Star-Spangled Banner confusion

[Chris Harmon]

The Tulsa Athletic soccer team announced yesterday that it would no longer play the Star-Spangled Banner before home games. They will instead play This Land is Your Land. Apparently there are some folks that thought the announcement was about TU Athletics, which it's not. Has nothing to do with the Univ. of Tulsa.

I've heard that several TU administrators have received emails, etc. about it.

 

[Li'l Eric Coley]

I support Tulsa Athletic to a certain degree. I don't go to the matches, but I'm friends with a lot of people who do. Every city should have a sixth-tier semi-pro soccer team for all the local punks to enjoy. But this was obviously a PR stunt by Sonny to keep Athletic in the news.

 

[Raisin_Cane]

I think it’s a reasonable idea. Especially in soccer.

 

[TU Man]

and other commie plots to take the world over lol

 

[aTUfan]

The third verse is bad. Who sings the thitd verse? Who even knew a third verse existed?

So either rewrite the third verse or delete it. Problem solved.

 

[TU Sepp]

The third verse is bad. Who sings the thitd verse? Who even knew a third verse existed?

So either rewrite the third verse or delete it. Problem solved.

Ahhhh,,, aTUfan, wait till people find out there's a 4th verse!

 

[TU_BLA]

The third verse is bad. Who sings the thitd verse? Who even knew a third verse existed?

So either rewrite the third verse or delete it. Problem solved.

I'll be honest, that was my exact reaction...but it doesn't mean Sonny's awareness and drive to be inclusive is necessarily wrong.

I think the debate now needs to be to look at intent. I don't think the Star Spangled Banner was intentionally racist, even now at the way it is used. However, statues of Confederate officers and soldiers and celebrating individuals who were lucky they weren't hanged for treason because they intentionally took up to preserve the institution of slavery, is different. BLM is legit because we see the marked difference in how LEOs approach POC vs non-POC. The individual who shot 2 police officers today was white and was taken alive, was also armed and extremely dangerous. The McClain kid in Aurora, CO was killed although not armed and not aggressive. The guy who shot up the theater in Aurora, CO was insane, killed several people and injured a lot more, and armed with a small arsenal was taken alive The guy who shot up a black church in SC was armed, dangerous, killed 9 people. He was arrested peacefully and asked if he was hungry. Tamir Rice was shot by police at the age of 12 because he was playing with a toy gun in the park. What are the differences that cause officers to take some into custody and/or to just open fire? In these instances, it was the color of the individuals' skin.

Not everything has a racist intent...I get that, but it doesn't mean society can't be sensitive to things that may be perceived as racist to the very groups they offend. Chances are there aren't many POC who knew a 3rd stanza of the Star Spangled Banner even existed and they may have the same reaction you did. But that stanza has the same racial overtones that The Eyes of Texas Are Upon You have (more its source material) and we know that song has been called into question. Student athletes in Mississippi finally got the MS Leg to vote to change the state flag and remove the confederate flag from the corner. So here's another question...why are legislatures quick to act when groups of athletes start standing up for what they believe, but those same legislatures dismiss fellow lawmakers or the NAACP when it's brought to their attention. Union PS would probably drop Redskins as its nickname if the football team said they weren't playing until it was gone. The same with the Washington Redskins. What if all 22 starters for OU this season decided they weren't going to play football until Oklahoma and OU removed Sooners as the respective nicknames as it glorifies gangs of thugs who stole and intimidated people out of rightful land claims? OKLeg would be like "OK...what do we call ourselves now...and OK Ed get on this and get it fixed NOW"

 

[Chris Harmon]

What if all 22 starters for OU this season decided they weren't going to play football until Oklahoma and OU removed Sooners as the respective nicknames as it glorifies gangs of thugs who stole and intimidated people out of rightful land claims?

Using their athletic scholarship to hold the university and football program hostage doesn't seem right at all, especially just to change something that they perceive as insensitive. All of this sudden sensitivity and thin skin about every little thing has gone WAY overboard, but it fits right in to the cancel culture mentality that I've discussed in other threads.

There are very few things in life that 95 percent of people are going to agree on. Most days, someone is going to say or do something that you don't like or agree with, or it might even offend you. And that's okay. Not everybody thinks alike...it would be pretty boring if we did.

 

[TU Man]

I'll be honest, that was my exact reaction...but it doesn't mean Sonny's awareness and drive to be inclusive is necessarily wrong.

I think the debate now needs to be to look at intent. I don't think the Star Spangled Banner was intentionally racist, even now at the way it is used. However, statues of Confederate officers and soldiers and celebrating individuals who were lucky they weren't hanged for treason because they intentionally took up to preserve the institution of slavery, is different. BLM is legit because we see the marked difference in how LEOs approach POC vs non-POC. The individual who shot 2 police officers today was white and was taken alive, was also armed and extremely dangerous. The McClain kid in Aurora, CO was killed although not armed and not aggressive. The guy who shot up the theater in Aurora, CO was insane, killed several people and injured a lot more, and armed with a small arsenal was taken alive The guy who shot up a black church in SC was armed, dangerous, killed 9 people. He was arrested peacefully and asked if he was hungry. Tamir Rice was shot by police at the age of 12 because he was playing with a toy gun in the park. What are the differences that cause officers to take some into custody and/or to just open fire? In these instances, it was the color of the individuals' skin.

Not everything has a racist intent...I get that, but it doesn't mean society can't be sensitive to things that may be perceived as racist to the very groups they offend. Chances are there aren't many POC who knew a 3rd stanza of the Star Spangled Banner even existed and they may have the same reaction you did. But that stanza has the same racial overtones that The Eyes of Texas Are Upon You have (more its source material) and we know that song has been called into question. Student athletes in Mississippi finally got the MS Leg to vote to change the state flag and remove the confederate flag from the corner. So here's another question...why are legislatures quick to act when groups of athletes start standing up for what they believe, but those same legislatures dismiss fellow lawmakers or the NAACP when it's brought to their attention. Union PS would probably drop Redskins as its nickname if the football team said they weren't playing until it was gone. The same with the Washington Redskins. What if all 22 starters for OU this season decided they weren't going to play football until Oklahoma and OU removed Sooners as the respective nicknames as it glorifies gangs of thugs who stole and intimidated people out of rightful land claims? OKLeg would be like "OK...what do we call ourselves now...and OK Ed get on this and get it fixed NOW"

I think some have trouble making the leap to "BLM is legit" because they see two different messages. One, like their website, is pretty straightforward. Black lives matter. I get that. I hear that. I'll help with that as much as I can. It's a great message.

Then at times you see a different message on the streets. They take over city blocks in Seattle and put common folks out of business. Cops are beat up and killed at their rallies that turn to riots. They tear down statues of folks who apparently had ideals that don't live up to the high moral standards of shirtless skateboarders. I don't know where BLM stops and anarchism starts. The lines are blurred and they shouldn't be.

I find it a bit ironic that many of the statues they want torn down have both bad and good associated with them, but they want them gone. Yet we have bad and good associated with their movement and they believe it to be fine. It is beyond my understanding.

I had a young family member (12) ask me this week what the difference was in Republican and Democrat. I told her it was up to her to research the core differences and report back. When she reported back, it was a good learning experience. I asked her if color or race ever came up in her research. She said no. I asked her if she expected race to show up before she did the research, and she said yes. All I told her was "it doesn't matter which one you are - it only matters that you listen and respect what the other side believes and attempt to understand and realize America allows them to believe differently and it's ok".

 

[HuffyCane]

I think some have trouble making the leap to "BLM is legit" because they see two different messages. One, like their website, is pretty straightforward. Black lives matter. I get that. I hear that. I'll help with that as much as I can. It's a great message.

Then at times you see a different message on the streets. They take over city blocks in Seattle and put common folks out of business. Cops are beat up and killed at their rallies that turn to riots. They tear down statues of folks who apparently had ideals that don't live up to the high moral standards of shirtless skateboarders. I don't know where BLM stops and anarchism starts. The lines are blurred and they shouldn't be.

I find it a bit ironic that many of the statues they want torn down have both bad and good associated with them, but they want them gone. Yet we have bad and good associated with their movement and they believe it to be fine. It is beyond my understanding.

I had a young family member (12) ask me this week what the difference was in Republican and Democrat. I told her it was up to her to research the core differences and report back. When she reported back, it was a good learning experience. I asked her if color or race ever came up in her research. She said no. I asked her if she expected race to show up before she did the research, and she said yes. All I told her was "it doesn't matter which one you are - it only matters that you listen and respect what the other side believes and attempt to understand and realize America allows them to believe differently and it's ok".

Shirtless skateboarders brought the lulz

 

[aTUfan]

if BLM really stood for anything, they would take their act to Chicago where lot of blacks are shot and killed every day. you want some credibility, clean up that mess.

 

[astonmartin708]

if BLM really stood for anything, they would take their act to Chicago where lot of blacks are shot and killed every day. you want some credibility, clean up that mess.

Give them the $$$ and strategic support to accomplish that task I'm sure they would like to do so.

 

[Raisin_Cane]

Using their athletic scholarship to hold the university and football program hostage doesn't seem right at all, especially just to change something that they perceive as insensitive. All of this sudden sensitivity and thin skin about every little thing has gone WAY overboard, but it fits right in to the cancel culture mentality that I've discussed in other threads.

There are very few things in life that 95 percent of people are going to agree on. Most days, someone is going to say or do something that you don't like or agree with, or it might even offend you. And that's okay. Not everybody thinks alike...it would be pretty boring if we did.

A player almost died on the football field at OSU and after practice, Gundy called him the wrong name. That’s one of just many examples now on the record of his detachment from the players. If the players didn’t go public, I don’t think he listens to their very real concerns about the direction of the program and his direction as a “leader of men.” These aren’t simple commodities. These are young men who deserve respect and don’t even usually get common decency. If players are the ones who have the power to change the world for good, they should use that power. I applaud them.

 

[Chris Harmon]

A player almost died on the football field at OSU and after practice, Gundy called him the wrong name. That’s one of just many examples now on the record of his detachment from the players. If the players didn’t go public, I don’t think he listens to their very real concerns about the direction of the program and his direction as a “leader of men.” These aren’t simple commodities. These are young men who deserve respect and don’t even usually get common decency. If players are the ones who have the power to change the world for good, they should use that power. I applaud them.

In another thread, you defined cancel culture as a type of social media bullying for a mistake someone made. Now it also applies to groups of people raising legitimate complaints about how they've been treated? Where does the line get drawn? Is a little racism ok because you should have had thicker skin? A little sexual harrassment ok because you should have had thicker skin?

First of all, I don't take kindly to anyone putting words in my mouth or making assumptions about me based on things I didn't say. In response to @Raisin_Cane, it is very clear in my post that I was referencing TU_BLA's example of all 22 of OU starters boycotting the season if the Sooners nickname wasn't changed, which was hypothetical. It had nothing to do with OSU or Gundy.

Now for @ctt8410. What does the hypothetical example of changing the Sooners nickname have to do with legitimate complaints of how someone has been treated? Where did I say 'a little racism is ok' or 'a little sexual harassment is ok'?? I didn't, and I don't appreciate it being implied.

As far as people needing thicker skin...yes, they do. Since the beginning of social media, many people just hunt around every day to find something to be outraged about or offended by. Then they respond with hate and anger. It's all day, every day on social media. Thousands of things are perceived to be insensitive by different groups of people every day...and most have nothing to do with racism and sexual harassment. And then there's other groups that don't believe it's insensitive at all. And then they battle back and forth on social media, generally spewing hate at each other. It's garbage.

 

[TU Man]

Chris you don't have to defend yourself. Everyone knows what you mean about people needing thicker skin.

 

[Li'l Eric Coley]

Shirtless skateboarders brought the lulz

I immediately thought of Jay Adams and Tony Alva lol

 

[HuffyCane]

First of all, I don't take kindly to anyone putting words in my mouth or making assumptions about me based on things I didn't say. In response to @Raisin_Cane, it is very clear in my post that I was referencing TU_BLA's example of all 22 of OU starters boycotting the season if the Sooners nickname wasn't changed, which was hypothetical. It had nothing to do with OSU or Gundy.

Now for @ctt8410. What does the hypothetical example of changing the Sooners nickname have to do with legitimate complaints of how someone has been treated? Where did I say 'a little racism is ok' or 'a little sexual harassment is ok'?? I didn't, and I don't appreciate it being implied.

As far as people needing thicker skin...yes, they do. Since the beginning of social media, many people just hunt around every day to find something to be outraged about or offended by. Then they respond with hate and anger. It's all day, every day on social media. Thousands of things are perceived to be insensitive by different groups of people every day...and most have nothing to do with racism and sexual harassment. And then there's other groups that don't believe it's insensitive at all. And then they battle back and forth on social media, generally spewing hate at each other. It's garbage.

And some are very well paid worker bees sitting in cubicles and others are even better paid NGO employees and state actors.

 

[TU 1978]

For an Old English drinking song, it’s unsingable. America the Beautiful is much better.

 

[texcane1982]

Give them the $$$ and strategic support to accomplish that task I'm sure they would like to do so.

Haha... they're a global network that's extremely well funded and organized. They have no interest protesting real problems that plague the african-american communities. This is no civil rights movement, it's purely a marxist revolution, using racism as a diabolical cover to promote the destruction of capitalism.

TX

 

[astonmartin708]

Haha... they're a global network that's extremely well funded and organized. They have no interest protesting real problems that plague the african-american communities. This is no civil rights movement, it's purely a marxist revolution. The use of racism is a diabolic cover to advance a movement to destroy the country or as their NYC leader Hawk Newsome put it, "if the U.S. doesn't gives us what we want, then we will burn down the system".

TX

Yes, all of those black folks in the street were communists. Would you like to stop there, or maybe you can add in more minorities while you’re at it?

 

[texcane1982]

Yes, all of those black folks in the street were communists. Would you like to stop there, or maybe you can add in more minorities while you’re at it?

BTW, that’s a nice cherry picked viewpoint from a fringe voice in their movement... here’s a press release from actual the actual BlackLivesMatter organization:
Today, Donald Trump attributed a quote to a “Black Lives Matter leader” on his social media. We have traced these comments to Hawk Newsome. Hawk Newsome has no relation to the Black Lives Matter Global Network (“BLM”) founded by Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi — and is not the “president” of BLM or any of its chapters. Only BLM chapters who adhere to BLM’s principles and code of ethics are permitted to use the BLM name. The reason for this is simple: unaffiliated uses of BLM’s name are confusing to people who may wrongly associate the unsanctioned group and its views and actions with BLM. As BLM has told Mr. Newsome in the past, and as is still true today, Mr. Newsome’s group is not a chapter of BLM and has not entered into any agreement with BLM agreeing to adhere to BLM’s core principles. The only official chapter of BLM in New York is Black Lives Matter NYC

Okay, how about this cherry pick, Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi are self-proclaimed trained Marxist. Tometi is deep supporter of the Venezuela regime. All those protestors in the streets? That's how revolutions work, people become pawns of a movement, recruited and indoctrinated for the cause. They are blinded by the ideaology and many of the anarchists are not "minorities".

TX

 

[Weatherdemon]

people become pawns of a movement, recruited and indoctrinated for the cause. They are blinded by the ideaology.

Sounds like the remaining Trump supporters.

 

[TU_BLA]

Okay, how about this cherry pick, Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi are self-proclaimed trained Marxist. Tometi is deep supporter of the Venezuela regime. All those protestors in the streets? That's how revolutions work, people become pawns of a movement, recruited and indoctrinated for the cause. They are blinded by the ideaology and many of the anarchists are not "minorities".

TX

So much of the violence associated with the BLM protests isn't necessarily caused by those who are truly supporting that cause. There have already been numerous documented incidents that the violence associated with it is the work of the Boogaloo group and Proud Boys. And honestly, some of it is just idiots being opportunistic because the police are making sure the actual protests don't get out of hand.

 

[TU Man]

agree with BLA

BLM
anarchists
folks pissed off by class warfare
folks pissed off by being locked in by Covid
folks just jumping on any bandwagon cause
folks who are just interested in committing crimes

there are probably even more "labels" to put on these folks involved in the recent protests, riots, marches, and even the crimes. though they may be different, they are many times being lumped together. They need to separate their messages and causes or they will continue to be lumped together. I think they will start to refine their message and their mannerisms, and hopefully when they do, more folks will acknowledge some good arguments/causes and dis-spell the rest.

The right hasn't done a good job of this either. How can conservatives allow themselves to be lumped together and ALL be classified as racists. The Republican party hasn't done a very good job of separating themselves from racist claims when every BLM follower thinks every single Republican is a racist.

sounds like everyone needs a marketing guru. lol

 

[TU_BLA]

The right hasn't done a good job of this either. How can conservatives allow themselves to be lumped together and ALL be classified as racists. The Republican party hasn't done a very good job of separating themselves from racist claims when every BLM follower thinks every single Republican is a racist.

You're right on most of this.

The problem with the GOP right now is they've all fallen in lockstep and put all their eggs in the Trump basket. No one speaks out about the things he says or does because they don't want to face the Twitter wrath from Trump and his cult followers. And it's pretty easy to trigger the GOP by saying if you support the racist you are also a racist.

That said you've started seeing Lindsey Graham start to speak out about the Putin bounties on US soldiers, masks, reopening schools too soon, removing the Confederate flag from wide use in SC, etc. Why? Because he's having a ton of pressure put on him from the Democratic candidate. Polls show within the MOE.

 

[Chris Harmon]

How can conservatives allow themselves to be lumped together and ALL be classified as racists. The Republican party hasn't done a very good job of separating themselves from racist claims when every BLM follower thinks every single Republican is a racist.

That's one of silliest things of the whole deal...just like BLM saying all cops are bad. The majority of conservatives were basically minding their own business and BLM came along and said, "You're all racist." That is, of course, a ridiculous notion. People aren't racist simply because another group says so.

It's similar to the LGBTQ community labeling all Christians as hateful bigots, when hate and bigotry are completely against the teachings of Jesus. But the LGBTQ community says it's so, so I guess we all need to believe it. And then there is the hypocrisy of a group that preaches inclusion being completely unaccepting of another group. So they started their own religion called "Progressive Christianity."

It's a fascinating world we live in.

 

[astonmartin708]

That's one of silliest things of the whole deal...just like BLM saying all cops are bad. The majority of conservatives were basically minding their own business and BLM came along and said, "You're all racist." That is, of course, a ridiculous notion. People aren't racist simply because another group says so.

It's similar to the LGBTQ community labeling all Christians as hateful bigots, when hate and bigotry are completely against the teachings of Jesus. But the LGBTQ community says it's so, so I guess we all need to believe it. And then there is the hypocrisy of a group that preaches inclusion being completely unaccepting of another group. So they started their own religion called "Progressive Christianity."

It's a fascinating world we live in.

You see, the problem you have with the highlighted statement is that while you may not personally have a significant level of malice towards any specific minority, the leaders of the most dominant conservative party (who most conservatives vote for) tend to advocate for measures that disenfranchise and subjugate specific classes of people (largely minorities). This is all done, probably not out of racial malice by conservative politicians, but more so out of a desire to benefit themselves in their bids to win elections.

• They have historically supported for-profit-prisons and criminal / judicial laws that help fill up those prisons.
• They gerrymander urban districts (not that the D's don't gerrymander their fair share as well).
• They support restrictions on voting like voter ID laws and oppose proposals to make voting easier for poorer citizens who have trouble taking off work. (mail in voting or voting holidays).
• They've started defending polling stations in certain states to make voting there even harder.
• They sell their base on opposition to immigration based on economic concerns, when it's really their concern that the immigrants who become citizens are unlikely to vote for their party.
• The promote economic policies that tend to do little for the poorer classes (which tend to be minorities due to the historical oppression that the minorities did face when there were more people out there that had personal racial animus towards them)
• Their refusal to support some kind of measures that would help limit the birth rate in low income communities (abortion, contraception, birth control) has disproportionately effected minorities. They then argue that the problem with the communities is that too many children are born into bad family scenarios without a father, when those fatherless-births could have been prevented if the mothers were more readily able to choose when they wanted to have a child.

I can go on, but I think I will stop there. Now, you or even the politician you vote for might not have any hatred in your heart for minorities simply based on their skin color, but you do need to realize that some of the policies that you (or more specifically your elected representatives) support for religious, political, or economic reasons adversely effect minorities. That's part of the reason that these people are crying out "systematic racism" at conservatives. It's because sometimes they're casualties in a political chess match just because they play on the "blue" side of the board instead of the "red" side, and sometimes the solutions their communities really need to improve socially and economically go against the moral philosophy of the evangelical religion that conservatives tend to support.

Conservatives aren't all racists... they just have elected representatives that do racist things sometimes to win votes among their supporters and prevent votes among their opponents' supporters. Much like all DE's don't hate QB's before the game or after the game is over but they sure as heck are willing to cripple him for life when the ball is snapped and that clock is running if it means winning the game. BLM is basically the player trying to play offense that's saying after the game that their opponents just keep taking cheap shots and it's leading to injuries for themselves and their teammates. They're saying that the rules of the game need to be modified so both sides are back on more equal ground so the game can be more competitive and better for everybody.

 

[astonmartin708]

I'd like to add, that my above statement omits all of the things that liberals due to try and gain political advantage over conservatives, which can certainly be legitimate qualms for the members of their party that are adversely effected.

 

[TU_BLA]

Conservatives aren't all racists... they just have elected representatives that do racist things sometimes to win votes among their supporters and prevent votes among their opponents' supporters.

It's convenient to lump conservatives, and more specifically the people they vote for, in with being racist because they tend to line up to support anything Trump/Stephen Miller do/say and Trump has taken some very abrasive action and said some incredibly insensitive things with regards to race, disability, sexual orientation, women, etc. It started in Charlottesville and really that was the last thing anyone needed to hear from Trump to have him forever labeled as a racist. And when his followers continue to support that (or better yet, don't denounce it which then gets interpreted as support) the supporters get labeled that as well.

But Conservatives get away with calling me unChristian because I'm a Democrat. It's like calling all Dems anti-2A which is not true at all.

It goes both ways. We need more guys like John McCain who called people out when they spewed bogus crap and it didn't matter if they were Dems or GOP

 

[astonmartin708]

It's convenient to lump conservatives, and more specifically the people they vote for, in with being racist because they tend to line up to support anything Trump/Stephen Miller do/say and Trump has taken some very abrasive action and said some incredibly insensitive things with regards to race, disability, sexual orientation, women, etc. It started in Charlottesville and really that was the last thing anyone needed to hear from Trump to have him forever labeled as a racist. And when his followers continue to support that (or better yet, don't denounce it which then gets interpreted as support) the supporters get labeled that as well.

But Conservatives get away with calling me unChristian because I'm a Democrat. It's like calling all Dems anti-2A which is not true at all.

It goes both ways. We need more guys like John McCain who called people out when they spewed bogus crap and it didn't matter if they were Dems or GOP

I would argue that every single conservative representative doesn't support every single issue that adversely effects minorities. But some support more than others and some racially detrimental issues have relatively broad support among the party, while some more egregious stances are less supported. Same thing goes in reverse when conservatives call every liberal a socialist / communist.

I would argue that the more likely an issue is to help either party win an election, the more support it will have no matter how much more egregious its outcomes will be on the opposition.

Going back to the sports analogy for teams / parties.... people need to start realizing that one team injuring all of the other team's players might let them win the game, but it will eventually hurt the support for the league. Having refs (the judiciary) helps, but the refs can only enforce / interpret the rules that are on the books. If the rules (or the refs) are too far skewed to one team's advantage people are going to get upset. The more upset they get, the more likely the league is to fail. It's better to have a series of back and forth games where the losing side isn't always the same and the losing sides feel like they performed admirably. That's how leagues (countries) succeed.

 

[old.guy]

Conservatives almost to a man blindly support the most racist president since Andrew Jackson. So it is easy to see how they would be characterized as racist.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Conservatives almost to a man blindly support the most outwardly racist president since Andrew Jackson. Therefore, .....

Fify

 

[Chris Harmon]

Conservatives almost to a man blindly support the most racist president since Andrew Jackson. So it is easy to see how they would be characterized as racist.

That's just another generalization. I think there is a group of conservatives that support Trump regardless. The majority of conservatives that I come across have issues with many of the things Trump says or does, but most of the issues important to them still align with conservative policies. So they support Trump due to the lack of a reasonable alternative. If they voted democrat in the upcoming election, they feel they are going against most of the things they believe in. So they'll stick with Trump for now. That doesn't make them racist.

 

[Chris Harmon]

We need more guys like John McCain

I can agree with that.

 

[astonmartin708]

That's just another generalization. I think there is a group of conservatives that support Trump regardless. The majority of conservatives that I come across have issues with many of the things Trump says or does, but most of the issues important to them still align with conservative policies. So they support Trump due to the lack of a reasonable alternative. If they voted democrat in the upcoming election, they feel they are going against most of the things they believe in. So they'll stick with Trump for now. That doesn't make them racist.

If the person you're (hypothetically) voting for does racist things and supports racists and openly appeals to them, and all of this happens repeatedly, then what does that make you?

If you vote for a guy like, let's say, Strom Thurmond (dead now I know). He might have agreed with your views on Tax Policy or Foreign Policy, but he also professed a lot of racist crap over the years. I'm not saying Trump is quite to the level of Thurmond, but he's not light years away either. If you vote to elect racist representatives (or at least ones that continue to support racist policies) does that make you racist? Or does it just make you tacitly complicit?

I'll share some of my favorite lines from the speech in a famous movie where I've modified a few of the proper names. See how it fits....

But in order to understand it, one must understand the period in which it happened. There was a fever over the land, a fever of disgrace, of indignity, of hunger. We had a democracy, yes, but it was torn by elements within. Above all there was fear, fear of today, fear of tomorrow, fear of our neighbors, and fear of ourselves. Only when you understand that can you understand what (Trump) meant to us, because he said to us:

"Lift your heads. Be proud to be American. There are devils among us, communists, liberals, ____, ______. Once these devils will be destroyed your misery will be destroyed."

It was the old, old story of the sacrificial lamb.

What about those of us who knew better, we who knew the words were lies and worse than lies? Why did we sit silent? Why did we take part? Because we loved our country. What difference does it make if a few political extremists lose their rights? What difference does it make if a few racial minorities lose their rights? It is only a passing phase. It is only a stage we are going through. It will be discarded sooner or later. (Trump) himself will be discarded -- sooner or later. The country is in danger. We will march out of the shadows! We will go forward. FORWARD is the great password...

And then, one day we looked around and found that we were in an even more terrible danger. The ritual begun in this courtroom swept over the land like a raging, roaring disease. What was going to be a "passing phase" had become the way of life...

It is not easy to tell the truth. But if there is to be any salvation for (America), we who know our guilt must admit it -- whatever the pain and humiliation...

My counsel says we were not aware of the (subjugation) of the millions. He would give you the excuse: We were only aware of the (subjugation) of the hundreds. Does that make us any the less guilty? Maybe we didn't know the details. But if we didn't know, it was because we didn't want to know.

 

[Chris Harmon]

If the person you're (hypothetically) voting for does racist things and supports racists and openly appeals to them, and all of this happens repeatedly, then what does that make you? ... Or does it just make you tacitly complicit?

It makes you a person that voted. As I said above, most people voting for Trump are doing so because they believe the alternative would be worse, or they'll vote for him because of how good the economy had been and how low unemployment was before the pandemic. It doesn't make the person complicit any more than they would be complicit in killing unborn children if they voted for Biden. Biden and Trump are not good choices. Hillary Clinton and Trump were not good choices. So people are going to vote for the person and party that aligns more with their thoughts and beliefs on the issues important to them.

There are racist, hateful people in the world. They exist in all political parties. I could list out the things both parties vote for, policy-wise, that aren't benefiting minorities or even hinder minorities. But that doesn't mean all or even half of the people that identify with one party or the other is racist. The large silent majority of democrats and republicans are moderate and agree on a lot more than people are led to believe by the extremists.

 

[Hurricane Drummer]

It makes you a person that voted. As I said above, most people voting for Trump are doing so because they believe the alternative would be worse, or they'll vote for him because of how good the economy had been and how low unemployment was before the pandemic. It doesn't make the person complicit any more than they would be complicit in killing unborn children if they voted for Biden. Biden and Trump are not good choices. Hillary Clinton and Trump were not good choices. So people are going to vote for the person and party that aligns more with their thoughts and beliefs on the issues important to them.

There are racist, hateful people in the world. They exist in all political parties. I could list out the things both parties vote for, policy-wise, that aren't benefiting minorities or even hinder minorities. But that doesn't mean all or even half of the people that identify with one party or the other is racist. The large silent majority of democrats and republicans are moderate and agree on a lot more than people are led to believe by the extremists.

This pretty well sums up the way I feel. Good post.

 

[astonmartin708]

It makes you a person that voted. As I said above, most people voting for Trump are doing so because they believe the alternative would be worse, or they'll vote for him because of how good the economy had been and how low unemployment was before the pandemic. It doesn't make the person complicit any more than they would be complicit in killing unborn children if they voted for Biden. Biden and Trump are not good choices. Hillary Clinton and Trump were not good choices. So people are going to vote for the person and party that aligns more with their thoughts and beliefs on the issues important to them.

There are racist, hateful people in the world. They exist in all political parties. I could list out the things both parties vote for, policy-wise, that aren't benefiting minorities or even hinder minorities. But that doesn't mean all or even half of the people that identify with one party or the other is racist. The large silent majority of democrats and republicans are moderate and agree on a lot more than people are led to believe by the extremists.

You can not just write off any support you give to a candidate with a history of oppressive actions and oppressive rhetoric as the "pros outweigh the cons" anymore. People voted for Jefferson Davis and racist Confederates. They voted for Hitler. They voted for Stalin. Heck, They keep voting for Putin. They thought the pros outweighed the cons in the beginning too. Ignoring dire implications of your preferred candidates support for certain important issues like the value of minorities in return for economic policy is wrong. 100% wrong and if you knowingly do it then I will call you a racist.

"There are those in our country today, too, who speak of the "protection" of the country. Of "survival". The answer to that is: *survival as what*? A country isn't a rock. And it isn't an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for, when standing for something is the most difficult! Before the people of the world - let it now be noted in our decision here that this is what we stand for: justice, truth... and the value of a single human being!"


I would also argue that to be considered a human being you actually need to have developed the characteristics that make one fundamentally human so that talk about unborn children is a wash to me.

A quote from a a United Methodist Pastor:

"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for
They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn.

It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."

 

[Gmoney4WW]

You can not just write off any support you give to a candidate with a history of oppressive actions and oppressive rhetoric as the "pros outweigh the cons" anymore. People voted for Jefferson Davis and racist Confederates. They voted for Hitler. They voted for Stalin. Heck, They keep voting for Putin. They thought the pros outweighed the cons in the beginning too. Ignoring dire implications of your preferred candidates support for certain important issues like the value of minorities in return for economic policy is wrong. 100% wrong and if you knowingly do it then I will call you a racist.

You can't actually believe people actually vote for Putin because they are ignoring the 'right' thing to do. They vote for Putin because they have no other choices. They also vote for him out of fear, because they think the other candidate will not win, and Putin will ignore the election if he/she does win.(or kill the candidate if he/she appears to gain any real support)

 

[Li'l Eric Coley]

Larry David is going to run. Just to cancel Kanye’s votes.