leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 16, 2020 Posted July 16, 2020 2 hours ago, Chef Jim said: There you go Gary. I fixed your email to them. What a ***** weenie you are Gary. Yes.
Cinga Posted July 16, 2020 Posted July 16, 2020 4 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ...better get your checkbooks ready............... North Carolina city approves ‘reparations,’ apologizes for role in slavery The council voted 7-0 on a measure to mitigate racial disparities By Morgan Phillips | Fox News North Carolina’s Asheville City Council apologized for its role in slavery and racial discrimination, voting unanimously to provide reparations in the form of community investments to help Black residents. The council voted 7-0 on Tuesday night on the measure to mitigate racial disparities. The reparations will not provide direct cash payments, as some have suggested, but will provide investments in housing, health care and career growth in Black neighborhoods. Councilwoman Shaneika Smith, who is Black, said the council had gotten emails from those "asking, 'Why should we pay for what happened during slavery?'" "[Slavery] is this institution that serves as the starting point for the building of the strong economic floor for white America, while attempting to keep Blacks subordinate forever to its progress," said Smith, as reported by the Asheville Citizen Times. The resolution calls on the city to create a Community Reparations Commission to make concrete recommendations of where to funnel programs and resources. "The resulting budgetary and programmatic priorities may include but not be limited to increasing minority home ownership and access to other affordable housing, increasing minority business ownership and career opportunities, strategies to grow equity and generational wealth, closing the gaps in health care, education, employment and pay, neighborhood safety and fairness within criminal justice," the resolution reads. "Hundreds of years of black blood spilled that basically fills the cup we drink from today," said Councilman Keith Young, who is one of two African American city council members and spearheaded the proposal. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/north-carolina-city-approves-reparations-apologizes-for-role-in-slavery Sounds to me they've only approved allowing Federal Government (read Trump/Carson) Urban Enterprise Zones? SO now the question is, what specifically is Asheville doing the UEZ isn't doing? 1
3rdnlng Posted July 16, 2020 Posted July 16, 2020 7 minutes ago, Cinga said: Sounds to me they've only approved allowing Federal Government (read Trump/Carson) Urban Enterprise Zones? SO now the question is, what specifically is Asheville doing the UEZ isn't doing? It's nothing different than what's happening and has happened for years all over the country. They're dressing it up as "reparations" for feel good purposes. 2
BillsFanNC Posted July 16, 2020 Posted July 16, 2020 4 hours ago, billsfan1959 said: My wife and I enjoy driving up to Asheville, NC, (about 4 hours) now and then. Some good restaurants, beautiful scenery, and the Biltmore Estate is a great place to stay. With that said, the above doesn't surprise me. Asheville is as white, liberal, and elitist as they come - and I am sure the guilt over their white priviledge is all consuming about now... Yep. Portland east. 1
GOBUFFALO716 Posted July 16, 2020 Posted July 16, 2020 5 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Trump's IG page 1
shoshin Posted July 16, 2020 Posted July 16, 2020 The below piece is about an attempt by the cancel culture to go after Steven Pinker. It reminds me of all the energy people here dedicate to "linking" folks in guilt-by-association conspiracies. I know this won't move most of you but consider this: Cancel culture is bad on both sides. On the left, it's more mainstream. On the right, it's still a bit fringey but mainstream here at PPP. https://www.city-journal.org/steven-pinker-letter?fbclid=IwAR2k0ZJzHCoyhBs6wXhI3pPnxlNjuvLx6aZe_fUYZNzpgsKy4SEL3-7v7Cs Guilt by association is a key tactic of this kind of attack, not because it is particularly convincing but because it makes an implicit threat that anyone who disagrees with the letter can be caught up in the smear campaign. Pinker is accused of public support for New York Times columnist David Brooks, of calling Bernard Goetz “mild-mannered,” and of providing expert linguistic support used in Jeffrey Epstein’s trial. The David Brooks reference is baffling; Brooks is no fringe figure. One imagines that Pinker’s reference to Goetz was to his demeanor, not a defense of his actions. However terrible Epstein’s crimes were, he deserved a fair trial, including the right to argue over the meaning of the statute under which he was being prosecuted. The letter presents no evidence that Pinker’s linguistic advice was incorrect. (The authors confuse “testimony” with “testimonial”—either a smear or a lamentable lapse of linguistic competence.) There’s also an incomprehensible reverse guilt-by-association charge: Pinker quoted Harvard professor Lawrence Bobo on racism. But the authors of the letter like Bobo, so they accuse Pinker of “co-opting his academic work.” The first substantive charge, as opposed to smear, is that Pinker has not acknowledged or addressed the role of linguistics in the “reproduction” of racism. Regardless of what “reproducing” racism means, as opposed to “promoting” or “defending” it, the authors don’t accuse Pinker of believing the field of linguistics is on balance on the right side in the fight against racism—only of not saying loudly and clearly enough that it’s on the wrong side. This is another McCarthyite tactic. It’s not enough to be innocent; you must broadcast your support and denounce others. The next charge is that Pinker “has a tendency to move in the proximity” of “scientific racism.” Indirect charges were another feature of Red Scare smears. The letter provides no specific quotes, no definition of what separates legitimate scientific inquiry into the effect of genetics on human behavior from racism. If you’re going to throw someone out of your linguistics society, tell him what he said that offended you, and ask him what he meant first. Don’t claim “tendencies” to “move in in the proximity” of ill-defined concepts without specific evidence.
billsfan1959 Posted July 16, 2020 Posted July 16, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, shoshin said: The below piece is about an attempt by the cancel culture to go after Steven Pinker. It reminds me of all the energy people here dedicate to "linking" folks in guilt-by-association conspiracies. I know this won't move most of you but consider this: Cancel culture is bad on both sides. On the left, it's more mainstream. On the right, it's still a bit fringey but mainstream here at PPP. https://www.city-journal.org/steven-pinker-letter?fbclid=IwAR2k0ZJzHCoyhBs6wXhI3pPnxlNjuvLx6aZe_fUYZNzpgsKy4SEL3-7v7Cs Guilt by association is a key tactic of this kind of attack, not because it is particularly convincing but because it makes an implicit threat that anyone who disagrees with the letter can be caught up in the smear campaign. Pinker is accused of public support for New York Times columnist David Brooks, of calling Bernard Goetz “mild-mannered,” and of providing expert linguistic support used in Jeffrey Epstein’s trial. The David Brooks reference is baffling; Brooks is no fringe figure. One imagines that Pinker’s reference to Goetz was to his demeanor, not a defense of his actions. However terrible Epstein’s crimes were, he deserved a fair trial, including the right to argue over the meaning of the statute under which he was being prosecuted. The letter presents no evidence that Pinker’s linguistic advice was incorrect. (The authors confuse “testimony” with “testimonial”—either a smear or a lamentable lapse of linguistic competence.) There’s also an incomprehensible reverse guilt-by-association charge: Pinker quoted Harvard professor Lawrence Bobo on racism. But the authors of the letter like Bobo, so they accuse Pinker of “co-opting his academic work.” The first substantive charge, as opposed to smear, is that Pinker has not acknowledged or addressed the role of linguistics in the “reproduction” of racism. Regardless of what “reproducing” racism means, as opposed to “promoting” or “defending” it, the authors don’t accuse Pinker of believing the field of linguistics is on balance on the right side in the fight against racism—only of not saying loudly and clearly enough that it’s on the wrong side. This is another McCarthyite tactic. It’s not enough to be innocent; you must broadcast your support and denounce others. The next charge is that Pinker “has a tendency to move in the proximity” of “scientific racism.” Indirect charges were another feature of Red Scare smears. The letter provides no specific quotes, no definition of what separates legitimate scientific inquiry into the effect of genetics on human behavior from racism. If you’re going to throw someone out of your linguistics society, tell him what he said that offended you, and ask him what he meant first. Don’t claim “tendencies” to “move in in the proximity” of ill-defined concepts without specific evidence. It appears this campaign against Pinker is being orchestrated by people on the left. Am I mistaken about this? I am sure there are fringe people on the right engaging in this type of behavior; however, the cancel culture in this country is overwhelmingly populated by the left. EDIT: BTW, I am against this type of behavior, regardless of ideology, politics, etc. I believe it is reprehensible behavior to attempt to destroy a person, socially, economically, or in any way, simply because their views or opinions are different. Edited July 16, 2020 by billsfan1959
B-Man Posted July 16, 2020 Posted July 16, 2020 The Effort To Cancel Academic Steven Pinker Isn’t Going Well https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2020/07/15/effort-cancel-academic-steven-pinker-isnt-going-well/
Nanker Posted July 16, 2020 Posted July 16, 2020 20 hours ago, B-Man said: DO NOT BE THE FIRST TO STOP CLAPPING WHEN COMRADE STALIN SPEAKS: Petition to Fire NYC Professor Accused of Sleeping During Anti-Racist Meeting Gathers 2,000 Signatures. This is all about power and bullying. Remember the names of the people behind this. They’ll show up again.
B-Man Posted July 16, 2020 Posted July 16, 2020 A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR A NAME CHANGE: ‘Democrat’ Belongs in Dustbin of History.
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted July 16, 2020 Posted July 16, 2020 6 hours ago, billsfan1959 said: It appears this campaign against Pinker is being orchestrated by people on the left. Am I mistaken about this? I am sure there are fringe people on the right engaging in this type of behavior; however, the cancel culture in this country is overwhelmingly populated by the left. EDIT: BTW, I am against this type of behavior, regardless of ideology, politics, etc. I believe it is reprehensible behavior to attempt to destroy a person, socially, economically, or in any way, simply because their views or opinions are different. ....civil discourse has long since gone to Hell.....dare to have a differing opinion?...... 1
Chef Jim Posted July 17, 2020 Posted July 17, 2020 19 hours ago, B-Man said: The Effort To Cancel Academic Steven Pinker Isn’t Going Well https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2020/07/15/effort-cancel-academic-steven-pinker-isnt-going-well/ How can they even think that censoring people that they disagree with has any place in a free society? What’s the purpose of this.
SoCal Deek Posted July 17, 2020 Posted July 17, 2020 4 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: How can they even think that censoring people that they disagree with has any place in a free society? What’s the purpose of this. They aren’t trying to have a free society. This is the ultimate struggle of individualism against collectivism. Dangerous stuff! 1 1
Chef Jim Posted July 17, 2020 Posted July 17, 2020 3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: They aren’t trying to have a free society. This is the ultimate struggle of individualism against collectivism. Dangerous stuff! I get that. But my question is what is their goal and what is their issue with individual thought? And the bigger question is how do we fight it?
BillsFanNC Posted July 17, 2020 Posted July 17, 2020 11 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: How can they even think that censoring people that they disagree with has any place in a free society? What’s the purpose of this. Because they have no interest in a free society.
Chef Jim Posted July 17, 2020 Posted July 17, 2020 1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said: Because they have no interest in a free society. That is an incomplete answer. I’m a big why person. See my post above.
SoCal Deek Posted July 17, 2020 Posted July 17, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: I get that. But my question is what is their goal and what is their issue with individual thought? And the bigger question is how do we fight it? Read any of Ayn Rand’s novels. She lived through it. This is dangerous stuff. It’s the Winners and makers against the losers and takers. The scary part is that the sweet song of socialism is often enticing to the poorly educated. Long live HOWARD ROARK! Edited July 17, 2020 by SoCal Deek
Recommended Posts