Octopus Overlords

Carpet_pissr wrote:Yeah, it's unique alright.

Oh so now you want to debate on uniqueness? What, you can't figure out a topical argument that actually clashes? This is almost as bad as effects T.

Max Peck wrote:

Kraken wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Dude, my house is more white than the US. That doesn't make the US not predominantly white.

The US is at a majority/minority tipping point. Although not outnumbered by any particular ethnicity, us honkies are on the verge of constituting <50% of the population. We're the biggest and richest minority...but still.

Eventually, as long as you don't elect Trump, but it doesn't look like that yet.
(Census Bureau source).

Yeah, I knew I was off by a few years (hence "on the verge"). The census predicts that white babies will be a minority by 2020 and the adult population will be eclipsed 24 years later.

Donald is more of an rich orange American, no?

Sarah Plain interviews Donald Trump

(She calls Trump backers Trumpeters).

Heh. I got as far as "93 million Americans are unemployed."

Kraken wrote:Heh. I got as far as "93 million Americans are unemployed."

That's a little farther than I made it. I gave up at "his heart is with the middle class".

I'd try to watch the whole thing but I imagine it would be like eavesdropping at a mental institution.

tgb wrote:

Kraken wrote:Heh. I got as far as "93 million Americans are unemployed."

That's a little farther than I made it. I gave up at "his heart is with the middle class".

I wasn't going to watch, but after reading that line, now I feel compelled.

tgb wrote:

Kraken wrote:Heh. I got as far as "93 million Americans are unemployed."

I'd try to watch the whole thing but I imagine it would be like eavesdropping at a mental institution.

It wasn't quite like that, but it did trigger my gag reflex a couple of times. Is it common for ex-Governors to be called Governor?

Alefroth wrote:

tgb wrote:

Kraken wrote:Heh. I got as far as "93 million Americans are unemployed."

I'd try to watch the whole thing but I imagine it would be like eavesdropping at a mental institution.

It wasn't quite like that, but it did trigger my gag reflex a couple of times. Is it common for ex-Governors to be called Governor?

Yes. President Bush is still addressed as "President Bush."

Palin resigned halfway through her only term, however, so there's that.

Holman wrote:

Alefroth wrote:

tgb wrote:

Kraken wrote:Heh. I got as far as "93 million Americans are unemployed."

I'd try to watch the whole thing but I imagine it would be like eavesdropping at a mental institution.

It wasn't quite like that, but it did trigger my gag reflex a couple of times. Is it common for ex-Governors to be called Governor?

Yes. President Bush is still addressed as "President Bush."

Palin resigned halfway through her only term, however, so there's that.

I was going to mention that.

Maybe Trump, in keeping with his "Let's Make America White Again" campaign is now trying to position himself as British. Did he end it with a "Pip, pip. Cheerio."?

Holman wrote:

Alefroth wrote:

tgb wrote:

Kraken wrote:Heh. I got as far as "93 million Americans are unemployed."

I'd try to watch the whole thing but I imagine it would be like eavesdropping at a mental institution.

It wasn't quite like that, but it did trigger my gag reflex a couple of times. Is it common for ex-Governors to be called Governor?

Yes. President Bush is still addressed as "President Bush."

Palin resigned halfway through her only term, however, so there's that.

Not sure what this guy's authority is, but common or not, it doesn't appear to be proper.

tgb wrote:

Holman wrote:

Alefroth wrote:

tgb wrote:

Kraken wrote:Heh. I got as far as "93 million Americans are unemployed."

I'd try to watch the whole thing but I imagine it would be like eavesdropping at a mental institution.

It wasn't quite like that, but it did trigger my gag reflex a couple of times. Is it common for ex-Governors to be called Governor?

Yes. President Bush is still addressed as "President Bush."

Palin resigned halfway through her only term, however, so there's that.

I was going to mention that.

Maybe Trump, in keeping with his "Let's Make America White Again" campaign is now trying to position himself as British. Did he end it with a "Pip, pip. Cheerio."?

He ended it by saying how awesome Governor Palin is. Might still be some life in your old sig.

Alefroth wrote:

Holman wrote:

Alefroth wrote:

tgb wrote:

Kraken wrote:Heh. I got as far as "93 million Americans are unemployed."

I'd try to watch the whole thing but I imagine it would be like eavesdropping at a mental institution.

It wasn't quite like that, but it did trigger my gag reflex a couple of times. Is it common for ex-Governors to be called Governor?

Yes. President Bush is still addressed as "President Bush."

Palin resigned halfway through her only term, however, so there's that.

Not sure what this guy's authority is, but common or not, it doesn't appear to be proper.

Hmmm. Different sites vary, but a couple of well-established sources (like Emily Post) agree with him that there's only one Governor YourNameHere at a time, so that's probably the correct usage.

It has certainly become media-common to refer to (and address) former officials by their highest title. Palin and Huckabee are routinely called "Governor" on Fox (where you can frequently hear President Obama called "Mr. Obama").

I checked up on the "Mr. Obama" thing a few years ago. Apparently in print journalism, it's standard practice to use the title the first time someone is referred to, and then Mr./Mrs./Ms. after that. Probably to save ink. No idea how that translates to TV journalism, but I know the NY Times refers to him as "Mr. Obama" regularly after the first "President Obama."

GreenGoo wrote: Your response was needlessly pedantic and overly precise about a colloquial comment about "making America more white", whatever that means.

"Whatever that means" was what I was confused about from the beginning. What does that even mean?

I pointed out that among primarily caucasian nations, America is about the LEAST white there is, so what was your point anyway? Was it just a throw away joke?

Chaz wrote:I checked up on the "Mr. Obama" thing a few years ago. Apparently in print journalism, it's standard practice to use the title the first time someone is referred to, and then Mr./Mrs./Ms. after that. Probably to save ink. No idea how that translates to TV journalism, but I know the NY Times refers to him as "Mr. Obama" regularly after the first "President Obama."

GreenGoo wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote: Janey fucking mack.

Go hIfreann leat

Let's shorten this up for you.

"just about". Ignore all my other responses and read those two words.

Your response was needlessly pedantic and overly precise about a colloquial comment about "making America more white", whatever that means.

Worse you've refused to bend even a little bit, insisting that there is no room for generalization or imprecise language on this very important topic of the whititude of America.

Not really. You said: "I'm not sure if the white and straight people are aware, but America is just about as white and straight as it gets."

You don't get to make a sweeping, absolute statement and then hide behind "just about." Of if you do, you have to concede that it was merely a generalization when presented with tons of counter-examples Scandinavia, Iceland, or wherever else. Can't have it both ways.

You might want to go back and re-read the thread (or not, it's not worth it at this point really). And if you don't think it's important, why did defend the position for like a week?

GreenGoo wrote:
A little flexibility in communication would probably lower your blood pressure.

Actually, it's down 30 points in the last month and well out of the "high" zone. But I'll take it wherever it can get it.

Are we really going to pick this up on Monday?

You admit that America is mostly (primarily, majority-ly, whatever word you're comfortable with) white and I'll admit that there are other, whiter countries.

Otherwise, we're just going to dance some more.

As for defending my position, I did it because you were being unreasonably serious about quantifying the amount of white that constitutes the US. I still don't understand why this is a trigger for you. In any case, just say something like "the US is really pretty white" or anything like that, and we can end this quickly.

Would it have helped if I had said something like "even though there are other, whiter countries, the US is pretty white too" instead?

GreenGoo wrote:Are we really going to pick this up on Monday?

Busy weekend.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Are we really going to pick this up on Monday?

Busy weekend.

edited some. I'm hoping this will end it. The peanut gallery was not entertained, and lord knows we (well, me at least) need to be more entertaining...

Holman wrote:

Chaz wrote:I checked up on the "Mr. Obama" thing a few years ago. Apparently in print journalism, it's standard practice to use the title the first time someone is referred to, and then Mr./Mrs./Ms. after that. Probably to save ink. No idea how that translates to TV journalism, but I know the NY Times refers to him as "Mr. Obama" regularly after the first "President Obama."

The NYT observes its own style guidelines for honorifics. Using "Mr." on second reference got some laughs many years ago when Meat Loaf became "Mr. Loaf" in a NYT story.

I wonder if Prince becomes Mr. Prince.

Jaymann wrote:I wonder if Prince becomes Mr. Prince.

He should marry aspiring royalty - then he could be Prince Prince!

I want to take a stab with no dog In the fight. I think where the defensiveness of Murrica comes in is the tendency of America's internal critics and some external to accuse America of being non diverse and overly crazy racist place, entirely ignoring all the countries with REAL racial violence and injustice. Yeah we've got serious problems and our history is particularly problematic even for a western European country. But we haven't had a genocide since the indigenous populations. We are afraid of our cultural neighbors lobbing hundreds of rockets to try and erase us. We don't have the same caste struggles of say India. Are our problems acceptable, no. But we celebrate diversity and don't bomb each other to much. And our diversity is rapidly growing without a terrible amount of protest.

Combustible Lemur wrote:I want to take a stab with no dog In the fight. I think where the defensiveness of Murrica comes in is the tendency of America's internal critics and some external to accuse America of being non diverse and overly crazy racist place, entirely ignoring all the countries with REAL racial violence and injustice. Yeah we've got serious problems and our history is particularly problematic even for a western European country. But we haven't had a genocide since the indigenous populations. We are afraid of our cultural neighbors lobbing hundreds of rockets to try and erase us. We don't have the same caste struggles of say India. Are our problems acceptable, no. But we celebrate diversity and don't bomb each other to much. And our diversity is rapidly growing without a terrible amount of protest.

That's all true. I also don't understand what being "white" means. At best I can figure it's some imaginary stereotype that includes hipster college educated trust fund redneck mormon baptists from New York by way of Houston who go to heavy metal country dances who can't dance after eating pulled pork burgers made with tex-mex sushi and vote for George W. Obama.

Five ways Trump has changed the 2016 Republican presidential race

Donald Trump isn't going away. As the recent Time magazine cover succinctly says: "Deal with it."

That's proving easier said than done for many Republican officials, political commentators and presidential hopefuls, however. Mr Trump has gone from joke to serious player in just a few months, thanks to his seemingly bulletproof level of Republican primary voter support and a billion-dollar personal bank account to fuel his campaign, and he seems unwilling to play by standard political rules.

Here are just a few ways the Trump phenomenon has turned the Republican presidential nomination race on its head.

1. He's advancing a populist economic message...
2. He's pumped up the volume on immigration...
3. He's stepped over Walker...
4. He's weaponised social media...
5. He's fomenting a Republican civil war...

noxiousdog wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote:I want to take a stab with no dog In the fight. I think where the defensiveness of Murrica comes in is the tendency of America's internal critics and some external to accuse America of being non diverse and overly crazy racist place, entirely ignoring all the countries with REAL racial violence and injustice. Yeah we've got serious problems and our history is particularly problematic even for a western European country. But we haven't had a genocide since the indigenous populations. We are afraid of our cultural neighbors lobbing hundreds of rockets to try and erase us. We don't have the same caste struggles of say India. Are our problems acceptable, no. But we celebrate diversity and don't bomb each other to much. And our diversity is rapidly growing without a terrible amount of protest.

That's all true. I also don't understand what being "white" means. At best I can figure it's some imaginary stereotype that includes hipster college educated trust fund redneck mormon baptists from New York by way of Houston who go to heavy metal country dances who can't dance after eating pulled pork burgers made with tex-mex sushi and vote for George W. Obama.

Hey, be careful there. If we start problematizing "whiteness," the terrorists have already won.

Combustible Lemur wrote:I want to take a stab with no dog In the fight. I think where the defensiveness of Murrica comes in is the tendency of America's internal critics and some external to accuse America of being non diverse and overly crazy racist place, entirely ignoring all the countries with REAL racial violence and injustice. Yeah we've got serious problems and our history is particularly problematic even for a western European country. But we haven't had a genocide since the indigenous populations. We are afraid of our cultural neighbors lobbing hundreds of rockets to try and erase us. We don't have the same caste struggles of say India. Are our problems acceptable, no. But we celebrate diversity and don't bomb each other to much. And our diversity is rapidly growing without a terrible amount of protest.

+1 to it all.

Holman wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote:I want to take a stab with no dog In the fight. I think where the defensiveness of Murrica comes in is the tendency of America's internal critics and some external to accuse America of being non diverse and overly crazy racist place, entirely ignoring all the countries with REAL racial violence and injustice. Yeah we've got serious problems and our history is particularly problematic even for a western European country. But we haven't had a genocide since the indigenous populations. We are afraid of our cultural neighbors lobbing hundreds of rockets to try and erase us. We don't have the same caste struggles of say India. Are our problems acceptable, no. But we celebrate diversity and don't bomb each other to much. And our diversity is rapidly growing without a terrible amount of protest.

That's all true. I also don't understand what being "white" means. At best I can figure it's some imaginary stereotype that includes hipster college educated trust fund redneck mormon baptists from New York by way of Houston who go to heavy metal country dances who can't dance after eating pulled pork burgers made with tex-mex sushi and vote for George W. Obama.

Hey, be careful there. If we start problematizing "whiteness," the terrorists have already won.

Why, most of them are "white" already?

Holman wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote:I want to take a stab with no dog In the fight. I think where the defensiveness of Murrica comes in is the tendency of America's internal critics and some external to accuse America of being non diverse and overly crazy racist place, entirely ignoring all the countries with REAL racial violence and injustice. Yeah we've got serious problems and our history is particularly problematic even for a western European country. But we haven't had a genocide since the indigenous populations. We are afraid of our cultural neighbors lobbing hundreds of rockets to try and erase us. We don't have the same caste struggles of say India. Are our problems acceptable, no. But we celebrate diversity and don't bomb each other to much. And our diversity is rapidly growing without a terrible amount of protest.

That's all true. I also don't understand what being "white" means. At best I can figure it's some imaginary stereotype that includes hipster college educated trust fund redneck mormon baptists from New York by way of Houston who go to heavy metal country dances who can't dance after eating pulled pork burgers made with tex-mex sushi and vote for George W. Obama.

Hey, be careful there. If we start problematizing "whiteness," the terrorists have already won.

I'm not sure where you're going with that.

I'm beginning to think that "whiteness" really means "the generic American family you see on tv sitcoms" and then we pretend like every American, unless they culturally identify with black, latino, Muslim, Asian, or Jew, is just like that and actively is trying to suppress all other culture.

noxiousdog wrote:

Holman wrote: Hey, be careful there. If we start problematizing "whiteness," the terrorists have already won.

I'm not sure where you're going with that.

The linked story refers to a (perfectly reasonable) university course on "the problem of whiteness" that somehow became the focus of OUTRAGE and death threats.

Holman wrote: The linked story refers to a (perfectly reasonable) university course on "the problem of whiteness" that somehow became the focus of OUTRAGE and death threats.

Everything on the internet is the subject of death threats.

I do find it interesting that you think the course is perfectly reasonable. Did you read the curriculum? How are they defining "whiteness"?

noxiousdog wrote:

Holman wrote: The linked story refers to a (perfectly reasonable) university course on "the problem of whiteness" that somehow became the focus of OUTRAGE and death threats.

Everything on the internet is the subject of death threats.

I do find it interesting that you think the course is perfectly reasonable. Did you read the curriculum? How are they defining "whiteness"?

I've read a couple of the authors mentioned, and it looks like a pretty standard cultural studies "concept of race" thing. But the course title alone was apparently enough to prompt calls for its cancellation.

Holman wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

Holman wrote: The linked story refers to a (perfectly reasonable) university course on "the problem of whiteness" that somehow became the focus of OUTRAGE and death threats.

Everything on the internet is the subject of death threats.

I do find it interesting that you think the course is perfectly reasonable. Did you read the curriculum? How are they defining "whiteness"?

I've read a couple of the authors mentioned, and it looks like a pretty standard cultural studies "concept of race" thing.

Seems like an title picked for effect, but I'm sure it's reasonable. State universities don't make a habit of unreasonable courses. I still what to know what it means though.

noxiousdog wrote:

Holman wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

Holman wrote: The linked story refers to a (perfectly reasonable) university course on "the problem of whiteness" that somehow became the focus of OUTRAGE and death threats.

Everything on the internet is the subject of death threats.

I do find it interesting that you think the course is perfectly reasonable. Did you read the curriculum? How are they defining "whiteness"?

I've read a couple of the authors mentioned, and it looks like a pretty standard cultural studies "concept of race" thing.

Seems like an title picked for effect, but I'm sure it's reasonable. State universities don't make a habit of unreasonable courses. I still what to know what it means though.

Yea, that could mean anything from the Hitler White Aryans definition to the census definition of anything north of dark brown and east of yellow and any off shade in between.

noxiousdog wrote:

Holman wrote: I've read a couple of the authors mentioned, and it looks like a pretty standard cultural studies "concept of race" thing.

Seems like an title picked for effect, but I'm sure it's reasonable. State universities don't make a habit of unreasonable courses. I still what to know what it means though.

From the article:

Five books are listed as required for the upper-division class, called "U.S. Race Theory and the Problem of Whiteness." The texts include "Playing in the Dark" by Toni Morrison, an acclaimed novelist who has won a Pulitzer Prize, a Nobel Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

The other required books are "Critical Race Theory: An Introduction" by Richard Delgado, "Everyday Language of White Racism" by Jane Hill, "Alchemy of Race & Rights" by Patricia Williams, and "The Possessive Investment in Whiteness" by George Lipsitz.

I'm sure Amazon has summaries of all of those.

Rip wrote: Yea, that could mean anything from the Hitler White Aryans definition to the census definition of anything north of dark brown and east of yellow and any off shade in between.

It's clearly some amalgamation of culture, I just don't know what people are trying to say with it.

Personally I think it means "never muslim, not black, sometimes not-latino, very rarely not-asian, and in extreme cases not Jewish".

noxiousdog wrote:

Rip wrote: Yea, that could mean anything from the Hitler White Aryans definition to the census definition of anything north of dark brown and east of yellow and any off shade in between.

It's clearly some amalgamation of culture, I just don't know what people are trying to say with it.

Personally I think it means "never muslim, not black, sometimes not-latino, very rarely not-asian, and in extreme cases not Jewish".

But the census would disagree. Egyptians, Iranians, Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians, Turks,etc. All white.

9/11 Hijackers, all white.

The disturbing things they are counted as white when figuring out what majority is white but they are never the people being spoken about when accusing the whites of being racist etc. A nice agenda built definition.

Rip wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

Rip wrote: Yea, that could mean anything from the Hitler White Aryans definition to the census definition of anything north of dark brown and east of yellow and any off shade in between.

It's clearly some amalgamation of culture, I just don't know what people are trying to say with it.

Personally I think it means "never muslim, not black, sometimes not-latino, very rarely not-asian, and in extreme cases not Jewish".

But the census would disagree. Egyptians, Iranians, Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians, Turks,etc. All white.

9/11 Hijackers, all white.

The disturbing things they are counted as white when figuring out what majority is white but they are never the people being spoken about when accusing the whites of being racist etc. A nice agenda built definition.

You didn't read what I said. I bolded it for you.

noxiousdog wrote:

Rip wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

Rip wrote: Yea, that could mean anything from the Hitler White Aryans definition to the census definition of anything north of dark brown and east of yellow and any off shade in between.

It's clearly some amalgamation of culture, I just don't know what people are trying to say with it.

Personally I think it means "never muslim, not black, sometimes not-latino, very rarely not-asian, and in extreme cases not Jewish".

But the census would disagree. Egyptians, Iranians, Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians, Turks,etc. All white.

9/11 Hijackers, all white.

The disturbing things they are counted as white when figuring out what majority is white but they are never the people being spoken about when accusing the whites of being racist etc. A nice agenda built definition.

You didn't read what I said. I bolded it for you.

I get it, I am just pointing out that the amalgamation often varies dependent on whether the speaker is counting heads to show majority (count all you can) or slinging slurs/accusations (only count the people you actually wish to attack).

It is about as fixed as an Obama redline.

Apparently (too lazy to hunt up a link) Trump has now agreed to support the eventual GOP nominee and not launch a 3rd-party bid if he isn't it. This avoids potential problems with getting onto the ballot in some states.

It's unknown what penalty, if any, he would face for changing his mind later.