POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
If anyone has watched the most recent Dave Chappelle standups on Netflix, he addresses this growing culture in our society. In a way that only Chappelle can do, he essentially asks the LGBTQ community to take it easy. Chappelle, as an African American relates to his culture's historic and ongoing fight in the United States. How it has taken decades to get to this point, and still one can probably sense or determine a form of racism that they see in their life on a day to day basis. Doesn't have to be much. I'm not saying that there are skinheads and klan members working at the cubicle next to you. Subtle things like an African American child being specifically watched in a department store by security. The slight initial judgment one might feel when seeing an interracial couple. Not microaggressions, more just subtle or covert.
Chappelle's comedy succeeds because he can address every group within our society with the same approach. He can poke fun at the stereotypes and doesn't quite go over the edge. And he doesn't consider a single group to be off limits. For as much as the world changed between his huge rise during Chappelle Show in the early 2000s till now, based on his most recent shows his approach to things hasn't changed much at all. And that's extremely rare.
It's probably a 5-7 minute part of the second show and they are both streaming on Netflix. I'd recommend it. He does what only he and a few others can do. Joke about a serious subject without really offending anyone and actually delivering a helpful/positive message within his joke. The change for LGBTQ won't happen overnight. And they can claim that they have been fighting for a long time. Maybe so but given the 2017 explosive emergence of the trans community, that should be considered a victory for their community. They should know there is going to be blow-back from those who disagree or don't understand their decisions. Takes time. For everyone to get comfortable. Humans have always been that way. The LGBTQ community is so busy fighting for rights right now. Sorry, but it just won't happen that quickly.
Chappelle's comedy succeeds because he can address every group within our society with the same approach. He can poke fun at the stereotypes and doesn't quite go over the edge. And he doesn't consider a single group to be off limits. For as much as the world changed between his huge rise during Chappelle Show in the early 2000s till now, based on his most recent shows his approach to things hasn't changed much at all. And that's extremely rare.
It's probably a 5-7 minute part of the second show and they are both streaming on Netflix. I'd recommend it. He does what only he and a few others can do. Joke about a serious subject without really offending anyone and actually delivering a helpful/positive message within his joke. The change for LGBTQ won't happen overnight. And they can claim that they have been fighting for a long time. Maybe so but given the 2017 explosive emergence of the trans community, that should be considered a victory for their community. They should know there is going to be blow-back from those who disagree or don't understand their decisions. Takes time. For everyone to get comfortable. Humans have always been that way. The LGBTQ community is so busy fighting for rights right now. Sorry, but it just won't happen that quickly.
Right ? It's actually funny because Trump has been in Support of gays/ gay marriage etc for years and years. WAY before Obama and Hillary - who people think are some sort of minority saviors for some reason
Trump was far and away the most liberal candidate on the GOP side. If the left is pissed about Trump, they better be damn hopeful that nothing happens to put Pence in power. Many of the GOP candidates were religious zealots (a category Pence also falls into.) The guy who won probably doesn't know the name of the first book of the Bible. It's really the best the left could have hoped for.
Very true
Pence is against women in the military. In 2000 he pushed for HIV/AIDS funding to be relocated to a "conversion therapy" fun in attempt to change people's sexual behaviors. He prompted a complete government shutdown in an effort to 100% defund planned parenthood. Pence tried to add the term "forcible rape" as an alternative to just rape in regards to combat a woman's ability to have an abortion. There is his infamous 2015 Religious Freedom Restorations Act.
A friend I went to high school with now lives in Indiana. And the main reason he is happy Trump/Pence won is because it takes Pence away from primarily focusing on his state for a while.
If the left is successful in overthrowing Trump, I hope Pence rounds up every one of their identity subsets or whatever the hell you want to call them and throws them into prayer camps.
If the left is successful in overthrowing the democratically elected government, Constitutional rights being trampled are the least of our worries.
If the left is successful in overthrowing the democratically elected government, Constitutional rights being trampled are the least of our worries.
It's been my experience that the majority of the people I know that HATE Donald Trump don't even really know why. I'm not a huge fan of the guy but I think all of the "ZOMG TRUMP = HITLER" stuff is just garbage.
I wish they'd just forget about Obamacare, but I do love the patronizing "You can do it!"
Trump ----> Pence would be the ultimate "be careful what you wish for" scenario for the left.
"fat phobia"
Jesus Christ. That's it. I'm done.
We gonna have "smoker phobia" next you stupid sons of bitches?
Jesus Christ. That's it. I'm done.
We gonna have "smoker phobia" next you stupid sons of bitches?
They hate him because he's rich. And white. And straight. They hate him because he eats meat. They hate him because he has no problem telling them they are whiny assholes that he refuses to suffer.
They hate him because they cannot control him.
I don't think people should like make fun of / be super mean to "fat" people but what's up with this new thing of acting like people who are morbidly obese are perfectly healthy? It's NON fat people who need to change their ways ?
Yes I know sometimes there's genetics ... thyroid issues etc, but 97% of the people who are morbidly obese have nobody to blame but themselves
Fat-phobia ? Smfh .
Yep. I'm fat. I've lost a ton of weight recently. I discovered how easy it is to throw some vegetables in the oven for a midnight snack as opposed to chips or some other garbage. Still overweight but I've gotten to the point where my work clothes are too big. My pants keep slipping so my workday consists of tugging my pants up constantly.
Why was I fat? Because I was lazy. No one to blame but myself.
When I got married 8 ish years ago, I was like 175. Over the course of 7 years or so I ballooned up to like 255- and I'm only 5'8... lol. It was my own fault. I ate like crap, wasn't active etc . Lots of fast food/ junk food.
Back down to 176 now tho, exercise , change in diet etc helped tremendously
The left has an agenda that transcends real equality and fringes on lustful and ultimate power that means to enslave our culture into one they have chosen to follow. There is evil in the leftist ideals and they will stop at nothing to get it.
60 years old 5'9" 210 lbs of solid muscle if I was to believe the left.
![[winking]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/wink.r191677.gif "Winking [winking]")
So why is this all on Mitch?
As I've pointed out before...Trump has NEVER laid out any details about what HE wants. The closest he ever did so was his "everybody has to be covered" remarks during the campaign. None of the proposals have come close to that. In the past any POTUS that wanted to advance an agenda worked for THAT agenda. They laid out a framework and then worked to get agreement on that framework. Simply promoting "Repeal and Replace" is a nothing-burger. Replace with what? That is the question. Had Trump and the others campaigned on "Repeal Obamacare" and not talked of "Replace" they wouldn't find themselves in the pickle that has them now. Of course with no "Replace" they probably lose enough votes not to get elected in the first place.
You have your opinion what "Replace" means, others have theirs but nobody is laying those ideas out and nobody can get a majority to agree on theirs. It's like everyone agreeing to who has the best barbeque. Everyone loves barbeque but ask 1000 people who has the best barbeque and you'll get 1001 different answers.
The truth and reality is that the Repeal and Replace mantra was hollow. It was left to everyone's imagination exactly what that meant. It was exactly what you (figurative you) wanted it to be...fairy dust that was less expensive and covered more. Again I point out that insurance companies have pulled out of Obamacare plans because they lose money. So how will they cover more, for less?
This is every bit if not more Trump's failure than Mitch or any individual in congress because he never laid out any clear vision. He allowed the vision to remain vague to give the notion of mass appeal. He told us "It will be great!" having no idea what "it" was. Is that Mitch's fault?
The dog chased the car for 7 years and finally caught it. Now it has no idea what to do. It is now stuck in the middle of the highway with heavy traffic flowing in both directions. It risks getting run over regardless of what direction it moves.
I agree that he is terrible...but not his fault for "Repeal and Replace" not passing.
The ONLY saving grace for their argument is the cost of quality food vs. McDonald's if they are poor. Saw a Tweet earlier this week (may have even been here, my life is a whirlwind right now) where a person posted a pic of $32 worth of groceries (fruits and veggies stuffs) and it wan't much at all. He/she then drew the comparison as to just how much food you can get for $32 at McD's... and they actually have some semblance of a point. However, their ultimate goal was to get the reader to stop fat-shaming the poor... which just misses the point, but the intent was there.
And because he's been calling for repeal and replace for 7 years. Where's his plan? What's he been planning for the last 7 years?
Why didn't he have a better plan ready? He's had 7 years.
Yeah, but if Noko wipes out Cali it will be worth it.
Such bullshit fuzz. Yeah, its Trumps fault the GOP has lied to its own base for almost 8 years now. That's some impressive spin.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
Listened to 1A on NPR as I drove into downtown Cincy today, and they were talking about the new movie Detroit. The focus of the movie is the Detroit riots in 1967. The movie was directed by a white woman, the same woman who directed The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty. There was a female commentator who had me p!ssed because she didn't simply have criticisms about the way the movie focused on the violence of the riots and didn't explore the events leading up to them; She didn't simply have a differing opinion about how the story was told in the movie; Nope, she was offended! The movie offended her because it didn't include depictions of historical events that would have provided context for the riots.
WTF? It's a friggin' movie! If I see a movie adaptation of a book, and they don't include everything in the book, and I think the parts left out were integral to the movie, what emotion would I feel? I may feel disappointed, I guess, because the movie failed to live up to my expectations. I might even feel angry, because I know another director or actor could have done a better job. But offended? You took the movie personal? Like a director who is known for making you feel like you are in the middle of violence and carnage wouldn't focus on the violence and carnage of the event? And that was a personal affront against you? Really?
But the real reason, you know and I know, that she was offended is because the director was white, taking on a black subject. The movie therefore comes under much greater scrutiny than other movies. It's not just a movie that failed to develop plot and character to make you care for the people involved and the subject matter, it isn't simply a historical account of violent conflict and overt racism that is very hard to watch; It's not just a box office disappointment. It's not just a work of art that didn't live up to expectations. It is offensive! And it's held to much higher scrutiny because a white woman directed it.
It reminds me of hearing recently that real estate developers were trying to make South Harlem a more trendy, inviting part of town, so they began advertising units there as being located in "SoHa." And, of course, the African-American community was "offended" that the cultural center that is Harlem was being gentrified. Never mind that Harlem thoroughly earned the bad reputation it has, that what were once slums are being replaced with upscale high-rise housing, that the influx of people, money and development is actually what is "saving" Harlem. If people call Cincinnati "Cincy," or Lexington "LexVegas" or Louisville "The 'Ville" to shorten the name or maybe jazz it up a little, where is the harm?
TL
R, What I'm trying to say is, everyone is too d@mn easily offended by stupid sh!t that ain't important, and we will never come together if we are all looking for stupid sh!t to divide us.
WTF? It's a friggin' movie! If I see a movie adaptation of a book, and they don't include everything in the book, and I think the parts left out were integral to the movie, what emotion would I feel? I may feel disappointed, I guess, because the movie failed to live up to my expectations. I might even feel angry, because I know another director or actor could have done a better job. But offended? You took the movie personal? Like a director who is known for making you feel like you are in the middle of violence and carnage wouldn't focus on the violence and carnage of the event? And that was a personal affront against you? Really?
But the real reason, you know and I know, that she was offended is because the director was white, taking on a black subject. The movie therefore comes under much greater scrutiny than other movies. It's not just a movie that failed to develop plot and character to make you care for the people involved and the subject matter, it isn't simply a historical account of violent conflict and overt racism that is very hard to watch; It's not just a box office disappointment. It's not just a work of art that didn't live up to expectations. It is offensive! And it's held to much higher scrutiny because a white woman directed it.
It reminds me of hearing recently that real estate developers were trying to make South Harlem a more trendy, inviting part of town, so they began advertising units there as being located in "SoHa." And, of course, the African-American community was "offended" that the cultural center that is Harlem was being gentrified. Never mind that Harlem thoroughly earned the bad reputation it has, that what were once slums are being replaced with upscale high-rise housing, that the influx of people, money and development is actually what is "saving" Harlem. If people call Cincinnati "Cincy," or Lexington "LexVegas" or Louisville "The 'Ville" to shorten the name or maybe jazz it up a little, where is the harm?
TL
R, What I'm trying to say is, everyone is too d@mn easily offended by stupid sh!t that ain't important, and we will never come together if we are all looking for stupid sh!t to divide us.
Listened to 1A on NPR as I drove into downtown Cincy today, and they were talking about the new movie Detroit. The focus of the movie is the Detroit riots in 1967. The movie was directed by a white woman, the same woman who directed The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty. There was a female commentator who had me p!ssed because she didn't simply have criticisms about the way the movie focused on the violence of the riots and didn't explore the events leading up to them; She didn't simply have a differing opinion about how the story was told in the movie; Nope, she was offended! The movie offended her because it didn't include depictions of historical events that would have provided context for the riots.
WTF? It's a friggin' movie! If I see a movie adaptation of a book, and they don't include everything in the book, and I think the parts left out were integral to the movie, what emotion would I feel? I may feel disappointed, I guess, because the movie failed to live up to my expectations. I might even feel angry, because I know another director or actor could have done a better job. But offended? You took the movie personal? Like a director who is known for making you feel like you are in the middle of violence and carnage wouldn't focus on the violence and carnage of the event? And that was a personal affront against you? Really?
But the real reason, you know and I know, that she was offended is because the director was white, taking on a black subject. The movie therefore comes under much greater scrutiny than other movies. It's not just a movie that failed to develop plot and character to make you care for the people involved and the subject matter, it isn't simply a historical account of violent conflict and overt racism that is very hard to watch; It's not just a box office disappointment. It's not just a work of art that didn't live up to expectations. It is offensive! And it's held to much higher scrutiny because a white woman directed it.
It reminds me of hearing recently that real estate developers were trying to make South Harlem a more trendy, inviting part of town, so they began advertising units there as being located in "SoHa." And, of course, the African-American community was "offended" that the cultural center that is Harlem was being gentrified. Never mind that Harlem thoroughly earned the bad reputation it has, that what were once slums are being replaced with upscale high-rise housing, that the influx of people, money and development is actually what is "saving" Harlem. If people call Cincinnati "Cincy," or Lexington "LexVegas" or Louisville "The 'Ville" to shorten the name or maybe jazz it up a little, where is the harm?
TL
This country and whites have sunk so much money into helping blacks and all they get is hate directed back at them and continual blaming of whites for every failure.
Black population grows, crime increases, neigjborhood gets worse= whites leave for better and safer neighborhoods and schools.
Narrative: "White flight." Whites are racist.
Black neighborhood continues to be a nest for crime, poverty, no jobs, no hope. Whites move into neighorbood to fix it (since no one else ever does) and makes it desirable again for homes and jobs.
Narrative: "Gentrification." Racist whites trying to drive blacks out.
When you realize how many of them hate whites no matter the situation, we can stop bothering with the attempts to appease.
You've got to be effing kidding me.
Similar threads
