It's so bad you have to pay people to move to Vermont

[EPB]

Snowing hard in Vermont today. Let’s agree to disagree and move on. I apologize for the klan jab, that was out of line hyperbole. Enjoy the snow, avoid the crowds.

Have fun! I could have laid it on less thick, too.

 

[JimG.]

I'm somewhat impressed.

We have been dancing at the edge of lockdown for over a day with this thread yet we have managed to pull back and check ourselves. There was even an apology given.

There is true hope for this group after all.

 

[VTKilarney]

Do I think that liberals are racist? No.

Do I think that liberals engage in the soft bigotry of low expectations? At times, yes.

I will give you an example. My graduate school had a special program for African-Americans. They started school two weeks early and were given specialized instruction and tutoring on how to do well academically. This program was not made available to white students.

In my (small) program there were four African-American students. Two of the four were from extremely wealthy families. Yet they were told that they needed special help in order to succeed because, despite their life of privilege, they were... well... black. White kids from the lowest socioeconomic rungs were given no assistance whatsoever.

 

[bdfreetuna]

There is true hope for this group after all.

Given the inevitable political discourse that stems from any number of topics, and given that at least some of the frequent posters here find these discussions worth participating in (for whatever reason), why not make an adjustment to the "no politics" rule?

It's kind of silly for a thread to be started on the basis of a political point (failed VT liberal economics) and then be "walking the edge" any time the discussion deviates even slightly. I imagine this seems silly from position of a moderator as well who has to keep checking the thread to see if anyone "stepped over the line" (although the line was crossed from the beginning officially).

What about a sandbox type situation for politics, where say a thread like this is deemed meant ultimately for that purpose and those participating can speak freely while those who don't like it can choose not to participate?

 

[JimG.]

My children are mixed race.

My middle son Peter was placed into an African American dorm/club/house his sophomore year because of a lottery system. Peter didn't list that dorm in his requests for housing. He was told he was chosen because of his racial background and that he would benefit from the experience. That didn't wash for him or me for that matter.

I got involved; I got the same speech that Peter got. And I responded that I had never in my life experienced a more racist and disgusting system. Putting all the black kids into one place and telling them that's where they stay. I threatened to bring legal action and that fixed everything. Peter got a single room in a dorm with the rest of his friends. The last thing racists want is publicity for their racism.

That kind of passive racism delivered in the guise of special treatment or social experience is a real problem in our country.

 

[JimG.]

What about a sandbox type situation for politics, where say a thread like this is deemed meant ultimately for that purpose and those participating can speak freely while those who don't like it can choose not to participate?

Tuna, you know as well as I do that those who should choose to not participate will be the ones who participate the most.

Your sandbox is nothing but a minefield.

 

[bdfreetuna]

That kind of passive racism delivered in the guise of special treatment or social experience is a real problem in our country.

yup

Your sandbox is nothing but a minefield.

well it already is except under vague threat of thread being closed. Makes no difference to me just trying to make yer job easier.

 

[BenedictGomez]

My middle son Peter was placed into an African American dorm/club/house his sophomore year because of a lottery system. Peter didn't list that dorm in his requests for housing. He was told he was chosen because of his racial background and that he would benefit from the experience. That didn't wash for him or me for that matter.

I got involved; I got the same speech that Peter got. And I responded that I had never in my life experienced a more racist and disgusting system. Putting all the black kids into one place and telling them that's where they stay. I threatened to bring legal action and that fixed everything. Peter got a single room in a dorm with the rest of his friends. The last thing racists want is publicity for their racism. That kind of passive racism delivered in the guise of special treatment or social experience is a real problem in our country.

This is revolting, and precisely what I aforementioned as "accidental racism".

I would give you 10 to 1 odds that the people who created this program not only failed to see how it was racist, but they likely thought they were morally superior people for "helping" these black kids out, and were likely flabbergasted to find that someone thought their efforts were racist.

 

[abc]

Come on.

There's a difference between expressing a racist opinion vs BEING a racist

People, many people, have at times racist reaction to situations. Or subconscious racist thoughts, whether it's low expectation or low opinion. I bet you and I occasionally had such thoughts! And sometimes those thoughts got expressed on a forum.

Racists are people who consistently believe those thoughts and act on it to discriminate others based on race.

 

[bdfreetuna]

What do y'all think about this. Person arrested in CT under a unconstitutional law banning certain speech... 6 months probation, community service and re-education camp for saying N-word in public (not directed at anyone).

https://summit.news/2020/01/10/univ...nt-narrowly-avoids-jail-for-using-the-n-word/

 

[Orca]

I'm somewhat impressed.

We have been dancing at the edge of lockdown for over a day with this thread yet we have managed to pull back and check ourselves. There was even an apology given.

There is true hope for this group after all.

This thread has been home to a wonderful discussion. First rate quality in the main. I've been impressed by the thoughtfully articulated disagreements that elucidate the subject of the moment. Sometimes rough and tumble, but with generally fact-based give and take, and admirable humility.

 

[BenedictGomez]

What do y'all think about this.

Frightening.

The reality is free speech of the most vulgar kind or of the most unpopular opinion needs protection in a truly free society. In essence, real freedom means morons can be morons. Nobody needs to "protect" opinions shared by 99% of the populace.

And not shocking this took place on a college campus.

 

[Orca]

What do y'all think about this. Person arrested in CT under a unconstitutional law banning certain speech... 6 months probation, community service and re-education camp for saying N-word in public (not directed at anyone).

https://summit.news/2020/01/10/univ...nt-narrowly-avoids-jail-for-using-the-n-word/

Policing speech is a very slippery slope. I think it is necessary to tolerate rude and repugnant speech for the greater virtue of preserving the freedom of speech generally. Moreover, the people that most want to regulate speech are the people you least want to write the regulating laws.

 

[KustyTheKlown]

fully agreed that that is an absurd story and a probably unconstitutional law. free speech is sacrosant so long as you arent presenting an immediate danger to others. guys an idiot and asshole, but it shouldnt be criminal.

 

[VTKilarney]

If only the ACLU still believed in civil rights for all.

 

[bdfreetuna]

I'd be curious, honestly, if under that law black people are allowed to say N-word. Or maybe if they say "Cracker" they get arrested? What if a Hispanic person calls a white person a gringo?

Likewise does insulting Jesus and Muhammad carry the same penalty, or only Muhammad because Muslims tend to get more upset about that stuff?

The problem, besides being unconstitutional and a violation of natural rights, is selective enforcement and a one-sided view of who needs "protection" from speech.

 

[mister moose]

This thread has been home to a wonderful discussion. First rate quality in the main. I've been impressed by the thoughtfully articulated disagreements that elucidate the subject of the moment. Sometimes rough and tumble, but with generally fact-based give and take, and admirable humility.

I too would like to thank the moderators that opted to let this thread run. The great volume of responses reflect the level of interest, and that is a good thing. I'm actually surprised this happened in January, and not July.

I often wonder how useful discussions like this are. Did any learning occur? Were any opinions changed? I think mostly the answer is no, but therein lies the nugget. Most of us get a window into another point of view in conversations like this. We get some information we didn't have before. We hopefully are a little bit more informed, and maybe that makes us ask a few more questions outside of this forum, and maybe we are reminded to be a little bit more tolerant.


​

Policing speech is a very slippery slope. I think it is necessary to tolerate rude and repugnant speech for the greater virtue of preserving the freedom of speech generally. Moreover, the people that most want to regulate speech are the people you least want to write the regulating laws.

Why should it be a slippery slope? Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is a crime only if it incites panic. A stage actor could yell "Fire that worker!" in a crowded theater and not be prosecuted. It is not the word, it is not the place, it is not the speech, it is the action of inciting panic that is criminal. I wouldn't mind revisiting that over used and trite example, and realize that all speech should be protected. It is inciting criminal behavior (Try threatening the President in a public venue with any words you might choose) that has been determined to be criminal. All words should be protected. All actions should not be.

 

[Hawk]

In response to "at least most of the left did diversify away from the "we invaded Iraq to steal their oil" conspiracy."

[/B]

No; there are still plenty of far-leftists who still actually believe that.

No we invaded Iraq because the Hawks said it was a good idea.(No Pun intended ;-)) We would have a larger military presence in an area of the world that houses a large chunk of our enemies. The Whole idea of the WMD was a construct of the members of Bushes cabinet and Military consultants that knew we needed to get congressional approval to move forward and that was not going to come unless we had a good reason. Sort of Ironic that these types of playing rules are now totally out the window with the current republican regime.

 

[Not Sure]

In response to "at least most of the left did diversify away from the "we invaded Iraq to steal their oil" conspiracy."


No we invaded Iraq because the Hawks said it was a good idea.(No Pun intended ;-)) We would have a larger military presence in an area of the world that houses a large chunk of our enemies. The Whole idea of the WMD was a construct of the members of Bushes cabinet and Military consultants that knew we needed to get congressional approval to move forward and that was not going to come unless we had a good reason. Sort of Ironic that these types of playing rules are now totally out the window with the current republican regime.

Oh no an unexpected tangent and just when the racism part was getting good. After some thought I do remember working with a racist 25 years ago. The company I worked with hired a African American who would be working with him. I thought there was going to be a homicide one way or another. A week later they were fishing together LOL . Minds can change, never give up a dialogue because you never know!!!

I hope it snows soon!!

 

[JimG.]

I often wonder how useful discussions like this are. Did any learning occur? Were any opinions changed? I think mostly the answer is no, but therein lies the nugget. Most of us get a window into another point of view in conversations like this. We get some information we didn't have before. We hopefully are a little bit more informed, and maybe that makes us ask a few more questions outside of this forum, and maybe we are reminded to be a little bit more tolerant.

Well we have to start somewhere. I agree with you, why not here?

Clearly we are not getting any help from our "leaders".