in such a way as to suggest that something specifically provoked them and possibly her to react in kind.

It's really important to know context in cases like this.

 You would think that we all absolutely hated the Angels if a guy like Cernovich got his hands on the search function here.

 

Well according to her the context is that she was getting harassed so she harassed back. Which is a really dumb thing to do. With or without context, that is some overtly racist stuff if we're going by today's standards.

I mean, is there really any doubt at all that she wouldn't be totally eviscerated if she said things equally bad about black people, muslims, gays, women etc? But because it's about white people, that makes it less damaging.

[Blarg]

I guess it's because white people can take it without creating an national referendum. 

Yes, that sounds so stinking supremacist that I'm afraid of the backlash 7 years from now when I'm accepting my Oscar for Best Original Screenplay.

[Spirit]

1 hour ago, RallyMo said:

Additionally, they're formatted in such a way as to suggest that something specifically provoked them and possibly her to react in kind.

It's really important to know context in cases like this.

 

I'm asking honestly here:  Is there an instance where I could send an angry tweet calling someone the N-word and you would ask for the context or inquire if I was provoked before deciding if it was ok?

 

 

[Blarg]

I'm not sure but calling someone a nagger isn't polite. 

[Lou]

8 minutes ago, Geoff said:

I'm asking honestly here:  Is there an instance where I could send an angry tweet calling someone the N-word and you would ask for the context or inquire if I was provoked before deciding if it was ok?

yes, when you're a MLB player. 

[Lou]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

I guess it's because white people can take it without creating an national referendum. 

Yes, that sounds so stinking supremacist that I'm afraid of the backlash 7 years from now when I'm accepting my Oscar for Best Original Screenplay.

screenshot - check