White Nationalists and the alt right. Racist as fuck is no better than woke as fuck

[TitoFan]

[QUOTE=Kirkland Laing;1649453]

You boil it all down to money, and that's great. I'm not disputing your point of view. But we're focusing on two different things. You're focusing on the effect. I'm focusing on the cause. Of course the CEO's of the world are going to cave to public pressure, if it endangers their bottom line. No one's arguing that.

My focus continues to be on the segment of society that all of a sudden has "developed a conscience" and is behind these name change demands. I couldn't care less about the CEO's. They're spineless in their own way... and will lean in any direction the winds blow, just like politicians. The driving force is always going to be a controlling segment of society. In this case the woke mob that thinks changing name brands and team names is going magically make problems go away. It's a mindless, transparent, shallow, B.S. way of thinking.

But yes... it's still the CEO's who cave and perform the name changes. I think that much is clear.

My disgust is with the "window-dressing", token-clamoring segment of society, who... it might be said... are as racist, sexist, and ethnic-biased as the best of 'em.

If it's "public pressure" then it isn't a "woke mob" is it. Unless the majority of the general public is a woke mob. These guys are not spineless. They've spent half a century completely ignoring the woke mobs of their day. What they're not ignoring is majority opinion in America. The majority has gone all woke mate.

Semantics.

Let's not call it a woke mob, then.

Here's the facts:

After decades of existence for some of these known brands and team names... "all of a sudden" they're now deemed offensive and must be changed. Never mind that nothing of substance is ever done by the government to truly alleviate the plight of the minorities. It's those damned syrup brand names that must be changed. Doesn't matter who demanded it... who caved... why they caved... the economics involved... none of it. What matters is that these demands are viewed as misdirected, distracting, frivolous, tokenism, and lazy reaching for low-hanging fruit by some of us.

There's nothing the government can do to significantly alter the problems that minorities face that they haven't already done given the demographic/voting makeup of the country. Things aren't going to change substantially in that respect in our lifetimes. In fact there's a good chance things will get worse. Here's one example why:

https://www.salon.com/2023/11/06/apo...ve-christians/

and the other example is the forthcoming wave of black Africans migrating to America. Regardless of the current situation in countries south of the border it looks like the flood of immigrants from the south will slow to a trickle and in a decade or three new workers will have to come from the only part of the world with explosive population growth and a surfeit of young people -- Africa. This is unlikely to improve race relations.

There is a lot of little stuff like this that can be done. People being constantly reminded of the past by rice and syrup and whatever is one little thing that's easy to change. Another is removal of Confederate monuments. The thing that got me about the monuments is that it turns out the majority of them weren't put up at the time, they were put up as a big fuck you by pissed off white people in the 1960s after the various civil rights bills were passed. I'd like to see those things put in museums rather than destroyed because they're definitely part of American history and heritage like their proponents say they are but not in the ways that they think they are. There should be a visible record of just how attitudes were in America towards black people even in the civil rights 1960s era. Especially in that era.

I just hope things don't get worse in the future but all signs point to them doing so unfortunately.

But there's nothing the government can do that they haven't already done given the circumstances. One party wants to do various stuff, the other party wants to reverse what has already been done. The GOP has demolished one of the 1960s civil rights bills, the voting rights act, which they've turned into Swiss cheese and they're going after the rest of the bills from that era in the future now they have the 6-3 Court. Even if the GOP weren't teying to wind things backwards what else could be done anyway? You can't change what's in peoples' hearts.

I disagree that "There's nothing the government can do to significantly alter the problems that minorities face that they haven't already done given the demographic/voting makeup of the country."

That last qualifier (demographics/voting makeup) makes it very difficult, granted. But it's not impossible. It does require people thinking outside the box.

Disparities in educational opportunities lie at the core of the self-perpetuating economic gap between blacks and whites in the U.S. It's self-perpetuating why? Because it's based on the funding structure for public schools across the US.

• 47% - State government
• 45% - Local government
• 8% - Federal government

The bulk of these, of course, comes from income and property taxes in those areas. Voters in highly-taxed neighborhoods obviously aren't going to support any measure (or politician) that aims toward reducing this disparity, because most of these voters don't give a damn about the plight of poor neighborhoods.

But that doesn't mean that the system can't be looked at as a whole, and some tweaks considered to at least move toward the direction of equal opportunity.

The problem is that traditional government fixes are cookie-cutter, low-brain-usage type of solutions, like the hated quotas put forth by Affirmative Action initiatives. Again... I'm not saying there isn't a problem in hiring and discrimination upon hiring and promoting. I'm saying it takes politicians that are willing to roll up their sleeves and find some real, workable solutions. A 5-year old could put together some of these quotas on a napkin between his lunch time and recess.

Another hare-brained idea (in my opinion) is reparations. Another "masterpiece" thought up by some lazy politician who couldn't be bothered to take the time to think his idea through... along with all the impossible ramifications that come with it.

But that the government can do plenty to "alter the problems that minorities face" is a given, to me. If the US can put a man on the moon, I believe they can find solutions to the plight of minorities in the country. Yes, I know... it's all money driven. Palms get greased... lackeys get voted into positions of power... and the hamster wheel just keeps on going round and round.

The "forthcoming wave of black Africans migrating to America" is another story, and yes... sure to complicate matters even further. Interesting point.

I'm glad you mentioned the issue about the monuments and statues. That got me thinking about the topic again, and I did a little digging. It's a complex issue, and again... one that shouldn't be given cookie-cutter or broad-brush "solutions."

One huge such monument is Stone Mountain outside of Atlanta, Georgia. I personally visited this monument many years ago, and took a cable car up to its summit. At the time I just looked at it as a beautiful sculpture carved into the side of the mountain. Not being black, and not having the emotional baggage that blacks have regarding the nation's past, I didn't give it much thought about the fact that it is Confederate generals that are depicted on the sculpture. But then I found and read the following article.

https://www.atlantahistorycenter.com...brief-history/

"Stone Mountain: Carving Fact from Fiction"


Admittedly, that article changed my perspective on the monument. It's a very interesting read. Yes, the monument was begun in the 1910's, well before the Civil Rights movement of the 50's. But just the fact that the KKK had such a role in the creation of the monument is enough to change my opinion of it.

However, once you start going down that road, where does it end? Who's to decide what monuments/statues need to come down and which ones don't? Again... it's a complex issue that deserves lots of analysis and consideration by intelligent, sensitive, common sense people in positions of authority.

Years ago the University of Notre Dame decided to cover up murals that depicted Christopher Columbus in America. This came after pressure from critics which claimed they showed Native Americans in "stereotypical submissive poses." Never mind that the murals were created in the 1880's, and were "intended to encourage immigrants who had come to the U.S. during a period of anti-Catholic sentiment."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...murals-n961006


I found a NY Times article aptly titled: "Which Statues Need to Come Down? You Decide"

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...tues-quiz.html


Probably a good criteria is this: If the monument/statue was erected with the sole "fuck you" (as you put it) purpose of being spiteful to a group of people... then by all means get rid of it.

Otherwise, we should think long and hard before we start tearing down statues because they're "offensive to someone."