One LARGE order of S-HOLE coming right up!

[Woobie]

I’ll take him at his word that he does it to try to make people think. But like I said, his point isn’t made stronger by it. If he’d have just asked why SA refugees and not Myanmar, posts would have been about that instead of about why he can’t just say it. So I’m not saying it’s the wigle room but I see that as a convenient side effect.

I used to think that, and maybe that's still true in most of his remarks. But in others, there is simply insult worded just well enough to avoid getting in trouble. He didn't do that for a long time, but he's been at it again recently.

 

[churchmouse]

I've had enough of this hit and run crap. Like a kid who kicks some guy's shins on the sidewalk then runs away. These vague accusatory remarks followed by silence, misdirection or backpedaling are simply cowardly. And if he does step in too deep to weasel his way out, he always somehow manages to get a mod to step in and save his bacon.

As much as I find myself agreeing with Kut on a philosophical level, and as much as I have learned from him, I am quickly losing any vestige of respect. Last week he said INGO would devolve into "stormfront lite" without the mods. No evidence, no line of reasoning. Just a giant insult and then a quick scurry behind a mod. Last night it was, nearly as I can tell, a similar remark. A vague suggestion that I have made bigoted remarks, or been wrongfully silent when someone else did. No evidence, and not even the character to say plainly exactly what was meant. This is cowardly.

I will put this out here for all to see. I approach these issues as the arise.
No one is covering for Kut as there are more than just him that works this way.
I close threads to calm down the posting members when anxiety's get high. I really do not want to take any direct actions. In this I let conversations/discussions find their own way to a point. When non-posting members start to report activity's or I see issues that is when I step in. I have had to temp close a few threads and 1 is closed period.

No knock on you Woobie. I just will not let this fester. If you all had all the info it would become clearer. I have a rough enough time without this.

Be safe,

-CM-

I am sad that it is viewed this way. Nothing can be further from the truth.

 

[KLB]

I’ll take him at his word that he does it to try to make people think. But like I said, his point isn’t made stronger by it. If he’d have just asked why SA refugees and not Myanmar, posts would have been about that instead of about why he can’t just say it. So I’m not saying it’s the wigle room but I see that as a convenient side effect.

Agreed. The word games do get old sometimes.

 

[jbombelli]

I don't want anybody coming here, unless 1) they can provide something of real value to our country (importing their old culture doesn't cut it), and 2) they're willing to assimilate and adopt our culture as their own. If they aren't willing to, or can't, do those two things, f' 'em.

 

[Woobie]

I will put this out here for all to see. I approach these issues as the arise.
No one is covering for Kut as there are more than just him that works this way.
I close threads to calm down the posting members when anxiety's get high. I really do not want to take any direct actions. In this I let conversations/discussions find their own way to a point. When non-posting members start to report activity's or I see issues that is when I step in. I have had to temp close a few threads and 1 is closed period.

No knock on you Woobie. I just will not let this fester. If you all had all the info it would become clearer. I have a rough enough time without this.

Be safe,

-CM-

I am sad that it is viewed this way. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Let me clarify my post, because that isn't what I meant. That's my fault for being unclear.

It's more like when one kid slaps another kid in the hallway then runs into the classroom. The teacher is going to stop the fight, regardless of how it started. The teacher isn't covering for the aggressor, but the aggressor uses the predictable reaction of the teacher as cover.

I know some people think as you just described, but most of us don't. It is plain enough what happens. No knock on the mod staff.

 

[jamil]

I don't want anybody coming here, unless 1) they can provide something of real value to our country (importing their old culture doesn't cut it), and 2) they're willing to assimilate and adopt our culture as their own. If they aren't willing to, or can't, do those two things, f' 'em.

Pretty much this.

 

[churchmouse]

Let me clarify my post, because that isn't what I meant. That's my fault for being unclear.

It's more like when one kid slaps another kid in the hallway then runs into the classroom. The teacher is going to stop the fight, regardless of how it started. The teacher isn't covering for the aggressor, but the aggressor uses the predictable reaction of the teacher as cover.

I know some people think as you just described, but most of us don't. It is plain enough what happens. No knock on the mod staff.

Thank you.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I've had enough of this hit and run crap. Like a kid who kicks some guy's shins on the sidewalk then runs away. These vague accusatory remarks followed by silence, misdirection or backpedaling are simply cowardly. And if he does step in too deep to weasel his way out, he always somehow manages to get a mod to step in and save his bacon.

As much as I find myself agreeing with Kut on a philosophical level, and as much as I have learned from him, I am quickly losing any vestige of respect. Last week he said INGO would devolve into "stormfront lite" without the mods. No evidence, no line of reasoning. Just a giant insult and then a quick scurry behind a mod. Last night it was, nearly as I can tell, a similar remark. A vague suggestion that I have made bigoted remarks, or been wrongfully silent when someone else did. No evidence, and not even the character to say plainly exactly what was meant. This is cowardly.

That was not suggested nor implied, and I can say honestly, that I think such is out of your character. As for the silent part, I certainly did suggest that, and I did so based on your own words.

That bigoted comments have occurred on INGO? We've all seen them.

I don't do silence (after engaging), backpedaling, nor misdirection very well. If I'm wrong, I have no issue (and my history indicates this) saying "I'm wrong." Most of the time, if someone isn't getting an answer, it's because it's so obvious I see no need to dumb it down for anyone. If it's not that, then I'm trying to get someone to educate themselves by looking something up. I don't do lazy very well, and if there's a question that someone doesn't know, and it's fairly easy to find, they should look it up.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You seem to know a lot about African-American culture but you can't define what it is? And if as you say has only a small smatterings of African culture, why identify as African-American? And I'll have to disagree that African-American culture is the oldest "homegrown" one, what about Native American culture? Isn't it "homegrown" and predates African-American? The same could be same for the generic "white" culture, didn't we come here first then bring blacks?

I use specifics when I say things. Native American culture predates the United States, and I clearly noted the time period of which I was speaking. If I weren't to clarify the United States, then other groups, such as the Irish would need be included. You follow?

Yep your viewpoint, beliefs, and how you feel about people especially regarding the color of their skin along with their political leanings and whether or not they voted for/supported Trump is very obvious to those who have been reading your posts on here for a while, but why not simply come out and say what you mean for the benefit of those who haven't?

You're speaking collectively of these, or individually about my feelings concerning?

Isn't there a simple relatively inexpensive test to find out where your ancestors originally came from? Frequently down to the country but at least down to a specific region rather than an entire continent. I've thought about doing one simply for curiosity, I have a pretty good idea where my ancestors on my Mom's side came from, Dad's side is a different story. But it doesn't really matter and I could use the money elsewhere so why?

If you're saying that the descendants of slaves could use such a thing, then you really have no grasp of what slavery entailed.

Slave decedent-American or Black-American might be more accurate. Especially if as you say their culture contains very little African culture/heritage. Although I don't know the proportion of those in America with Negroid ancestry that are descended from slaves. And excludes those that have been in this country and identify as African-American who aren't descended from slaves. And you say that Black-American can be lumped in with the other more specific hyphenated Americans, but isn't that also true and to the same degree as African-American? And wouldn't the same happen with them specifying where they are from?

This is another instance of you not quite understanding the dynamic. Black people from Africa rarely refer to themselves as African-American. They specify which nation they immigrated from.

 

[jamil]

That was not suggested nor implied, and I can say honestly, that I think such is out of your character. As for the silent part, I certainly did suggest that, and I did so based on your own words.


I don't do silence (after engaging), backpedaling, nor misdirection very well. If I'm wrong, I have no issue (and my history indicates this) saying "I'm wrong." Most of the time, if someone isn't getting an answer, it's because it's so obvious I see no need to dumb it down for anyone. If it's not that, then I'm trying to get someone to educate themselves by looking something up. I don't do lazy very well, and if there's a question that someone doesn't know, and it's fairly easy to find, they should look it up.

Sometimes the answer may be obvious to you for no better reason than because you’re the one asking the question which you already have an answer for.

Why make it a riddle? That’s not a very efficient way to communicate. How many times did you go back and forth with people about why you won't just say it. I got fed up and just said what I thought you were getting at. It’s the only headline I’ve seen lately dealing with genocide on my twitter timeline.

There’s no utility in communicating that way.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sometimes the answer may be obvious to you for no better reason than because you’re the one asking the question which you already have an answer for.

Why make it a riddle? That’s not a very efficient way to communicate. How many times did you go back and forth with people about why you won't just say it. I got fed up and just said what I thought you were getting at. It’s the only headline I’ve seen lately dealing with genocide on my twitter timeline.

There’s no utility in communicating that way.

I'm not so sure. Remember the Dana Loesch thing we had concerning her comments a little while back? I was just going to let it go, but to prove a point, I'll pick it back up. I knew damn well what she was saying was accurate... and during that time, I sent someone a PM, explaining that. I purposefully challenged her statements, to let other people hash out what was being said. Sure enough people agreed with her statement about crying white mothers and ratings gold, or something to that effect. She perfectly explained "White Privilege." The idea that the pain of white mother, is deserving of widespread coverage, and more importantly, the implication that more people would be interested in it, is about a plain of an explanation there is. Now if I had originally come out and said this, I can guess there would be a fair amount of pushback. So I let everyone else make that case. Go back and look. Even now, despite all the comment made in that thread supporting the idea, someone is going to have issue with what I just said. Watch.

I'll remind you of Loesch's comments.
[video=youtube;h5H_tcMeQxM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5H_tcMeQxM[/video]

 

[printcraft]

I close threads to calm down the posting members when anxiety's get high. I really do not want to take any direct actions. In this I let conversations/discussions find their own way to a point. When non-posting members start to report activity's or I see issues that is when I step in. I have had to temp close a few threads and 1 is closed period.
.

There is a genesis as to when and why this happens, and it is consistent.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I could just post links to sexually explicit content. To some that seem preferable. But that ain't my bag man... ain't my bag.

 

[KJQ6945]

I enjoy reading all of the comments in the political sections. Posting, not so much.

If I write a lengthy post, I try to decide which single sentence will be highlighted, then responded to. The entire thesis of the post will be willfully ignored. This has turned into a game, and honest exchange of ideas is rare.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I’ll take him at his word that he does it to try to make people think. But like I said, his point isn’t made stronger by it. If he’d have just asked why SA refugees and not Myanmar, posts would have been about that instead of about why he can’t just say it. So I’m not saying it’s the wigle room but I see that as a convenient side effect.

I won't. Because he has also stated he asks questions to elicit the response he wants. He states it is from his background in LE and talking to suspects in an attempt to get them to implicate themselves. So I have to assume that when he asks questions, he feels at least some are guilty of the "crime" he suspects of them and are trying to get them to admit it.

I don't do ..., nor misdirection very well.

I use specifics when I say things. Native American culture predates the United States, and I clearly noted the time period of which I was speaking. If I weren't to clarify the United States, then other groups, such as the Irish would need be included. You follow?


You're speaking collectively of these, or individually about my feelings concerning?


If you're saying that the descendants of slaves could use such a thing, then you really have no grasp of what slavery entailed.


This is another instance of you not quite understanding the dynamic. Black people from Africa rarely refer to themselves as African-American. They specify which nation they immigrated from.

Okay, I follow now. I missed the part about the founding originally. But again, I'd dispute that the "African-American" culture predates the "white-American" culture. I'd say they started about the same time, which would be the founding of the US.

A bit of both.

Yes I have a grasp of how slavery worked. But I also know quite a few white Americans who would have pretty much the same results only with Europe. Who/what should they identify with? Also I have no idea, perhaps you do. Do most slave descendants ancestors come from all over Africa, or are they generally more localized? Considering that from what I understand most of the slave trade to the Americas was generally from a few specific regions on the West Coast of Africa I'd assume most of their ancestors would be from those localities.

No I understand the dynamics, how many refer to themselves as black Americans? From your statement of "how about simply Black-American, that way we can lumped in with Sudanese, Somali, and Kenyan-Americans. Nevermind the fact that they will probably be certain to clarify exactly who they are and their particular heritage." How does that differ from using African-American as an identifier, and again since as you state that African-American culture/heritage in the US contains very little from Africa, wouldn't black-American be more accurate as an identifier?

 

[CampingJosh]

And I think the race thing is silly, and nope no white guilt here. And perhaps it's true that whites were the one with obsession on race until the 70s, but that was a couple of generations ago. And was just as silly then. If you choose to identify by the color of your skin, feel free. Doesn't make it any less silly.

There have been a couple generations born since the 1970s, and so views from that period no longer have an effect now? Probably something like half of the Americans who were alive in the 1970s are still alive now. Yes, there are younger people now. That doesn't mean that the people who had bad views automatically no longer have those bad views.

I think your use of the word "silly" here is unfortunate. The damage done on account of race--in the United States, in Africa, in Europe, in Asia, and in Latin America--shouldn't be described the same as children playing games. Describing the systematic disenfranchisement, enslavement, and genocide of millions of people as "silly" sounds like you're trying to minimize what it has done to shape the world and affect people's lives, even if that wasn't your intent.

Edit: Not sure how this happened but I meant to reply to campingjosh.

See? Now this post much more directly calls people racists. No ambiguity here to waste time replying to.

I pointed to specific, contemporaneous behavior that seems to be motivated by race. I very intentionally did not call anybody anything for a few reasons:

1. Calling a person a "racist" is about the worst label currently available. Even the actual KKK tries to avoid using that description of themselves, at least in public spheres ("white nationalist").
2. Name-calling ends discussion, and ending discussion doesn't lead to either side learning anything.
3. I don't know anyone's interior motivations, and I said so in my post.

People act like they don't understand the implicit, and then choose to ignore when it's made explicit.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I won't. Because he has also stated he asks questions to elicit the response he wants. He states it is from his background in LE and talking to suspects in an attempt to get them to implicate themselves. So I have to assume that when he asks questions, he feels at least some are guilty of the "crime" he suspects of them and are trying to get them to admit it.

Actually, I said "maybe" that was it. I'm a fairly inquisitive person, so I like to know what makes people tick. Certainly it was beneficial in LE, but I think I've always been that way.

Okay, I follow now. I missed the part about the founding originally. But again, I'd dispute that the "African-American" culture predates the "white-American" culture. I'd say they started about the same time, which would be the founding of the US.

I said completely "homegrown," did I not?

Yes I have a grasp of how slavery worked. But I also know quite a few white Americans who would have pretty much the same results only with Europe. Who/what should they identify with? Also I have no idea, perhaps you do. Do most slave descendants ancestors come from all over Africa, or are they generally more localized? Considering that from what I understand most of the slave trade to the Americas was generally from a few specific regions on the West Coast of Africa I'd assume most of their ancestors would be from those localities.

While I think this solidifies my belief that you don't understand how American slavery worked, you have my interest. Do you care to explain how some white Americans have "pretty much the same results," regarding Europe?

 

[Route 45]

People love to play chess with a pigeon, don't they?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I'm not so sure. Remember the Dana Loesch thing we had concerning her comments a little while back? I was just going to let it go, but to prove a point, I'll pick it back up. I knew damn well what she was saying was accurate... and during that time, I sent someone a PM, explaining that. I purposefully challenged her statements, to let other people hash out what was being said. Sure enough people agreed with her statement about crying white mothers and ratings gold, or something to that effect. She perfectly explained "White Privilege." The idea that the pain of white mother, is deserving of widespread coverage, and more importantly, the implication that more people would be interested in it, is about a plain of an explanation there is. Now if I had originally come out and said this, I can guess there would be a fair amount of pushback. So I let everyone else make that case. Go back and look. Even now, despite all the comment made in that thread supporting the idea, someone is going to have issue with what I just said. Watch.

I'll remind you of Loesch's comments.
[video=youtube;h5H_tcMeQxM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5H_tcMeQxM[/video]

I can think of several reasons other than white privilege to explain her comments and the reason why they are the truth. One being tribalism, 72% and change of Americans identify as white compared to 12% and change identify as black. Which will get higher ratings if you figure in tribalism? Regarding the grieving black mothers in Cago, how many of the shootings were either drug/gang/crime related involving the individual shot or their family? How many grieving white mothers do you see who's kids were shot in the same circumstances on TV? I do remember the mother of the young black girl who's band marched at Obama's inauguration who was shot getting some airtime. Also how many black children get shot in school shootings like what happened down in FL? What is going to get better ratings, a random shooting or one like that one? ETA and I also seem to recall grieving black mothers getting a lot of airtime if their child was shot by a white or white hispanic under any sort of possibly questionable circumstance. Or if they are shot by a LEO.

And I seem to have missed that convo, do you perhaps have a link so I can read it?

I could just post links to sexually explicit content. To some that seem preferable. But that ain't my bag man... ain't my bag.

Nope, that was all Michelle's "bag", well "bag" and other assorted parts. Although I wouldn't consider that to be sexually explicit, more cartoonishly anatomically explicit. I've seen more sexually if not explicit at least implied content in the girls with guns threads.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I can think of several reasons other than white privilege to explain her comments and the reason why they are the truth. One being tribalism, 72% and change of Americans identify as white compared to 12% and change identify as black. Which will get higher ratings if you figure in tribalism? Regarding the grieving black mothers in Cago, how many of the shootings were either drug/gang/crime related involving the individual shot or their family? How many grieving white mothers do you see who's kids were shot in the same circumstances on TV? I do remember the mother of the young black girl who's band marched at Obama's inauguration who was shot getting some airtime. Also how many black children get shot in school shootings like what happened down in FL? What is going to get better ratings, a random shooting or one like that one?

And I seem to have missed that convo, do you perhaps have a link so I can read it?

There's the pushback. Lol, I give up.

Nope, that was all Michelle's "bag", well "bag" and other assorted parts. Although I wouldn't consider that to be sexually explicit, more cartoonishly anatomically explicit. I've seen more sexually if not explicit at least implied content in the girls with guns threads.

Ok, did you consider it a blatant violation of rules or did you think that the person who linked that image simply didn't know better and thought such imagery was acceptable?