Chit-Chat: The Feels

[bluegirl147]

25 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

No one should expect any public forum to be an echo chamber that only validates their opinions. 

I'm sure if one wants to find an echo chamber there are plenty available.

20 minutes ago, Makai said:

John McCain will always be example number one for me. I was an Apprentice fan so my expectations for Trump was very low and I was stunned at the amount of hate he spewed at McCain.

I wasn't a McCain fan at all but the vitriol Trump spewed about and at him was awful.  And then after he dies the Arizona Republican party censured his widow Cindy for not bending a knee to Trump.

18 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I honestly do not understand why veterans support Trump. The man continuously demeans them, and I shudder to think what his second administration means for the VA. 

The way he spoke to that widow of the soldier killed (forgive me for not remembering where) couldn't remember his name and just acted like it was no big deal tells you what a terrible human being he is. He simply does not understand the call to serve.  And belittles and mocks those that do.

 

[Sharla]

13 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

Social security is an earned benefit and that benefit is capped at the same level the taxable salary is capped.  But look at federal tax bracket, it jumps up by 8% at roughly the same level the salary is capped.

People earning above the cap are still paying in, they just stop getting a benefit for it.  And given the level of raiding of social security by the government, they are reducing the borrowing from social security.

Income tax should not be conflated with social security tax.  Income tax goes into the general fund while social security tax goes into the social security trust fund.  Is there a design element to control tax levels, yes, but not still "paying in" to social security.  

[Yeah No]

15 minutes ago, Makai said:

I’m curious what you would say about the other side of the issue. What causes the behavior you are seeing in the left? Why do you think a people on the left drawing hard lines? 

That's a tough question I'd have to think about before answering and I don't have the time to do that right now.

13 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

Republicans and Democrats (and when I use these terms I'm referring to politicians) aren't playing the same game.  Harris was willing to listen to Republicans because she not only wanted to win she also wanted to make things better for everyone, not just the people who voted for her.  Trump played to his base.  And the people who donated  bribed him.  

I understand why a lot of people voted for him. He appealed to something in them. Whether it was something bad like racism or something understandable like hoping he will bring grocery prices down. My problem is if he does horrific things and if his nominees for Cabinet posts are any indication he will, the people who voted for him will not acknowledge maybe just maybe they made a mistake.

I'm usually trying to understand the little guy and why they feel the way they feel. I think we already know what Republicans and Democratic candidates stand for. I think feeling left out by the Democratic party is another big reason a lot of people were wooed away to vote for Trump. It was easier for them to turn away from their ideals when their pocketbooks were aching. Maslow's hierarchy! Obviously not everyone is the idealist I am about these things.

9 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

Actually, freedom of speech is protection to say things without facing repercussions or persecution from the government. If other people or society wants to call out people for what they say, that is THEIR right to free speech as well. And it's easy to say words don't affect you when those words aren't being addressed at you. You can have opinions but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to hear them if all they is offend people.

Yes, it's their right to call you out but is it also their right to cancel you completely using their power over people which is not through legal or political process? That goes beyond free speech into controlling behavior. And I'm not for that. 

12 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

To me, there is a different between someone being ignorant and someone being offensive. Ignorance is some who just doesn't know but says and does certain things. Being offensive is someone who knows better but still continues to insist they say and do certain things. I tend to be more forgiving to the former than the latter.

As I am not God I don't feel that I can make that distinction in a lot of cases. It's the old Platonic argument that people aren't evil they're just ignorant. I think there is a difference but trying to pinpoint which is which is often not that easy, which is one reason I try to keep an open mind about why people voted for Trump. Some are just ignorant while others are misguided while others embrace evil. 

14 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

So...blue MAGA then?

Opinions are one thing, saying offensive things is another.

No, not blue MAGA, just independents maybe?

Yes, but even what we consider offensive statements are just opinions and not actions. What is offensive to one person is not to another. So again, I would not put them in the same category.

[Ohiopirate02]

7 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

I'm sure if one wants to find an echo chamber there are plenty available.

 

Oh there definitely are plenty available. This is also directed at the Elon Musks of the world who think "free speech" means making everyone on a platform read your drivel. Since I actually work in a place where the First Amendment means something, I know what it actually means and not what Elon thinks it does. Social media platforms are not the government, hence they can decide what is and is not allowed to be posted there. And also, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

[Enigma X]

1 hour ago, bluegirl147 said:

People are entitled to have an opinion. They are not entitled to force other people to share that opinion. 

Or to even like that opinion.

[Palimelon]

Quote

Yes, it's their right to call you out but is it also their right to cancel you completely using their power over people which is not through legal or political process? That goes beyond free speech into controlling behavior. And I'm not for that. 

Who has ever gotten canceled? Just curious, since pretty everyone who wasn't arrested for something eventually bounces back career wise.

Quote

As I am not God I don't feel that I can make that distinction in a lot of cases. It's the old Platonic argument that people aren't evil they're just ignorant. I think there is a difference but trying to pinpoint which is which is often not that easy, which is one reason I try to keep an open mind about why people voted for Trump. Some are just ignorant while others are misguided while others embrace evil. 

I wonder if those consciously choosing to stay ignorant is just another form of evil?

Quote

No, not blue MAGA, just independents maybe?

Yes, but even what we consider offensive statements are just opinions and not actions. What is offensive to one person is not to another. So again, I would not put them in the same category.

So that's a justification to keep saying offensive things? I'm still not sure why respecting what other people find offensive (even if the person saying it doesn't find it offensive) is so triggering to people.

[bluegirl147]

4 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

What is offensive to one person is not to another

But there are some things that should be universally offensive.  And that isn't the case anymore.  Growing up being thought of as a racist was a bad thing. Even people who were racist didn't want people to know.  Even the KKK wore hoods so people didn't know who they were.  But now people are proudly racist.  Or they use terms like white pride.  We now have a political party that not only looks the other way when it comes racism they embrace it. 

4 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

Who has ever gotten canceled? Just curious, since pretty everyone who wasn't arrested for something eventually bounces back career wise.

Even Michael Richards who used the n word at a comedy club wrote a book earlier this year and made the rounds promoting it.

[PRgal]

Thank you, @Yeah No.  You took words out of my mouth.  I had to quit a DEI group because my views (h3ll, from a female who is part of a minority group in this part of the world!!!) were not of THEIR perspective and THEIR idea of diversity!  Doesn't it take away from what "diversity" really is?  I also wrote an (a very polite one, I might add) email to my alma mater, noting that their panel on diversity/inclusion was not "diverse" enough - they were ALL recent GenZ grads.  No millennials, no GenX and certainly, no Boomers.  All in the same time zone (save for the mod) as well.  Class, ethnicity and sexuality?  Sure.  Not age or region though.  And that would have made a big difference, too.  It was solely on THEIR (meaning the school's) agenda and THEIR agenda only.  I have also been accused of being hateful because I remained silent.  Holy cow, I didn't want to start a flame war, so I didn't say anything.  

[JustHereForFood]

2 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

I agree with this.  For example if someone is non binary and asks to be referred to as them and someone refers to them as he or she and is corrected but then continues to call them he or she that is disrespectful.

On the And Just Like That board here when discussing the character of Che who was non binary there were posters who referred to them as she.  A note was given to please refer to Che as them.  Most posters did that. I remember a couple who did not.  Now you could say it's new they are still learning and maybe that is true but sometimes it's just someone wants to be an asshole.

I would guess that it's usually pretty easy to tell who is being intentionally offensive and who is just clueless or forgot.

1 hour ago, bluegirl147 said:

The problem is people having opinions that aren't based in fact but presenting it as fact.  People don't just have an opinion that vaccines cause autism.  They think it's a fact.  People have the opinion that life begins at conception.  Other people don't share that opinion.  But for those that believe it they think everyone else should have to follow what they believe.  

People are entitled to have an opinion. They are not entitled to force other people to share that opinion. 

This is what I agree with. I don't have a problem with people who don't like abortions for example, as long as they don't try to force their opinions on others. The freedom of one person ends where the other's begins. Don't want to have an abortion/sex change/marry a person of same gender? Don't do it, nobody is forcing you. This is why I don't like it when people try to present it as if the freedom to do these things is the opposite extreme of a complete ban - no, the opposite extreme would be if those things were forced on people who don't want them.

I admit, as a vegetarian who believes that it is wrong to kill animals if you can perfectly well survive on plant food, I struggle sometimes to accept that other people don't share this view because it seems very cruel to me even though many of those people don't otherwise seem cruel. I guess it must be similarly hard to accept for somebody who really believes that a fetus is a baby and killing it is wrong. But we somehow have to be able to coexist with these opposite beliefs without one side forcing our opinions on the other.*

*Obviously, some beliefs that come from denying reality are not just opinions and should not be accepted as ok (like the vaccine issue, or people denying that certain things that we have objective evidence for had happened). Same with hate speech - that does not fall into freedom of speech. But somebody saying that they believe there are only two genders does, even if one doesn't agree with their opinion - as long as they don't try to deny other people their right to identify as they want, they should be able to share that opinion (and it is probably more likely for them to come around what they don't understand if people talk to them about it in a polite, not overly emotional way, slowly over a longer period of time, instead of immediately labeling them as a hater and write them out as a lost cause).

 

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Also, when you choose to express your opinion in a public forum, you open yourself up to those opinions getting critiqued and challenged. If you cannot handle this, then maybe don't share. No one should expect any public forum to be an echo chamber that only validates their opinions. 

The problem is that there are more and more echo chambers and people are listening to the others less.

[bluegirl147]

2 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

 

 

The problem is that there are more and more echo chambers and people are listening to the others less.

I feel like I say this every day but I blame the algorithms for that.  And of course the people who exploit people's differences.

[Ohiopirate02]

30 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

Even Michael Richards who used the n word at a comedy club wrote a book earlier this year and made the rounds promoting it.

This is why I tune out anything related to "cancel culture." No one is truly cancelled for their views. They just find a different audience. 

[bluegirl147]

2 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

This is why I tune out anything related to "cancel culture." No one is truly cancelled for their views. They just find a different audience. 

I bet if R Kelly was out of prison he could make music and people would listen to it. 

[Makai]

53 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

Yes, it's their right to call you out but is it also their right to cancel you completely using their power over people which is not through legal or political process? That goes beyond free speech into controlling behavior. And I'm not for that. 

When someone is cancelled (to the degree anyone is ever truly cancelled) no one is controlling anyone else’s behavior but their own. 

[Enigma X]

For me the greatest argument against cancel culture actually existing is the United States of America has a convicted sexual predator as president for the second time, and it is the same sad sack.

[bluegirl147]

1 minute ago, Enigma X said:

For me the greatest argument against cancel culture actually existing is the United States of America has a convicted sexual predator as president for the second time, and it is the same sad sack.

And at least two on the Supreme Court and an AG nominee. I'm sure there are others.

[FilmTVGeek80]

1 hour ago, Yeah No said:

Actually, I don't agree with this. I think the right is more than happy to get anyone that just happens to fall into their party no matter how they got there. It's the Liberals that kick people out for those things, not Republicans. They don't care where their support comes from as long as it helps them win. This is why they are looking like the party of "inclusion", LOL. It's a fiction but there are people being duped into it. MAGA is more than happy to welcom anyone that falls for it as one of their own no matter how they got there.

That’s not what that cartoon was depicting IMO. It very clearly shows someone on the center saying they agree with both sides and the Left acting violent with the Right as tolerant folks welcoming of everyone and all opinions. That is not reality. While there are instances of violence against people on the right, the vast majority these days is being committed by conservatives. As someone else rightly pointed out, look at Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney if you’re going to claim the Right are so welcoming of differing opinions. Look at Joe Manchin. A lot on the left dislike him intensely for his right-leaning views, but no one kicked him out of the party. They didn’t strip him of positions like conservatives did to Liz Cheney. Democrats didn’t censure him.
 

Sure, MAGA will be happy if you vote for their side - just as long as you shut your mouth and don’t utter anything like immigrants aren’t animals or women have a right to control what happens to their body or anything “crazy” like that. The Left will also welcome any and all votes. Harris touted freaking Dick Cheney’s endorsement of her.

[bluegirl147]

4 minutes ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

Look at Joe Manchin. A lot on the left dislike him intensely for his right-leaning views, but no one kicked him out of the party. They didn’t strip him of positions like conservatives did to Liz Cheney. Democrats didn’t censure him.

He unfortunately represents my state and as much as I think he is a complete an utter waste of skin you are correct.  He wasn't punished for speaking out against his party's policies. 

[FilmTVGeek80]

1 hour ago, Palimelon said:

Who has ever gotten canceled? Just curious, since pretty everyone who wasn't arrested for something eventually bounces back career wise.

Cancel culture absolutely is real. I remember there was a time I was on Twitter when every day there would be some hashtag of why this or that person should be canceled. People aren’t truly cancelled for accidentally using the wrong pronoun, but there are definitely a lot of people on social media who love to act like judge, jury, and executioner and long for people’s cancellation. And just because the cancellation doesn’t stick or they manage to find work again, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I remember years ago hearing about a book with stories of people who had been exposed on social media for doing or saying something horrible - sometimes something racist - and how they basically lost everything (job, friends, family, etc.) Now, I don’t necessarily feel sorry for some of these people facing the consequences for their actions, but it does show that people do get cancelled. 

[Anela]

I was just thinking that it’s almost time for the war on Christmas.  Time to get one of those holiday cups that so offended those who tell the rest of us that we’re looking to be offended. 

the war that doesn’t actually exist, but I’ve been hearing about it for at least thirty years. Because “the right” is always pushing a lie like that, to get people riled up.  We are supposed to have separation of church and state, but they expect the rest of us to put the Christ back in Christmas.  At the same time as saying that Jesus is too “woke”. 
 

I was joking about this, a year ago, but I lost my last bit of serotonin, last week.  It’s just depressing.  There is no peace and good will from them. 

[fastiller]

3 hours ago, Yeah No said:

There is a price to pay for freedom, including freedom of speech. People have to learn how not to react to opinions like they're being knifed in the back. They are just words. I recited the old saying we older people were raised with, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me". I don't tend to identify words themselves as "evil". People can act in evil ways but opinions are not actions. I think people that were raised with the internet tend to confuse the two but there is a big difference. I think as Americans who believe in freedom of speech we should not want to penalize or control people because we don't like their opinions. My advice is to concentrate on their actions and try to ignore the BS that comes out of their mouths. And believe in their right to hold and express their opinions even as much as you disagree with them.

Words are harmless until someone takes them too much to heart and turns them into action.   People with a bully pulpit can foment anger to the point where their audience goes out and hurts people. 

 

25 minutes ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

. As someone else rightly pointed out, look at Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney if you’re going to claim the Right are so welcoming of differing opinions. Look at Joe Manchin. A lot on the left dislike him intensely for his right-leaning views, but no one kicked him out of the party. They didn’t strip him of positions like conservatives did to Liz Cheney. Democrats didn’t censure him.

What's the old saying?  Democrats get along while Republicans get in line.

[Ohiopirate02]

11 minutes ago, Anela said:

I was just thinking that it’s almost time for the war on Christmas.  Time to get one of those holiday cups that so offended those who tell the rest of us that we’re looking to be offended. 

the war that doesn’t actually exist, but I’ve been hearing about it for at least thirty years. Because “the right” is always pushing a lie like that, to get people riled up.  We are supposed to have separation of church and state, but they expect the rest of us to put the Christ back in Christmas.  At the same time as saying that Jesus is too “woke”. 
 

I was joking about this, a year ago, but I lost my last bit of serotonin, last week.  It’s just depressing.  There is no peace and good will from them. 

What kills me about this and why I will say Happy Holidays between now and December 24th is that the Christmas season does not begin until December 24th liturgically speaking. Those 12 Days of Christmas begin on December 25th and last until January 6th. Capitalism messed this up here. So instead of luxuriating and celebrating the holiday when we are supposed to actually celebrate it, we get bombarded with Christmas starting on November 1st. Once December 26th rolls around, it's on to the next holiday so retailers can sell us more things we do not need. 

[Dimity]

24 minutes ago, Anela said:

I was just thinking that it’s almost time for the war on Christmas.  Time to get one of those holiday cups that so offended those who tell the rest of us that we’re looking to be offended. 

This started on my FB wall around Halloween.  The preemptive posts about "put the Christ in Christmas" and the usual moaning memes about how people are being told they aren't "allowed" to say Merry Christmas anymore.  Drivel.

[bluegirl147]

25 minutes ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

I remember years ago hearing about a book with stories of people who had been exposed on social media for doing or saying something horrible - sometimes something racist - and how they basically lost everything (job, friends, family, etc.) Now, I don’t necessarily feel sorry for some of these people facing the consequences for their actions, but it does show that people do get cancelled. 

Are you talking about the Jon Ronson book So You've Been Publicly Shamed? I read that and it was very good. I remember the part about the woman who was leaving on a plane for Africa and she posted a not funny joke about going to Africa and hoping she didn't get AIDS. 

Yes people do get cancelled but more often than not we hear about the people who simply get pushback for saying or doing really offensive things and crying out they are the victim. 

[FilmTVGeek80]

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

This is why I tune out anything related to "cancel culture." No one is truly cancelled for their views. They just find a different audience. 

Using Michael Richard’s as an example doesn’t really work IMO. That comedy club incident happened in 2006. Him writing a book and promoting it almost 20 YEARS later is not an example of someone who wasn’t cancelled. Has he done any high-profile work other than that?

1 hour ago, Makai said:

When someone is cancelled (to the degree anyone is ever truly cancelled) no one is controlling anyone else’s behavior but their own. 

I disagree. If people simply left it at “that person did something offensive that I don’t like and I won’t watch/listen to/buy anything they’re involved in” that would be one thing and only controlling your own behavior. But people in social media do get together and try to cancel people and end their careers. They try and force others not to hire that person. That is an example of trying to control other people’s actions.

1 hour ago, Enigma X said:

For me the greatest argument against cancel culture actually existing is the United States of America has a convicted sexual predator as president for the second time, and it is the same sad sack.

Obviously I think that is depressing and horrendous, but it doesn’t prove cancel culture doesn’t exist. Just because it didn’t happen to him doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened to other people.

24 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

Are you talking about the Jon Ronson book So You've Been Publicly Shamed? I read that and it was very good. I remember the part about the woman who was leaving on a plane for Africa and she posted a not funny joke about going to Africa and hoping she didn't get AIDS. 

Yes people do get cancelled but more often than not we hear about the people who simply get pushback for saying or doing really offensive things and crying out they are the victim. 

Yes, thank you! That is the book I was thinking of and definitely the example I was thinking of. 

Edited Friday at 06:04 PM by FilmTVGeek80

[JustHereForFood]

25 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

What kills me about this and why I will say Happy Holidays between now and December 24th is that the Christmas season does not begin until December 24th liturgically speaking. Those 12 Days of Christmas begin on December 25th and last until January 6th. Capitalism messed this up here. So instead of luxuriating and celebrating the holiday when we are supposed to actually celebrate it, we get bombarded with Christmas starting on November 1st. Once December 26th rolls around, it's on to the next holiday so retailers can sell us more things we do not need. 

Actually, Advent begins 4 weeks before Christmas Eve. Not an excuse to start selling Christmas products at the beginning of October, but it definitely isn't just those few days.

[GHScorpiosRule]

15 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

Yes people do get cancelled but more often than not we hear about the people who simply get pushback for saying or doing really offensive things and crying out they are the victim. 

I remember Meghan McCain (or was it Elisabeth Hassselback?), when she was one of the cohosts on The View, having a meltdown because she couldn't say the N-Word, and then there was another time she got pushback and she railed, slamming the desk, "I'm John McCain's Daughter, DAMMIT!" as a response to how DARE anyone criticize her.

Which is why I always reference her time on Real Time, when she said she didn't know anything about Watergate because she "wasn't born then." And Paul Begala, gently responding, "I wasn't born during the French Revolution, but I know about it." And of course Bill Maher, had to place himself in front of her, as if Begala had hurled vile invectives toward her. This was 2009.

Edited Friday at 05:55 PM by GHScorpiosRule

[tearknee]

I was in a nativity play as a kid (admittedly as a shepherd...). People are upset that things such as that have largely gone. They didn't have to -- have a separate week devoted to cultures of minority students at this time of year.

"War on Christmas" is a shitty and deriding way of dismissing some -- usually apolitical as most are -- peoples' genuine confusion, fear and upset at this and the narrow left sect [distinct from the broader progressive coalition]'s demonstrated tendency to push overcompensation for systemic and institutional problems -- Santana's words about fanaticism have merit here.

[Palimelon]

The left aren't the ones pushing the war on Christmas.

[Ohiopirate02]

4 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

Actually, Advent begins 4 weeks before Christmas Eve. Not an excuse to start selling Christmas products at the beginning of October, but it definitely isn't just those few days.

Considering Advent Christmas is like saying Lent is Easter. It's the time spent preparing for the holy day, not the holy day itself. And if we want to get really technical, the Christmas season lasts until Candlemas in February. Still none of this matters when we as a society ceded our holiday calendar to corporations trying to get us to buy their wares. And now people get up in arms about people not celebrating things "right." So many other lies we tell ourselves have been spoonfed to us by corporations and the media. What makes a man a man or what makes a woman a woman for example. Our idea of Santa Claus is based on Coca-Cola advertisements. Why are diamonds used for engagement rings. 

[Anela]

5 minutes ago, tearknee said:

I was in a nativity play as a kid (admittedly as a shepherd...). People are upset that things such as that have largely gone. They didn't have to -- have a separate week devoted to cultures of minority students at this time of year.

"War on Christmas" is a shitty and deriding way of dismissing some -- usually apolitical as most are -- peoples' genuine confusion, fear and upset at this and the narrow left sect [distinct from the broader progressive coalition]'s demonstrated tendency to push overcompensation for systemic and institutional problems -- Santana's words about fanaticism have merit here.

Republicans are the ones making up a war on Christmas.  There is no war on Christmas. “Happy holidays” includes it, amd other holidays during these months. 

[bluegirl147]

9 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I remember Meghan McCain (or was it Elisabeth Hassselback?)

I think it was Elisabeth who didn't understand why she couldn't use the n word.  I think this was around the same time she said her daughter got looks for carrying a black doll. I didn't believe that.  She always had a story to tell that served her narrative which was always conservatives good everyone else bad.

12 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Which is why I always reference her time on Real Time, when she said she didn't know anything about Watergate because she "wasn't born then." And Paul Begala, gently responding, "I wasn't born during the French Revolution, but I know about it." And of course Bill Maher, had to place himself in front of her, as if Begala had hurled vile invectives toward her. This was 2009.

That burn was truly a beautiful thing to watch.

[Makai]

35 minutes ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

I disagree. If people simply left it at “that person did something offensive that I don’t like and I won’t watch/listen to/buy anything they’re involved in”that would be one thing and only controlling your own behavior. But people in social media do get together and try to cancel people and end their careers. They try and force others not to hire that person. That is an example of trying to control other people’s actions.

No, because controlling your own behavior isn’t limited to thoughts and passive behaviors. Protesting and speaking out against something or someone is not controlling anyone's behavior. Each person gets to make a choice on how they will react. 

Expressing an opinion is not forcing anyone else to do anything. There is a 50/50 chance the opinion will increase support for the “cancelled” person. 

Edited Friday at 06:18 PM by Makai

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, bluegirl147 said:

That burn was truly a beautiful thing to watch.

It really was.

As if not being alive during history is a good reason/excuse for being ignorant of it.

Edited Friday at 06:10 PM by GHScorpiosRule

[Palimelon]

Ok I just saw a post on Instagram that said

"Donald Trump appoints Tiger King as Secretary of Agriculture"

and we're at the point where I believed it for a split second.

[tearknee]

As i said, it's ordinary apolitical people that are upset things like nativity plays etc. are gone and can't understand why -- as you get older, your tolerance for rapid change decreases.

It's why i dislike the current trend to condemn Columbus or James Cook. The British settlement in what is now Sydney was to forestall the French (who arrived in Botany Bay a few days after the First Fleet did) and the wild flailing about by leftist academics, both in prose and on screen, that the mass deaths of the Native Americans was "not inevitable" -- even though to prevent it requires unfeasibly large number of points of divergence, the latest of which would have to occur about five centuries before Columbus is born -- and require an equally unfeasibly large amount of people to have personality transplants!

Listen to any aircheck of the standard "Good Times, Great Oldies" station from the 1990s and compare it to an aircheck of a real station from the late 1950s -- it is important to point out that the music actually played on pop stations in the 1950s has been pretty grossly distorted by all that has come since, in the form of oldies' formats. There are several excellent examples of what '50s radio actually sounded like that are online. Two of the biggest hits of the decade were "So Rare" by Tommy Dorsey, and "Cherry Pink and Apple Blossom White" by Perez Prado (I think I have that spelling right), not Buddy Holly, or Bill Haley or any of the other rockers of the era. We know of course that those folks were ushering in a new era of music, but they were not the gravitation centre of the musical universe, even in 1959.

As the generation that adopted rock and roll came of age, the dynamic changed and, as history is written by the victors, the true sound of what was presented and even the chronology was replaced by a revisionist history that carries over to today. You can bet that hip hop will be redefined in the coming years as holding a place in the mainstream far ahead of the actual timelines; that is already happening in fact. Fascinating to consider how place and time often determine the facts.

[bluegirl147]

4 minutes ago, Anela said:

Republicans are the ones making up a war on Christmas.  There is no war on Christmas. “Happy holidays” includes it, amd other holidays during these months. 

Yes saying Happy Holidays is meant to include anyone celebrating any of the many holidays happening this time of year. It is NOT and I repeat is NOT excluding Christmas. 

[tearknee]

People today "remember" the 1950s and '60s as a time of growing prosperity. But that new wealth never came to many.

*Visibly saddened*

Children whose parents could only afford to serve their cornflakes with water.

I read of a dairy farmer who always sent a pail of fresh milk every morning to a neighboring family living in such poverty.

And the mothers always kept the coal in the kitchen, because they couldn't leave it outside in the coalhouse because it would get taken and they'd never hang the washing outside, because it would get taken.

[bluegirl147]

2 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

As if not being alive during history is a good reason/excuse for being ignorant of it.

Well to be fair there are also many things that happened since Meghan was born that she is ignorant of.

[Makai]

2 minutes ago, tearknee said:

As i said, it's ordinary apolitical people that are upset things like nativity plays etc. are gone and can't understand why -- as you get older, your tolerance for rapid change decreases.

Nativity plays aren’t gone. I see them all the time. 

[partofme]

18 minutes ago, tearknee said:

I was in a nativity play as a kid (admittedly as a shepherd...). People are upset that things such as that have largely gone. They didn't have to -- have a separate week devoted to cultures of minority students at this time of year.

I was also in a nativity play in the second grade as the Virgin Mary, but I went to a Catholic school.  (My first grade class play was Christmas around the world and I was Comet the reindeer).  I don’t see any reason why a religious school wouldn’t still have a nativity play but it has no place in a public school.  
 

“Happy Holidays “ is meant to be inclusive of all cultures because you don’t know what holiday a stranger celebrates.  I always say happy holidays except on Christmas Day.  

[JustHereForFood]

21 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

Yes saying Happy Holidays is meant to include anyone celebrating any of the many holidays happening this time of year. It is NOT and I repeat is NOT excluding Christmas. 

I usually hear it in the meaning of Christmas + New Year, as many people won't get to see each other in the time between. Do people really think it excludes Christmas? LOL

[mostlylurking]

20 hours ago, Bastet said:

20 hours ago, Is Everyone Gone said:

RFK Jr as HHS Secretary. Good lord.

This is the only one I have any hope of the Senate refusing to confirm (if we actually get confirmation hearings rather than recess appointments), since so many of them are bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical industry.

Which is problematic as well.

[kittykat]

Nativity scenes in: churches, outside on church property, or religious schools are fine.  Nativity scenes in: Government buildings, public schools or public property is a violation of the first amendment.  It's that simple.

I can't stop this depression.  It's starting to affect my sleep.  I've read and learned and thank goodness for this thread.  I've gone to other platforms (I wish I could quit reddit) and I'm just falling further and further into a hopeless divide between both sides of voters. 

I can't escape my original motion that the economy is not the true reason.  That there really are enough people out there who can't fathom seeing women as equal to them or seeing one in office.  And when I see guys replying to female posts threatening to rape them or black people getting texts to report to plantations how does one justify themselves as the people with the moral high ground?  To all the male Trump supporters, I can't help but quote the final sentence from South Park's Sharon Marsh in once of the most heartbreaking speeches the show did: Congratulations on getting YOUR way, again!

[Dimity]

2 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

Do people really think it excludes Christmas? LOL

To be honest I don't think they do - what pisses them off isn't that it excludes Christmas but that it includes other holidays.  Which, right there, is exactly what's wrong with the right wing in most countries.  And which is one reason Trump got in and why, likely Pollievre (otherwise known here in Canada as Trump Light) will win the next election.  For them it's all about the hate.

[Palimelon]

Quote

And when I see guys replying to female posts threatening to rape them or black people getting texts to report to plantations how does one justify themselves as the people with the moral high ground? 

When a lot of the men who say these things are now being told by gay men "Your body, my choice", suddenly it's a bad thing to say.

(And yes, gay men are saying that to prove a point, nothing more).

[bluegirl147]

3 minutes ago, kittykat said:

To all the male Trump supporters, I can't help but quote the final sentence from South Park's Sharon Marsh in once of the most heartbreaking speeches the show did: Congratulations on getting YOUR way, again!

You know that is where I'm at.  We heard so much about a specific demo of voters. Young white men with no college education.  What were they concerned about?  What did they want out of a candidate.   Harris was criticized for not going on Joe Rogan to speak to their needs.  We  hear women say our concerns are not specific to our gender.  But so much was made of these white men and what could people do for them.  

[mostlylurking]

32 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

Yes saying Happy Holidays is meant to include anyone celebrating any of the many holidays happening this time of year. It is NOT and I repeat is NOT excluding Christmas. 

I was about to say I don’t understand people that don’t understand this….but I don’t understand much anymore.  I say happy holidays.  Not Happy Holidays except Christmas!  And if someone responds back to me with merry Christmas or happy Hanukkah or whatever else, I don’t take offense.  I take it with the spirit it was (hopefully) intended.  It’s like people have forgotten how to participate in society.  It’s awful.

[Dimity]

1 minute ago, mostlylurking said:

 It’s like people have forgotten how to participate in society.  It’s awful.

People have forgotten how to be happy, how to just live and let live.  For a brief shining moment Harris and Walz tried to bring some of that back to the mainstream and it was so heartening.  But the Church of Perpetual Grievance won and here we are.

[peacheslatour]

3 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

You know that is where I'm at.  We heard so much about a specific demo of voters. Young white men with no college education.  What were they concerned about?  What did they want out of a candidate.   Harris was criticized for not going on Joe Rogan to speak to their needs.  We  hear women say our concerns are not specific to our gender.  But so much was made of these white men and what could people do for them.  

From  what I'm seeing, there are a lot of young men, mainly white but also of other races who are angry at women. Period. They don't like that women have careers, they don't like that they don't need to depend on a man financially so they don't want to marry them. They feel they were owed a wife. They hate Kamala because she put a face on independent women and they want revenge, just like their Orange God.

[ParadoxLost]

3 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

I'm sure if one wants to find an echo chamber there are plenty available.

Well yeah.  This is an echo chamber.