The recent events in VA have caused a large discussion about race to pop up. It's okay to have a real talk about it and bring your opinions. Not necessarily your hate if you have it. This is a topic to discuss this with civility. Try and refrain from posting offensive memes.
I want to avoid clogging up the Newsroom. So if you want to talk about issues like this do so and do so respectfully. It can be uncomfortable, thats okay. However, no if you say something offensive expect to be challenged.
Sure i'll start it off.Karaiya wrote:
> For me, somethings about cultural appropriation are not okay and somethings
> are really not a big deal. In the sense of black hair, indigenous peoples, sports
> teams changing their names, and white washing acting roles. Yes, those are big deals
> for those groups like mine. .
So does this extend to video games as well? Like, would you say you prefer subtitles/original audio over the english cast because they tend to replace the original actors with, mostly white people, or would that be a step too far?
> The God we read about in any religious text isn't real. Humans have no idea what
> this is but it's easier to pretend we do.We don't know why we are here. We don't
> know what consciousness is. We don't know what the universe is made of. We don't
> know what happens after we die.
> King_link wrote:
>> The God we read about in any religious text isn't real. Humans have no idea what
>> this is but it's easier to pretend we do.We don't know why we are here. We don't
>> know what consciousness is. We don't know what the universe is made of. We don't
>> know what happens after we die.
> I disagree.
I know and that's okay. We all have a subjective experience in this crazy place. Would you care to share yours?
any thoughts on the lack of response by Trump to Plank, head of UnderArmour resigning from manufacturing council versus the Merck guy?
Plank played it safe though, citing generic "politics" rather than specific events and Trump response to them.
Would it be a mistake to make note of the skin color of the two guys?
Edit: Intel CEO joined the party too
> . We don't
> know what happens after we die.
I know we rot in our box or are scattered to the winds and water.
Is there some other knowable condition that occurs after death?
> All I have to say on the subject that I haven't already said is that true equality
> is what we should reach for most. For that to happen, we need to be inclusive and
> connect with each other and not be so divisive and individualistic. Unfortunately,
> labeling only exacerbates this issue, but if we don't group people, how do we know
> who is marginalized? That's the rub. It'd be great if we could all be colorblind
> (because that's the only way I see us reaching true equality), but in a world where
> not everyone is colorblind, some or most of us being colorblind is dangerous.
that's a good point. i don't feel like this will happen in our lifetime, or ever, as long as religion continues to be such a dividing line and while it benefits the 1% for the lower class to be divided. and for the marginalized groups, bringing them into the fold equally, not handouts that then in turn discriminate against someone else, is where it eventually needs to get, but while the elite ruling class is in power, and they always will be, it will never happen.
the movie Antz is actually a pretty great social commentary.
meh.. race and religion are two separate topics... if we're supposed to be talking about what happened in VA then this should've just been called race talk
I postulate that we are all one person simultaneously inhabiting 7 billion bodies of various races. Meaning that spiritually and morally, race doesn't exist, even if race exists in the material sense. (i.e. genetics) Though we seem to be told that race doesn't exist not even in the material sense, as in, that levels of intelligence and athleticism is equal across races, but such assertions are obviously politicized and can't be trusted. But either way, we're all human. And that's special.
Organized religion is of course, a con. Christianity was invented by the roman government as an instrument for control, all of its holidays and rituals were literally designed for fashion. Since then they sold indulgences, committed atrocities like witch hunts and inquisitions and the crusades, and remain woefully corrupt to this day, existing as a known pedophile ring. For more information, watch Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
I also postulate that all holy texts are by definition fake precisely because they're written word. The modern equivalent would be like if God created the bible as a DVD or as a web page. Many people didn't even know how to read back then--very convenient for those in control of the church.
I also postulate that if you believe something to be sacred text, then you must take all of it or none of it as true. The only excuse to cherry pick is if one part directly contradicts another, although the existence of contradicts arguably discredits the work entirely. Things like political correctness or popular opinion should of course not affect how one interprets a holy text, in cases where the text is pretty obvious. Though, the existence of varying translations put tremendous confusion on this issue, although this is more evidence that all holy texts are anything but.
Saying you are a certain religion, does not mean you are. A true member of a faith should be defined by the extent they believe their religion and practice it, not by how progressive or moderate they are.
Personally, I don't see Jesus as someone who would attend white nationalist rallies.
I'd LOVE to have a true discussion and debate on religion and various beliefs. But it's next to impossible. I'm sort of bigoted against most religious beliefs, (not religious people) and my statements and responses come off as too pretentious and judgmental. I've yet to find a religious person open-minded enough to laugh with me as I deconstruct their beliefs. I'm willing to answer basically any question no matter how offensive. I need that other side of the coin. They are too elusive.
I also have bigoted beliefs about religion especially Christianity and Islam. I find them to both be really good at upholding the worst cultural and oppressive structures. However, it is also obvious that religion also brings the best out of people. That religion should be protected.
my church pays taxes:http://time.com/3839164/nfl-tax-exempt-status/
the franchises always paid corporate taxes, may or may not have received RE tax exemption depending, the league office as a small recipient of league revenues gave up tax exempt status a while ago. I gather the exemption was more trouble than it was worth.
i worship Sundays and any other days there are services. Devoted.
Religion has no place in medicine. If the church wants to donate money to hospitals that's fine but they have no business being involved anywhere in the policies or protocols as pertaining to medicine of any kind or any administration.
I know a lot of awesome people that are religious. Unfortunately, I think religion does far more bad than good. I'd love to have my mind changed on that, but it's yet to happen.
Might as well say it, I'm biased too. With that said...
Life sucks, and then you die. The old religion writers were good though, still tricking people in 2017. Then again, I think a lot of people want to believe because as mentioned it's a coping mechanism for the harshness of reality. And don't even get me started on mega preachers. It's all a scam, but guys like Joel Osteen that use it to become millionaires, ugh.
@whitefire Very fair point about soup kitchens and whatnot. There are a lot of people that need help in this world and frequently it is a church helping out.
Also I'll just end it with this so we can all have a laugh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE
There are plenty of groups outside of churches that help out the homeless. Where do you folks live?
> There are plenty of groups outside of churches that help out the homeless. Where
> do you folks live?
I'm not saying other groups do nothing, but religious organizations take the lion's share of that burden.
> Karaiya wrote:
>> There are plenty of groups outside of churches that help out the homeless. Where
>> do you folks live?
> I'm not saying other groups do nothing, but religious organizations take the lion's
> share of that burden.
I think nationally you're correct.
> whitefire wrote:
>> Karaiya wrote:
> |>> There are plenty of groups outside of churches that help out the homeless. Where
> |>> do you folks live?
>> I'm not saying other groups do nothing, but religious organizations take the lion's
>> share of that burden.
> I think nationally you're correct.
What are you talking about then, some random city? Of course I mean nationally. Or do you mean overseas (like humanitarian aid stuff)?
> Karaiya wrote:
>> whitefire wrote:
> |>> Karaiya wrote:
>> |>> There are plenty of groups outside of churches that help out the homeless.
>> |>> do you folks live?
> |>> I'm not saying other groups do nothing, but religious organizations take the
> |>> share of that burden.
>> I think nationally you're correct.
> What are you talking about then, some random city? Of course I mean nationally. Or
> do you mean overseas (like humanitarian aid stuff)?
Meaning major cities like Portland, Boston, Philadelphia provide shelter, food, and assistance. To be honest the government would actually be the lions share.
Wait, are you getting defensiveI sense a tone change. I'm not trying to argue wirh you. My question about where do you guys live was to ask why aren't your city and state governments carrying the lionshare of homeless care..
Churches are great at soup kitchens and food drivea but they don't deal with rehab and community resources, and housing. So I couldnt say now that I think about it that they carry the lionshare of the responsibility. Theyre good at advertizing that they do though.
> Karaiya wrote:
>> Wait, are you getting defensiveI sense a tone change.
Charity, is a collaterol assignment for religious institutions. Its main goal is proliferate worship and conversion meaning that the church does charitable specifically as a way to increase its standing as do gooders in the communities. Not to say this is a bad thing. Its mostly benign and when done well and meaningfully, benevolent.
However, much of the work in charity, housing, displacement support, and other important things to actually decrease homelessness is done through charity outside from social workers, social justice work, and volunteerism. These things are both done through the private sector donation, and local and federal government grants for social justice groups, and community assistance.
I forgot to mention one more point. I also think we need to focus more on SES than race, in terms of public policy. NA, AA, and LA groups have the lowest SES anyway, so it still helps those groups without putting a label on it. We largely do that anyway, but I think we can do more. I do believe that saying people should all get treated the same is a bit unfair when we all have different starting points.
I find it disingenuous to say that the kid who went to a poor school has just as much of a chance as getting into a particular college as the kid who went to a rich private school, so they should be treated the same. It's "separate but equal" for the modern age. Something should be done to at least somewhat level the playing field. We already do this in many ways, but I think we can do more. However, I think it's divisive to separate these things based on race. We should solely view them through an SES lense, which in turn, has the same result anyway but pisses a lot less people off. I'm a pragmatist.