Wright Doesn't Regret Severed Relationship With Obama

You been reading Mein Kampf and The Turner Diaries, I see

 

:smt058

 

The Rev. is absolutely correct but should have stated Obama's "staff" or "handlers" won't allow them to speak. They also did not allow the black press much access prior to the election.

 

Those comments were hateful and unacceptable. The Jewish community has been very supportive of African-Americans.

 

I can't agree that he was "right."

First, he said "jews", not "jew". He meant Emanuel and Axelrod, not just Emanuel.

Second, he didn't just poorly choose a word, he intentionally chose to slur a whole group based upon his treatment by one of them. Unless you can proove evidence supporting the concept that an anti semetic remark can be "true", I don't see how a statement including one can be "right."

I've mostly supported Wright, and was dissapointed when Obama threw him under the bus. But this was about it for me.

 

Also, any time someone complains about somebody's handlers, be that somebody Barack Obama or Johnny Depp, the complainer always comes across as a douchebag looser. If Obama wanted to see Wright, he could. He's a grown ass man.

 

I dont have to provide "proove evidence" for my opinion.

And "jews" is not a slur.

 

No, not unless you'd like that opinion to be taken seriously.

In context, it was indeed used as a slur.

 

By all means, dont take me seriously.

I stated my opinion and you took as fact then berate me about context in the very next sentence. Yeah, I am here just for you to take me seriously. My whole post was just about how you see it. Jesus.

And no, "Jews" is not a slur.

 

Whatever. Obviously you're not willing to back up your statements, so I don't know why you bother making them.

 

Jew may not be your definition of slur, but in context, it is to the rest of the world. You can stand by "that's my opinion" but it isn't a defendable opinion, as evidenced by the fact that you refuse to defend it.

You could theoretically get into a semantic battle, but the problem with slurs has nothing to do with semantics, and everything to do with what has been communicated.

'I want to speak to Obama, but Emanuel & Axelrod won't let me get close to him' -- is whiny and pathetic, but it is not offensive.

'I want to speak to Obama, but Emanuel & Axelrod won't let me cuddle him' -- is a poor choice of words.

'I want to speak to Obama, but those jews won't let me' -- is anti semetic and offensive.


In context, non offensive words can be used offensively. Words that are not slurs can be used as slurs. Dunkin Donuts is not a slur, Indian is not a slur, but when Biden said you needed an Indian accent to be in a Dunkin Donuts, that was (rightly) referred to as a slur. It wasn't a poor choice of words, because nobody accidentally chooses that many wrong words.

Likewise, Wright's comments were not a poor choice of words, because no one accidentally thinks of someone only as a Jew. If your whole definition to a person is your race or religion, then that person is guilty of prejudice & bigotry.

"Those Black Girls won't let me near Denzel."

"Those Muslims won't let me near Rev Wright."

Those are fucked up things to say. Maybe in your opinion, they're not slurs.

Happily, your opinion belongs only to you. Heaven only knows why you'd share it, you clearly know it's not a good one.

 

Opinion: S: (n) opinion, sentiment, persuasion, view, thought (a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty)

I "make them" because they are my opinion, not to be taken as facts by countless people bent on disproving me. Get it?

If I state an opinion, you state yours and thats the end of it. If I state facts, then you can counter them as inaccurate or false or ask for proof.

 

Negative rep given. You cant handle anyone elses opinion.

 

Fail.

"If I state an opinion, you state yours and thats the end of it." -- this is the most boring thing I've ever heard of. Where in the heck do these robotic conversations take place?

I state my opinion you state yours with evidence or logic suggesting that yours is more accurate an opinion, I rebut with my own evidence or logic, and we proceed until we either come to an agreement based on what we've learned from the information and deductions shared during the whole thing, or we realize that we're dealing with two world views that are too disparate for us to find common ground and we give up.

The result of that kind of conversation is an evolution of thought and understanding, both of each other and the world around us.

The result of your kind of conversation is a waste of a few minutes.

I like my way better.

 

I am extremely happy. Sure I'm difficult, but you're a quitter, so that makes me even happier.

I have no trouble debating someone like Sir Nose. I'm so far from him politically it's like being on the other side of the Earth, but we're able to discuss things and learn to better understand where each other are coming from.

You make ridiculous statements and then run away, which indeed bugs me. So I bug you. I figure one of these days, I'll piss you off enough that you'll actually stand up for something, and then maybe I can figure out what the hell you're about. I know you are more than a 2-dimensional, opinionated caricature, but I can't find any evidence of that because all you ever do is say something provocative and storm away when I respond.

Also, it's a pet peeve of mine, to hear someone say "it's just my opinion." All opinions are not equal. Spend some time with a skitzophrenic, and you'll learn that very quickly. Your opinion that you are not yeti with a sword is a significantly better opinion then theirs that you are. Opinions are debated over years, generations, they are what form our social mores and lifestyles. Debating opinions is what makes human beings great and allows us to become greater. Every opinion is debated, even those not based anywhere near fact -- such as spiritual opinions. If there were no debates on spirituality, religion would not have progressed at all. At all.

You can have an opinion that you are actually holding your breath, but if everyone can see you breathing, that's not a good opinion. You can have an opinion that since it is warm, tall people are evil, but that's not a good opinion either -- it's not based in logic.

When presented with an opinion that is at odds with your own, you can choose to ignore it out of politeness, and sometimes that is necessary. However, if you challenge that opinion, and engage in debate, you can either hone your own position or you can learn that it is wrong. Both of these are a win.


I don't know where you came up with the ridiculous notion that opinions were sacred and not to be explored, but I find it offensive and I'm not going to play by the rules of that game o' blandness. You can ignore me or you can respond, but don't expect me not to dispute you. Perhaps if I could say I had no respect for you at all I could manage that, but you haven't convinced me to say that yet.