CURRENT EVENTS

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 655
  • Views: 14K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
What about the Mar-A-Lago look? That's intentional. They do that to themselves, for some reason.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there are a few times where I think physical traits are within the bounds of discussion and the "Mar-a-Lago look" would be one of those times.

While not an exhaustive list (by any stretch of the imagination), I'd say 2 major criteria for making physical appearance an "acceptable" discussion would be (1) the person/people being discussed are intentionally discriminatory/hypocritical in their own takes on physical appearance and (2) physical appearance that is intentional (and presumably wanted) by the person/people discussed.
 
SnoopRob said:
Yeah, there are a few times where I think physical traits are within the bounds of discussion and the "Mar-a-Lago look" would be one of those times.

While not an exhaustive list (by any stretch of the imagination), I'd say 2 major criteria for making physical appearance an "acceptable" discussion would be (1) the person/people being discussed are intentionally discriminatory/hypocritical in their own takes on physical appearance and (2) physical appearance that is intentional (and presumably wanted) by the person/people discussed.
Click to expand...
I think people might argue that using words like n* fall into the first category.
 
superrific said:
I think people might argue that using words like n* fall into the first category.
Click to expand...
That's silly, unless the point is something about race of the person using the term.

We can't make the criterion "folks who say something I disagree with" because that essentially opens the door for all physical-based mockery.
 
SnoopRob said:
That's silly, unless the point is something about race of the person using the term.

We can't make the criterion "folks who say something I disagree with" because that essentially opens the door for all physical-based mockery.
Click to expand...
Well, race is ultimately about appearance.
 
superrific said:
Well, race is ultimately about appearance.
Click to expand...
I'm not interested in a long discussion on this, but race is about far, far more than appearance. In fact, basic appearance may be the least interesting and certainly the least controversial part of race.
 
nrsair said:
While not scatological in nature, there’s a “No Trespassing Lane” in Todd, NC that we pass on the way to go camping. Great name for a road.
Click to expand...
As a Carolina fan, I was happy to have an address on Chapel Hill Dr. for more than a decade.

Of course I live in Cumming Georgia, we have so many weird names for things.
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

Wow. I'm glad Jesus is safe from Kap, DEI, and Bud. I'm even happier that the Trump family is there to save little ol' Jesus. Any good Christian should be grateful Trump saved their delicate God, right?

I swear, these people make my stomach turn, and I sure as hell wouldn't stand near them in a lightening storm. Speaking of God's wrath, I wouldn't want to be one of the "Christians" who support them either.
 
SnoopRob said:
I'm not interested in a long discussion on this, but race is about far, far more than appearance. In fact, basic appearance may be the least interesting and certainly the least controversial part of race.
Click to expand...
Of course. I made my point poorly. I meant that appearance is the identifier for race. You know a black person or a Hispanic person or a white person from the appearance of their skin. The meaning of those identities is more important and constructed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top