Jump to content

GW Hayduke

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1712
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GW Hayduke

  1. Sure. It can be considered obviously contradictory from the perspective from within one bubble. A view from the other bubble might be analogous to equating “a racist country” to something like an “evil country” in that sure maybe might dad yells at me sometimes but he isn’t evil. There isn’t a commonly accepted definition for “a racist country.”
  2. The question of whether the US is racist is a perfect wedge issue since it comports to the narratives of either side. The issue is there is not a commonly accepted definition for “a racist country” or an accepted threshold between “a racist country” and a “non-racist country.” So we have groups functioning in information bubbles. One bubble listens to talk radio, watches tucker, participates in the DT threads, identifies with Trump, and has been told over and over again that they are the real victim and the other side is prone to overreaction that is dangerous to them. They think racism doesn’t exist or if it does it is really minor or maybe they are even fine with it. They mock racism with sayings like, guns aren’t racist, covid isn’t racist, etc. Grasping complex ideas like systemic racism isn’t easy for them. There is a reason the question is being posed by the right.
  3. Wow. These guys are desperate. I don’t think I’ve seen a clip from him worse than that. Remember a few days a when he was psychotically laughing at the guy who disagreed with him about the Chauvin conviction. The right seems to be spiraling right now. There must be internal poll numbers out there with bad news.
  4. Poor Chuck getting owned by the intellectual right.
  5. Mathews was a silent to us! This makes no sense! Why did he commit to LSU?
  6. Is the vote threshold in the Senate 50 or 60 to allow admission of a state? I don't see it listed as an exemption to the filibuster.
  7. It says a lot of things. You are correct in your understanding of what the executive summary says. My point is that the executive summary doesn't jive with page 11, which also seems to have left out some evidence. The executive summary appears to ignore Prather's own words (along with the words of those around Prather) which linked the phrase to Lee. The point about Lee's statements at the university and the executive summary's focus on Taylor's memoir is a sleight of hand thing IMO. The section on Lee in the below paper addresses some of the specific Lee-related deficiencies with the report, but my overall point is that the report didn't appear to adequately address it https://almartinezut.medium.com/true-origins-of-the-eyes-of-texas-3f2188569f0e
  8. From page 11 of the report:
  9. An when someone in TA is able to stand up in front of the room and acknowledge they have a problem, that they were wrong on something, everyone stands up and cheers.
  10. Barr and the Mueller Report is a decent analogy. I imagine there were papers and analysis similar to the Martinez paper that were shared around between students, athletes, journalists, and professors, and it was probably generally accepted that Lee was an inspiration. Then reading the commission's executive summary, it would be rather obvious it was a whitewash job. It is unfortunate. In both instances, the media took the intended narratives and ran with it
  11. That is the question the commission was tasked with answering. I'm not convinced the executive summary reflects an honest attempt. I would say your below statement goes a lot further than what the commission was willing to say. I don't know what happened, but I'm assuming there were a large number of folks who were all wordsmithing and negotiating the executive summary. It probably got convoluted.
  12. I don't think we would want to throw the baby out of the bath water along with everything else that came prior to 1970. I understood a goal of the effort was to conduct an informed assessment on the origins of the eyes. I'm not 100% confident the commission's executive summary fairly did that.
  13. How so? I know you mean the paper strains to reach its conclusions, but interestingly I had the same perception of the commission report's executive summary and disconnect with it's own page 11. There seemed to be a lot of strain and semantic games between the two. I recommend you take a look at the the section of the paper under the heading "Was the Eyes of Texas Inspired by Robert Lee?" Comparing the commision report (pg 11 and the executive summary) and the paper (section on Robert Lee), there appears to be some evidence left out of the commission report. That raises questions.
  14. Why do you feel that way?
  15. Thanks for sharing. That paper was new to me. I had read the Commission's report when it first came out, and it was rather obvious the discussions surrounding Lee and the confederacy in the executive summary appeared disconnected from page 11 of the commision report. That was a big question mark for me. Now, it isn't clear to me why some of the evidence Martinez presented in his paper seemingly was left out of the commision report. It also isn't clear why their analysis and conclusions are so drastically different.
  16. You guys should lay off of onboard. He said he was wrong on an item some time back. That should be considered kind of a big deal these days.
  17. I agree with the idea that leadership is hard in that it requires addressing difficult things and it is often easier to gloss over, hide, or ignore things. I think the report did a bit of that when it came to presenting issues surrounding the confederacy. One example was the executive summary chose to not address General Gregg. Another was that the executive summary points out that the research team couldn't find a primary source that Lee said "the eyes of the south are upon you" but then on page 11 disclose a primary source of him saying the "eyes of the country are upon you," with country obviously being the confederacy. THose ties to the confederacy wouldn't IMO change a conclusion like "the inception of the song did not have overtly racist intent" but glossing over the ties does a disservice IMO, especially when dealing with a topic where perceptions differ among groups.
  18. I'm pointing out that a 5 second clip isn't really an excuse for an old lady fetish or really anything else
  19. Equating the very fine people on both sides quote to Nancy’s 5 sec clip should probably be avoided for a lot of reasons. I didn’t say it is bad to critique. My position is that a 5 second clip shouldn’t be considered evidence to support all of lobo’s old lady Nancy fantasies. I was also pointing out the collective convulsions of melted twitter brains - I like to mock twitter overreactions
  20. I see the chicken sandwich insurrection thing as a reflection of two bubbles. One bubble sees the labeling of "insurrection" as mean, ugly, and an attack against their side, who are the obvious victims here. The other bubble has access dictionary.com.
  21. I understand a 5 second clip is evidence that all of your perceptions were correct.
  22. I think apathy and accountability play some role in our current division. We each are personally responsible for our media consumption habits and whether we are in a media bubble or not. However, implementing change and good habits at population scale requires ground-up reinvestment and reform to our education system IMO. There were a few national GOP figures that jumped ship due to trumpism. Not nearly as many as there should have been IMO. Corporations are playing a role. Nearly all advertisers have stopped running adds on Tucker Carlson. We have seen corporate responses to voter suppression and bathroom bill stuff. Tech companies were too slow but have taken steps to address misinformation.
×
×
  • Create New...