Football ...
Basketball ...
Baseball ...
Other Sports ...
Futbol ...
🤫995🤫 ...
Gambling ...
Movies & TV ...
Music ...
Hobbies ...
Lulz ...
Food & Travel
...
Daily Texan ...
Business & Markets ...
Cloak Room ...
Help ...
For Sale ...
Board Discussion ...
Advertise...
Tailgate Donations
-
Posts
1445 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Everything posted by Serak The Preparer
-
[Serious] question: do you think anyone reading this thinks otherwise? Is anyone thinking "holy shit, this is WW 3!". We all know it's a skirmish, India and China have had this skirmishes for literally decades. Yes any incident is interesting to read about, and I talk to colleagues in India about their perceptions, but even for a discussion board your comments are essentially fluffy air with no weight. Hell, a post that just says "wow" is less insufferable than a post making obvious declarative statements with a voice of insight that offers no insight at all. COVID-19 is making me cranky.
-
So it won't be bad. But there is a danger it's bad. This is some top-notch analysis.
-
Hispanic Houston man found hanging from a tree
Serak The Preparer replied to Pancho's topic in Daily Texan
Guys, don't worry, I'm sure if anyone were to go back to the Minneapolis is burning thread, I'm sure that you would find 16 negs from @Johnny Sack, @StruggleBus, @John Lawrence, and@Enchubben for all of the false reports about bricks being left out by Antifa, reports by Andy Ngo that are blatantly false, etc. These guys are paragons of virtue and would NEVER preferential neg false posts by Pancho over other, say, differently complexioned posters. -
That's great if yourself and AoC are trying to be conservatives without being Trump conservatives. I am not being sarcastic - that really is great. The problem is that this literally does not exist at the national level. There are essentially no conservatives that hold any national office that is not obedient to Trump (sort of exceptions with maybe Amash and Romney, but they have not provided significant resistance to any Trump initiative that I am aware of). And while you and AoC may not think the Trump admin is inherently racist (or maybe you do, not trying to pin you to anything), most of the people on this board do. So there are the two inherent associations: Trump = Racist and Conservative = Trump. I suspect that bridging either of those gaps is going to be impossible.
-
I think we are certainly going to end up agreeing to disagree, but I will simply say that for myself, I am trying really hard lately to not assume that was is a really normal and easy response for me is also a really normal and easy response for others.
-
Twicehorn already responded to part of your post, but I think you are being very myopic with your view of liberal intolerance. Who are the tolerant conservative voices? Who is there to react to? In the views of many, the conservative Congress and Senate essentially punished any tolerance from a policy-viewpoint, from reaction to Medical reform, Merrick Garland, etc. If there is no voice of reason in power, how can there be reason in response? That trickles down to social discussion. Hell maybe liberals started it, I don't know, but it's not just a lack of tolerance from liberals online. In terms of JK Rowling specifically you are again coming at this from your point of view, which is totally understandable and expected, but then assuming that it is the RIGHT point of view. She most certainly didn't come at her blog post from a place of love. I don't know that it came from a place of hate, but it certainly didn't come from love. It is her honest viewpoint to be sure, but it is coming down to a community that already feel marginalized and hurt. I don't fully agree with this response, but I would urge you to check out this Instagram post. I know, Instagram, but it is an annotated response that rationally discusses why her post was so hurtful and led to much of the reaction. I came upon this through news aggregation, otherwise would never have seen this, but found it really interesting. It starts not from Rowling not acceding to group think, but rather supporting someone who explicitly denies that Trans women are women. You may agree with that, or may not agree but think it is not a big deal, but I think you could at least agree that it is a big deal to that community, and therefore stirs up a whole mess of response and emotion.
-
I think you have a lot of redundancy there, and not all of it makes sense. I think (in your mind), escalating the dialogue, refusing to answer normal questions, and being a dick neighbor are all the same thing, right? She asked for information from a nominal neighbor, and he didn't provide it. Keep in mind one thing: he lived there, she didn't. She represented herself as being in the neighborhood and being a neighbor, but she wasn't. If she actually was a neighbor, and therefore if he actually recognized her as such, his reaction may have been completely different. In other words, you can't blame him for being a dick neighbor to someone who was not actually a neighbor! Also, is filming bad behavior? If I am a minority (and to be clear, I am not, I am lily-white) and two older white people come up to me asking questions, am I escalating by filming with my phone? I don't think so, do you think that is inherently bad? Finally, posting online and whining about victomhood. What in your mind is the appropriate response to strangers coming to me and accusing me of being a vandal? How much whining did he do? Was it a single post to illustrate the level of expectation that white people have for minorities to answer their questions? Did he suggest tracking her down and making her miserable? These last two questions are not rhetorical, as I don't know. If it was a single post, then holy crap I think you are overreacting. If it was multiple posts going on and on (like in this forum) then I would lean towards agreeing with you.
-
I agree with several statements above, paraphrased (I hope not too poorly) below: - Discussion of actual political policy has been very poor in last few years for several reasons, including lack of good-faith arguments and lack of any philosophical or consistent policy-based argument by current administration (e.g. what we think today has no bearing on what we thought yesterday or will think tomorrow). - Those that would be primary drivers of discussion above include @Ghost of LL, @longhornmatt, and potentially @Brisketexan (only mentioning potentially because I think he started becoming less conservative before this administration, for right or wrong). These voices have become stridently anti-current administration, so not much debate there. Other "true believes", including Swam4Texas, @EMAWesome, @markstanco, @TahoeHorn (and his acknowledged sock @MixtyMotions), are part of that latter group of drive-by comments, lack of follow through on discussion, etc. i can only think of one conservative poster who genuinely seems to want to have conversation (@Wulaw Horn). @Anastasis doesn't count here as he hates both sides. - That leaves primary discussion being either "How bad were things today" or discussion over issues that are fact-based, not belief-based. Here there is certainly a grey area as difference between fact and implication of fact is not always as clear as it may seem, but I refer to things like legal or political rationale with Mueller Report and Flynn Hearing. Not discussion over whether behavior is wrong or right, but about what the basis for certain court rulings, committee reports, etc. I personally have enjoyed following these conversations, although I have not contributed. What does that leave us? There have been cool discussion on philosophy, existence of God, etc., but I don't see how there can be any actual policy-based discussion in CR without actual policy to debate. The Columbus discussion (and I understand that this is only an example for you) should not be CR-bound, and is going to necessarily get smaller viewership (and therefore discussion) because of its presence in CR. That could easily be in DT, except for it would get sidetracked with Trump this and Trump that. Our national discourse is so broken that everything is viewed through policy, and so it comes back to lack of consistent policy to use to formulate arguments. That's a lot of words, and it probably looks like I'm saying it's all the other guys's fault. And it's true, both for us guys as well as the other guys. This is a symptom, not a casual factor. I think I need that ledge now. Any scotch left?
-
It's weird that you keep bringing up incels. Did he specifically target her with the incel community (assuming there is one, I am vaguely familiar with redpill etc.,but not an expert)? Or did he simply post the encounter? It sounds like you are saying he used incels to amplify his grievances. Is that correct? If so, that's really shitty of him. If, instead, he posted the video but this community then took it to further chase after the woman, that sucks but it's not on him.
-
I apologise, I misremembered your words. I agree that you did not claim to know black or athlete student feelings. I will note that you said you were sure they didn't know the history, so my question is still what makes you think that? I don't know if this was a topic of conversation or not, but if there was conversation, I could easily see it being pretty internal given the general lack of public discourse at the time. In other words it seems like the starting point was something like "it wasn't brought up by me or my social circle therefore it didn't exist". I personally think that this is the default perception for any majority in any country, which includes me. I do the same at times, but am trying to be more conscious of it when I do. Again apologies for attributing the statement about knowing their feelings to you.
-
Oh for crying out loud, of course I do not know your mind, or others. I have not claimed to, and explicitly said that I don't. It's like this concept is foreign to you. You are the one who has, however, by saying this will not make them feel better. Why do you think that? In the post below this you say this is trivial. How can you say what is trivial to someone else, particularly when they have specifically said that this is not trivial but has caused and continues to cause hurt? That is the arrogance that just blows my mind. And I do agree with you that you do not necessarily have to agree on actions or next step but dismissal comes from a weird place to me.
-
I will answer you, as I answered the question you asked me in your previous reply. It's simple: I don't know that. I am not proclaiming that this will solve any issues at all. However, I do think that we should listen and even take people at their word when they say something bothers them. Not even saying we have to take action, but at least believe them. Now will you answer the question I have asked over and over? Why are you sure that the present situation DOESN"T bother them, especially when they have said it does? That was your claim, that you knew their minds and feelings.
-
Clipping to address what I think is a real issue. I will ask you the same thing that I asked @HRSchenker and @CfRhTxStBobcats (and which they refuse to answer for some reason). Why are you convinced that you know what the result of these actions will be. You have a group of students and athletes looking for a change (presumably something that will make them feel better) and you are saying they are wrong. How can you know their minds and expectations better than they do? I can only speak for myself, but I don't think disagreement about the next step indicates racism. But I do think that assuming you know how a group feels without even talking to them comes pretty darn close. Not in the "n-word" or denying an apartment level, but definitely in the "I know more that that group does" level. It is not white guilt or "wokeness" to say "I hear what you are saying. You have a voice", especially when that voice has not previously been heard.
-
I don't know. I even stated explicitly that I am not saying you are wrong. I agree that I know nothing about you or your background, so I am not sure why you think that I do. I only thought it was odd that you both stated that you were sure you knew how other groups felt. I don't think you need to add IMO to your post as that is implied. But if I stated that (to just make up an example) Indian people just fucking love Burger King, I would expect to be called on that if that is contrary to expectation. To be quite clear, I know nothing about the Canadian National Anthem situation, as an example. I do presume, however, that in that case, women felt more aggrieved and tried to change the anthem. It is still a mystery to me why @HRSchenker then feels certain that they didn't feel it sexist. And again, to be, clear, he may be right! But is this surety coming from talking to anyone affected? Same for you? Have you talked to black students or former athletes about the names of buildings? Maybe you have, I don't know. Please enlighten me!
-
@HRSchenker and @CfRhTxStBobcats, why are both of you so sure you understand those view points of people different from you? How many Canadian women have you talked to about this issue? What about black students or athletes? Why do you presume your opinion is the universal one? I am not saying that either one of you is wrong, by the way, but the surety of knowing someone else's mind is surprising to me.
-
If you're into noses. His prosthetic hasn't had nearly the lasting social impact.
-
And there is still the completely cowardly lack of follow-through on thought. Ok, so you recognize that not all minorities are equally disadvantaged. You even recognize the Nigerian immigrants do better than US-born African Americans. But wait, if it's not systemic racism, then tell me, WHY is it they US-born African Americans are disadvantaged? Something in the culture, something in the genes, something else? If it is not systemic racism, please, I would love to hear the explanation. Is it really just the democratic party as the author suggests?
-
That must have been a hell of a 16 minutes. From (I think sincere?) "Fair point ... I just went about it entirely wrong" to temper tantrum. Stay strong Lobo.
-
Jesus you get self-important sometimes. You didn't ruin shit. You just took things farther than made some people comfortable. They told you. And then you throw this shit-fit and complain that you are the only one acting like an adult. My 9 year old is doing the same thing right now.
-
It's amazing how much wordier and more effort this takes than "You know what, you're right. I didn't think about that, and will try to keep that in mind in the future."
-
I always love the completely random cameo by Loudon Wainwright III in that scene. He has some cool songs.
-
And gosh, retail stores were KILLING IT before COVID-19 and shutdowns. I have all my stock in JC Penny and Sears and am doing just fine...
-
Repeating the question is rookie level. Follow up with the natural conclusion: "Oh, so is the fact that black people are disproportionately likely to be in jail due to some inherent quality of being a black person? Does being black make you more likely to commit a crime?
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... COOKIE MONSTER!