|
Post by Buzzetta on Feb 12, 2021 17:10:42 GMT -8
I had to think about this a bit and didn't comment because I was processing it.
It's an interesting conundrum that the left is considered responsible for communism and yet you describe the church as liberal but anti communist.
Was this to show that you can blend leanings from the left and the right and that an entire organization doesn't need to only lean one way?
I heard someone say once that (and I'm paraphrasing) "It's not good if someone can fully understand your ideology and everything about you after a few sentences." I agree. We need to be more complex and nuanced than just that.
When you talk to someone and you are immediately labelling them in your mind as 'pro Trump' or 'anti Trump' the problem is not only with them, it's also with me.
There should be much more to all people than just a binary political leaning.
What Gina said is factually and historically accurate.
I just had an discussion with someone online who stated that 'Gina sounded like she was saying that she was suffering like the Jews and that the Dems were Nazis" and I was like "Where did you get THAT interpretation from?" There was no 'left or right' politics in her Tweet.
To me, she was just saying that neighbors can turn against each other over politics and lead to horrific circumstances and she is 100% right. History has repeated that pattern over and over.
Hitler's Germany didn't just magically appear. Each citizen of the country was slowly massaged into believing that an entire group of people among their citizenry was worth turning on and it happened over time and through political manipulation.
As a favorite speaker of mine says "If anyone says that they'd never do in Nazi Germany what everyone there did they're full of it. The citizens of that country allowed Nazi Germany to do what it did and in doing so were complicit"
Each one of us has the ability to turn in such a way against our neighbors and the most dangerous people are the ones that say they would never do it because that's probably how most Germans felt before the country turned.
We're supposed to learn from history but that's hard to do when we're busy erasing it and avoiding it.
And again, what Gina said, she was told to stop posting anything controversial or take a break from Social Media by her boss since it was a reflection on the company. They tell you that when you work for Disney on any level. As I said, it was not a matter of this one comment. This comment in itself was really not a horrible comment. BUT, when you take everything else she said and did, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. She was warned by the mouse to stop. She decided to walk close to the line and they had enough. Now will she work for Disney in another capacity sometime down the road? Anything is possible because of... 'money'. But, I asked a friend I worked with 25 years ago who still works for Disney today and they said that the rules are still the same. If you do things like she is doing you get well wished on your future endeavors. So in summary it was not this isolated comment that did her in. It was a culmination of everything else.
|
|
|
Post by Buzzetta on Feb 12, 2021 17:21:55 GMT -8
and, again, just in time for unity, we have gina carano, quite an athlete in her own right, as well as an actress, playing the role of angel dust in deadpool, and cara dune in the mandalorian, and scheduled to continue in season 2. but, ms. carano, unfortunately, has a quirk: she is a non-ashamed conservative that is also outspoken when she is attacked by the "cancel culture" mob, and silenced and demeaned because she has supported....omg!!!!.....past potus trump. that quirk has concluded in her being fired. that is the latest example of corporate unity. good job. more to come. and, the mandalorian thread gets locked after a . the thread has gina, ww2 history stuff, mma fighter stuff and my daddy is bigger than your daddy and lots of you are atroll....no i am not....yes yiu are stuff, and you are dumb about history, disney choices, and plain old i don't like you and we are all talking about politics but we don't want to say it is politics, so we will all agree to masking politics until somebody posts that we can all attack. sound familiar? hmmmmm?? It's more complicated than that. And I did not know it was locked until this morning as I walked away from it. Pernts were awarded.
|
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Feb 12, 2021 17:42:56 GMT -8
What Gina said is factually and historically accurate.
I just had an discussion with someone online who stated that 'Gina sounded like she was saying that she was suffering like the Jews and that the Dems were Nazis" and I was like "Where did you get THAT interpretation from?" There was no 'left or right' politics in her Tweet.
To me, she was just saying that neighbors can turn against each other over politics and lead to horrific circumstances and she is 100% right. History has repeated that pattern over and over.
Hitler's Germany didn't just magically appear. Each citizen of the country was slowly massaged into believing that an entire group of people among their citizenry was worth turning on and it happened over time and through political manipulation.
As a favorite speaker of mine says "If anyone says that they'd never do in Nazi Germany what everyone there did they're full of it. The citizens of that country allowed Nazi Germany to do what it did and in doing so were complicit"
Each one of us has the ability to turn in such a way against our neighbors and the most dangerous people are the ones that say they would never do it because that's probably how most Germans felt before the country turned.
We're supposed to learn from history but that's hard to do when we're busy erasing it and avoiding it.
And again, what Gina said, she was told to stop posting anything controversial or take a break from Social Media by her boss since it was a reflection on the company. They tell you that when you work for Disney on any level. As I said, it was not a matter of this one comment. This comment in itself was really not a horrible comment. BUT, when you take everything else she said and did, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. She was warned by the mouse to stop. She decided to walk close to the line and they had enough. Now will she work for Disney in another capacity sometime down the road? Anything is possible because of... 'money'. But, I asked a friend I worked with 25 years ago who still works for Disney today and they said that the rules are still the same. If you do things like she is doing you get well wished on your future endeavors. So in summary it was not this isolated comment that did her in. It was a culmination of everything else. I will start by acknowledging your post is responding to roy. I respond only because his post was a reply to mine. What you state is factual. My position is that it is selective nullification by Disney. the corporate arm(s) of Disney have not been aggressive with equal treatment toward other employees/contractors. Disney decided on what political position it would allow to, as you state, present a reflection on the company. Disney has come to the conclusion that support of a position of conservative thought and allowance of same is not in their interest. The same rule has not been equally enforced on employees of a less than conservative leaning, and Disney has encouraged same, and Disney executives have actively supported political activities of non-conservative activists/candidates, and to paint an image of Disney neutrality is not factual. I don't care about what political leaning a person has. I care about not being equal in treatment of any rules. Yes, an employer has the absolute right and authority to set the rules and hire and fire accordingly. It may not be on a fair basis, and it is certainly their right to be unfair regarding what Disney perceives to be in their interest or not, at any given period of time or subject. There lies my disappointment. Disney should not make employee decisions or be involved in any manner with politics, especially at the executive level, and the executive level should held to the same standard as their demand of employees. Justifying the action because social media considers her continuing conservative comments are a bridge to far, is a strawman argument, because Disney knows and more importantly knew exactly what they were getting with her, and it was no under the table secret Sunday revelation. Disney is allowing social media to dictate their persona, and operating agenda, instead of being honest about their own involvement with the exact pursuit they are firing her for. As much as you may dismiss the choice of definition of "cancel culture", it exists, and does more harm and does more to prevent unity than any other method of social aggression. It is blackmail without the cash demand. To use another example, it is revealing who gave how much this week during collection, with a goal of embarrassing the cheapo catholics into compliance of the 10% tithe. i fought that tooth and nail. It is negation without cause, and is cancel culture of the worse kind.
|
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Feb 12, 2021 17:52:28 GMT -8
and, the mandalorian thread gets locked after a . the thread has gina, ww2 history stuff, mma fighter stuff and my daddy is bigger than your daddy and lots of you are atroll....no i am not....yes yiu are stuff, and you are dumb about history, disney choices, and plain old i don't like you and we are all talking about politics but we don't want to say it is politics, so we will all agree to masking politics until somebody posts that we can all attack. sound familiar? hmmmmm?? It's more complicated than that. And I did not know it was locked until this morning as I walked away from it. Pernts were awarded. I do not know what is more complicated, or what you are referring to. I did not claim or comment when you knew or not about it, and do not care about the points award game. I was only aware because of Tup. He is correct. The rest does not interest me. I do not care to comment on CGC anymore. I have philosophical issues with moderators that are not honorable. It is a waste of my time.
|
|
|
Post by Buzzetta on Feb 12, 2021 18:26:15 GMT -8
It's more complicated than that. And I did not know it was locked until this morning as I walked away from it. Pernts were awarded. I do not know what is more complicated, or what you are referring to. I did not claim or comment when you knew or not about it, and do not care about the points award game. I was only aware because of Tup. He is correct. The rest does not interest me. I do not care to comment on CGC anymore. I have philosophical issues with moderators that are not honorable. It is a waste of my time. I was specifically talking about the aspect.
|
|
|
Post by Buzzetta on Feb 12, 2021 19:00:41 GMT -8
And again, what Gina said, she was told to stop posting anything controversial or take a break from Social Media by her boss since it was a reflection on the company. They tell you that when you work for Disney on any level. As I said, it was not a matter of this one comment. This comment in itself was really not a horrible comment. BUT, when you take everything else she said and did, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. She was warned by the mouse to stop. She decided to walk close to the line and they had enough. Now will she work for Disney in another capacity sometime down the road? Anything is possible because of... 'money'. But, I asked a friend I worked with 25 years ago who still works for Disney today and they said that the rules are still the same. If you do things like she is doing you get well wished on your future endeavors. So in summary it was not this isolated comment that did her in. It was a culmination of everything else. I will start by acknowledging your post is responding to roy. I respond only because his post was a reply to mine. What you state is factual. My position is that it is selective nullification by Disney. the corporate arm(s) of Disney have not been aggressive with equal treatment toward other employees/contractors. Disney decided on what political position it would allow to, as you state, present a reflection on the company. Disney has come to the conclusion that support of a position of conservative thought and allowance of same is not in their interest. The same rule has not been equally enforced on employees of a less than conservative leaning, and Disney has encouraged same, and Disney executives have actively supported political activities of non-conservative activists/candidates, and to paint an image of Disney neutrality is not factual. I don't care about what political leaning a person has. I care about not being equal in treatment of any rules. Yes, an employer has the absolute right and authority to set the rules and hire and fire accordingly. It may not be on a fair basis, and it is certainly their right to be unfair regarding what Disney perceives to be in their interest or not, at any given period of time or subject. There lies my disappointment. Disney should not make employee decisions or be involved in any manner with politics, especially at the executive level, and the executive level should held to the same standard as their demand of employees. Justifying the action because social media considers her continuing conservative comments are a bridge to far, is a strawman argument, because Disney knows and more importantly knew exactly what they were getting with her, and it was no under the table secret Sunday revelation. Disney is allowing social media to dictate their persona, and operating agenda, instead of being honest about their own involvement with the exact pursuit they are firing her for. As much as you may dismiss the choice of definition of "cancel culture", it exists, and does more harm and does more to prevent unity than any other method of social aggression. It is blackmail without the cash demand. To use another example, it is revealing who gave how much this week during collection, with a goal of embarrassing the cheapo catholics into compliance of the 10% tithe. i fought that tooth and nail. It is negation without cause, and is cancel culture of the worse kind. Oh, I wrote that with the idea that both or either of you would write back. Disney has a storied history of dismissing people for infractions that are clearly laid out in their condition of work. Now you may disagree where their threshold is but it is there. There are non-political infractions. For example, if castmembers were caught in the opposite gender dorms after a certain time you get dismissed and have to get yourself back home on your own dime. If castmembers bring non-castmembers back to the dorms, out you go. Then there is what you consider political angles. I don't know if you know the more complete picture of the backstory so if you do, excuse all of this. The major issue that I believe (from experience of working with them and my relationship with someone that still does) is that Gina made the comments about transgender people and then decided to taunt those who called her out on it by adding pronouns to her name, "Beep, Boop, Bop". Now, in between those events or after them, Pedro Pascal got in touch with her to explain why that was offensive as his sibling is transgender. Now if Pedro got in touch with her before she made the 'beep boop bop' post then that was a slap in the face to the main star of the TV show you are on. Probably not a good idea. Either way, reports circulated that Disney gave her an ultimatum after the transgender comments and the "beep boop bop post" with that ultimatum basically being, "Stop posting stupid stuff on the internet." I can assure you that if Gina was a regular person working Space Mountain, she would have been dismissed upon discovery of the transgender comment. Now, some confuse the idea of tolerance to be a political stance. This is no longer 1950. If you cannot have tolerance of someone else's born attributes then there is no room for you at the table. That's not a political statement. Now, you have made public mention that you have a Vietnamese wife. I am not a fan of people "doxing" others or calling forth their personal lives in a disagreement, so hopefully you see this for what it is, which is a discussion. In your neighboring state of Virginia they ratified the Racial Integrity Law in 1924 prohibiting caucasians from marrying anyone of Asian decent. This was on the books until 1967. While the law targeted African Americans, it also included Asians within the context of the law. Let's both be realistic. How disgusting is that? That's not a Conservative mindset that is an anti-human one. Those that cling to anything less than tolerance of what people do behind closed doors that does not cause harm to others are clinging to an archaic mindset where there is no longer any room for them at the proverbial table. Disney continues to do business with James Wood as he continues to voice his role as Hades in subsequent Hercules projects. He is a poster boy for Hollywood conservatism. However, many of these companies are drawing a line in the sand when it comes to tolerance of others birth attributes.
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Feb 13, 2021 8:08:25 GMT -8
Thanks for stopping by Buzz. This board needs more posters like you.
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Feb 13, 2021 8:10:36 GMT -8
It's more complicated than that. And I did not know it was locked until this morning as I walked away from it. Pernts were awarded. I do not know what is more complicated, or what you are referring to. I did not claim or comment when you knew or not about it, and do not care about the points award game. I was only aware because of Tup. He is correct. The rest does not interest me. I do not care to comment on CGC anymore. I have philosophical issues with moderators that are not honorable. It is a waste of my time.
|
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Feb 13, 2021 8:39:35 GMT -8
I will start by acknowledging your post is responding to roy. I respond only because his post was a reply to mine. What you state is factual. My position is that it is selective nullification by Disney. the corporate arm(s) of Disney have not been aggressive with equal treatment toward other employees/contractors. Disney decided on what political position it would allow to, as you state, present a reflection on the company. Disney has come to the conclusion that support of a position of conservative thought and allowance of same is not in their interest. The same rule has not been equally enforced on employees of a less than conservative leaning, and Disney has encouraged same, and Disney executives have actively supported political activities of non-conservative activists/candidates, and to paint an image of Disney neutrality is not factual. I don't care about what political leaning a person has. I care about not being equal in treatment of any rules. Yes, an employer has the absolute right and authority to set the rules and hire and fire accordingly. It may not be on a fair basis, and it is certainly their right to be unfair regarding what Disney perceives to be in their interest or not, at any given period of time or subject. There lies my disappointment. Disney should not make employee decisions or be involved in any manner with politics, especially at the executive level, and the executive level should held to the same standard as their demand of employees. Justifying the action because social media considers her continuing conservative comments are a bridge to far, is a strawman argument, because Disney knows and more importantly knew exactly what they were getting with her, and it was no under the table secret Sunday revelation. Disney is allowing social media to dictate their persona, and operating agenda, instead of being honest about their own involvement with the exact pursuit they are firing her for. As much as you may dismiss the choice of definition of "cancel culture", it exists, and does more harm and does more to prevent unity than any other method of social aggression. It is blackmail without the cash demand. To use another example, it is revealing who gave how much this week during collection, with a goal of embarrassing the cheapo catholics into compliance of the 10% tithe. i fought that tooth and nail. It is negation without cause, and is cancel culture of the worse kind. Oh, I wrote that with the idea that both or either of you would write back. Disney has a storied history of dismissing people for infractions that are clearly laid out in their condition of work. Now you may disagree where their threshold is but it is there. There are non-political infractions. For example, if castmembers were caught in the opposite gender dorms after a certain time you get dismissed and have to get yourself back home on your own dime. If castmembers bring non-castmembers back to the dorms, out you go. Then there is what you consider political angles. I don't know if you know the more complete picture of the backstory so if you do, excuse all of this. The major issue that I believe (from experience of working with them and my relationship with someone that still does) is that Gina made the comments about transgender people and then decided to taunt those who called her out on it by adding pronouns to her name, "Beep, Boop, Bop". Now, in between those events or after them, Pedro Pascal got in touch with her to explain why that was offensive as his sibling is transgender. Now if Pedro got in touch with her before she made the 'beep boop bop' post then that was a slap in the face to the main star of the TV show you are on. Probably not a good idea. Either way, reports circulated that Disney gave her an ultimatum after the transgender comments and the "beep boop bop post" with that ultimatum basically being, "Stop posting stupid stuff on the internet." I can assure you that if Gina was a regular person working Space Mountain, she would have been dismissed upon discovery of the transgender comment. Now, some confuse the idea of tolerance to be a political stance. This is no longer 1950. If you cannot have tolerance of someone else's born attributes then there is no room for you at the table. That's not a political statement. Now, you have made public mention that you have a Vietnamese wife. I am not a fan of people "doxing" others or calling forth their personal lives in a disagreement, so hopefully you see this for what it is, which is a discussion. In your neighboring state of Virginia they ratified the Racial Integrity Law in 1924 prohibiting caucasians from marrying anyone of Asian decent. This was on the books until 1967. While the law targeted African Americans, it also included Asians within the context of the law. Let's both be realistic. How disgusting is that? That's not a Conservative mindset that is an anti-human one. Those that cling to anything less than tolerance of what people do behind closed doors that does not cause harm to others are clinging to an archaic mindset where there is no longer any room for them at the proverbial table. Disney continues to do business with James Wood as he continues to voice his role as Hades in subsequent Hercules projects. He is a poster boy for Hollywood conservatism. However, many of these companies are drawing a line in the sand when it comes to tolerance of others birth attributes. An interesting discussion. i concur with your thoughts and comments in general. The position I do not concur with, and you did not address, is when an entity applies standards of conduct as part of a business model, but is selective as to how it is applied. I think you have mentioned being an employee of Disney in your personal life experiences. You followed the rules. The position I refer to is, and the point of my commentary and discussion points is and are, again....when an entity demands a level of behavior...for any purpose, be it the economical considerations, political considerations, tolerance for others, as just a few categories for consideration..... and does not apply the standards to employees equally, at any level of the employment spectrum or corporate relationships, up to and including the CEO, The Board members, the investment advisors, executives and/or those individuals that Disney considers valuable and talented and economic assets, then I do not condone the inequality and lack of honor. I interpret such lowering of standards selectively as a form of disrespect toward other employees and contractors. I think you interpret my thoughts as a left or right or liberal political evaluation. That is not correct. I don't know the exact count of how many times I have stated on any forum I was, and am, a commenter, that I just don't care about such positions. It is simply a tool of control and division and dismissal used by people. I do not confuse tolerance with political stance. The 2 can not be combined in any rational conversation, because of the exact word you use: stance. I take none, in the political spectrum. I note your comment, that it is no longer 1950. No, it is not. Generations change society and always have and always will. You have mentioned this old vs. young position before in discussion and commentary and have done so in a manner that could be considered negation of older generations as relevant in the modern" world. That is an idea of separation of society that has always confused me, in any discussion or debate. I don't find it particularly persuasive, and certainly not applicable to the idea of equity of all persons by any entity that establishes standards of behavior, and does not equally exercise the enforcement of the created standards. Concerning the Racial Integrity law, and the SCOTUS undoing of same, I am very surprised that you would assume I am not familiar with it and thus needed to be informed. How you make a bridge from this example of Racism to Conservatism to selective and non-equal application by an entity of the rules enacted by the entity, confuses me. As happens often in discussions, the subject and position changes, and i assume your intent by using this example is to link tolerance and politics to the position I have stated....unequal behavior in application of the rules an entity establishes. Not at all. I don't think you would be so condescending that you are suggesting I am racist, or clinging to some archaic notion of intolerance and/or bedroom peeping. If it even crosses your mind, that these are my opinions, we would not have anything to discuss further. A slight correction: my spouse...in every sense and meaning that the word conveys.... is not Vietnamese, nor have I ever in my lifetime publicly stated this. My spouse is South Korean by birth and early life. She is first and foremost a U.S. Citizen, and will tell you so rather forcefully, and waited 5 years to achieve what she often describes to this day as a proud honor, and is very proud that to achieve that honor, she had to be personally interviewed by a Federal Judge in the Federal Courthouse in Baltimore. MD., and be tested concerning her knowledge of the Constitution, her knowledge of the past and present (at that time) Potus, her knowledge of the Founding Fathers, and the years of the war for independence and the date of the foundation of the Federal Republic, and incidentally, the State names. She was also questioned about cooking traditional food, apple pie, hamburgers, hot dogs mashed potatoes, etc. She had to have 3 independent witnesses that were not family members testify before the Judge concerning her character. That is how it was done back then. Not now, I know, but back then it was the norm. Her earliest personal memory of the U.S., is of a U.S. Army soldier, stopping and giving her a candy bar and a handful of hard candy, while she and her family were fleeing from communist soldiers, and being protected by U.S. soldiers while the South Koreans were in a forced long march from Seoul to Inchon. To this day, whenever she passes a candy store, she searches for the exact kind of hard candy she was given by that G.I. She is Asian. I am the product of Irish immigrants, and I am 2nd generation, and born and raised in my early life in NY. Do you think I am not aware of prejudice and racist hate, or that I am tolerant of same? Do generations change? Absolutely. Are people creatures of their life experience? Absolutely. Do the life experiences of a person from a certain generation translate into a category that is automatically branded by other generations? Absolutely. None of those personal observations serve to change the position I presented.... the unequal application of rules of standards of behavior established by an entity. Your life experiences can never be experienced by me, and my life experiences can never be experienced by you. That limitation does not prevent discussion. If anyone reading our discussion has a thought or comment concerning the discussion, I welcome it, and do not consider it as trolling or interfering, in case it was on the reader's mind.
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Feb 13, 2021 9:54:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Buzzetta on Feb 13, 2021 12:29:31 GMT -8
Oh, I wrote that with the idea that both or either of you would write back. Disney has a storied history of dismissing people for infractions that are clearly laid out in their condition of work. Now you may disagree where their threshold is but it is there. There are non-political infractions. For example, if castmembers were caught in the opposite gender dorms after a certain time you get dismissed and have to get yourself back home on your own dime. If castmembers bring non-castmembers back to the dorms, out you go. Then there is what you consider political angles. I don't know if you know the more complete picture of the backstory so if you do, excuse all of this. The major issue that I believe (from experience of working with them and my relationship with someone that still does) is that Gina made the comments about transgender people and then decided to taunt those who called her out on it by adding pronouns to her name, "Beep, Boop, Bop". Now, in between those events or after them, Pedro Pascal got in touch with her to explain why that was offensive as his sibling is transgender. Now if Pedro got in touch with her before she made the 'beep boop bop' post then that was a slap in the face to the main star of the TV show you are on. Probably not a good idea. Either way, reports circulated that Disney gave her an ultimatum after the transgender comments and the "beep boop bop post" with that ultimatum basically being, "Stop posting stupid stuff on the internet." I can assure you that if Gina was a regular person working Space Mountain, she would have been dismissed upon discovery of the transgender comment. Now, some confuse the idea of tolerance to be a political stance. This is no longer 1950. If you cannot have tolerance of someone else's born attributes then there is no room for you at the table. That's not a political statement. Now, you have made public mention that you have a Vietnamese wife. I am not a fan of people "doxing" others or calling forth their personal lives in a disagreement, so hopefully you see this for what it is, which is a discussion. In your neighboring state of Virginia they ratified the Racial Integrity Law in 1924 prohibiting caucasians from marrying anyone of Asian decent. This was on the books until 1967. While the law targeted African Americans, it also included Asians within the context of the law. Let's both be realistic. How disgusting is that? That's not a Conservative mindset that is an anti-human one. Those that cling to anything less than tolerance of what people do behind closed doors that does not cause harm to others are clinging to an archaic mindset where there is no longer any room for them at the proverbial table. Disney continues to do business with James Wood as he continues to voice his role as Hades in subsequent Hercules projects. He is a poster boy for Hollywood conservatism. However, many of these companies are drawing a line in the sand when it comes to tolerance of others birth attributes. An interesting discussion. i concur with your thoughts and comments in general. The position I do not concur with, and you did not address, is when an entity applies standards of conduct as part of a business model, but is selective as to how it is applied. I think you have mentioned being an employee of Disney in your personal life experiences. You followed the rules. The position I refer to is, and the point of my commentary and discussion points is and are, again....when an entity demands a level of behavior...for any purpose, be it the economical considerations, political considerations, tolerance for others, as just a few categories for consideration..... and does not apply the standards to employees equally, at any level of the employment spectrum or corporate relationships, up to and including the CEO, The Board members, the investment advisors, executives and/or those individuals that Disney considers valuable and talented and economic assets, then I do not condone the inequality and lack of honor. I interpret such lowering of standards selectively as a form of disrespect toward other employees and contractors. I think you interpret my thoughts as a left or right or liberal political evaluation. That is not correct. I don't know the exact count of how many times I have stated on any forum I was, and am, a commenter, that I just don't care about such positions. It is simply a tool of control and division and dismissal used by people. I do not confuse tolerance with political stance. The 2 can not be combined in any rational conversation, because of the exact word you use: stance. I take none, in the political spectrum. I note your comment, that it is no longer 1950. No, it is not. Generations change society and always have and always will. You have mentioned this old vs. young position before in discussion and commentary and have done so in a manner that could be considered negation of older generations as relevant in the modern" world. That is an idea of separation of society that has always confused me, in any discussion or debate. I don't find it particularly persuasive, and certainly not applicable to the idea of equity of all persons by any entity that establishes standards of behavior, and does not equally exercise the enforcement of the created standards. Concerning the Racial Integrity law, and the SCOTUS undoing of same, I am very surprised that you would assume I am not familiar with it and thus needed to be informed. How you make a bridge from this example of Racism to Conservatism to selective and non-equal application by an entity of the rules enacted by the entity, confuses me. As happens often in discussions, the subject and position changes, and i assume your intent by using this example is to link tolerance and politics to the position I have stated....unequal behavior in application of the rules an entity establishes. Not at all. I don't think you would be so condescending that you are suggesting I am racist, or clinging to some archaic notion of intolerance and/or bedroom peeping. If it even crosses your mind, that these are my opinions, we would not have anything to discuss further. A slight correction: my spouse...in every sense and meaning that the word conveys.... is not Vietnamese, nor have I ever in my lifetime publicly stated this. My spouse is South Korean by birth and early life. She is first and foremost a U.S. Citizen, and will tell you so rather forcefully, and waited 5 years to achieve what she often describes to this day as a proud honor, and is very proud that to achieve that honor, she had to be personally interviewed by a Federal Judge in the Federal Courthouse in Baltimore. MD., and be tested concerning her knowledge of the Constitution, her knowledge of the past and present (at that time) Potus, her knowledge of the Founding Fathers, and the years of the war for independence and the date of the foundation of the Federal Republic, and incidentally, the State names. She was also questioned about cooking traditional food, apple pie, hamburgers, hot dogs mashed potatoes, etc. She had to have 3 independent witnesses that were not family members testify before the Judge concerning her character. That is how it was done back then. Not now, I know, but back then it was the norm. Her earliest personal memory of the U.S., is of a U.S. Army soldier, stopping and giving her a candy bar and a handful of hard candy, while she and her family were fleeing from communist soldiers, and being protected by U.S. soldiers while the South Koreans were in a forced long march from Seoul to Inchon. To this day, whenever she passes a candy store, she searches for the exact kind of hard candy she was given by that G.I. She is Asian. I am the product of Irish immigrants, and I am 2nd generation, and born and raised in my early life in NY. Do you think I am not aware of prejudice and racist hate, or that I am tolerant of same? Do generations change? Absolutely. Are people creatures of their life experience? Absolutely. Do the life experiences of a person from a certain generation translate into a category that is automatically branded by other generations? Absolutely. None of those personal observations serve to change the position I presented.... the unequal application of rules of standards of behavior established by an entity. Your life experiences can never be experienced by me, and my life experiences can never be experienced by you. That limitation does not prevent discussion. If anyone reading our discussion has a thought or comment concerning the discussion, I welcome it, and do not consider it as trolling or interfering, in case it was on the reader's mind. Again then you are not understanding or refuse to understand the situation. Her contract was not renewed not because of this incident but a culmination of incidents with the apex being that of making fun of and taunting transgender individuals. It was not her 'politics'. I think what she was actually let go over and what she wants to make it out to be are two different things. BTW... I realized something... did you get yourself suspended again? Because you responded here and not there...
|
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Feb 13, 2021 13:30:19 GMT -8
An interesting discussion. i concur with your thoughts and comments in general. The position I do not concur with, and you did not address, is when an entity applies standards of conduct as part of a business model, but is selective as to how it is applied. I think you have mentioned being an employee of Disney in your personal life experiences. You followed the rules. The position I refer to is, and the point of my commentary and discussion points is and are, again....when an entity demands a level of behavior...for any purpose, be it the economical considerations, political considerations, tolerance for others, as just a few categories for consideration..... and does not apply the standards to employees equally, at any level of the employment spectrum or corporate relationships, up to and including the CEO, The Board members, the investment advisors, executives and/or those individuals that Disney considers valuable and talented and economic assets, then I do not condone the inequality and lack of honor. I interpret such lowering of standards selectively as a form of disrespect toward other employees and contractors. I think you interpret my thoughts as a left or right or liberal political evaluation. That is not correct. I don't know the exact count of how many times I have stated on any forum I was, and am, a commenter, that I just don't care about such positions. It is simply a tool of control and division and dismissal used by people. I do not confuse tolerance with political stance. The 2 can not be combined in any rational conversation, because of the exact word you use: stance. I take none, in the political spectrum. I note your comment, that it is no longer 1950. No, it is not. Generations change society and always have and always will. You have mentioned this old vs. young position before in discussion and commentary and have done so in a manner that could be considered negation of older generations as relevant in the modern" world. That is an idea of separation of society that has always confused me, in any discussion or debate. I don't find it particularly persuasive, and certainly not applicable to the idea of equity of all persons by any entity that establishes standards of behavior, and does not equally exercise the enforcement of the created standards. Concerning the Racial Integrity law, and the SCOTUS undoing of same, I am very surprised that you would assume I am not familiar with it and thus needed to be informed. How you make a bridge from this example of Racism to Conservatism to selective and non-equal application by an entity of the rules enacted by the entity, confuses me. As happens often in discussions, the subject and position changes, and i assume your intent by using this example is to link tolerance and politics to the position I have stated....unequal behavior in application of the rules an entity establishes. Not at all. I don't think you would be so condescending that you are suggesting I am racist, or clinging to some archaic notion of intolerance and/or bedroom peeping. If it even crosses your mind, that these are my opinions, we would not have anything to discuss further. A slight correction: my spouse...in every sense and meaning that the word conveys.... is not Vietnamese, nor have I ever in my lifetime publicly stated this. My spouse is South Korean by birth and early life. She is first and foremost a U.S. Citizen, and will tell you so rather forcefully, and waited 5 years to achieve what she often describes to this day as a proud honor, and is very proud that to achieve that honor, she had to be personally interviewed by a Federal Judge in the Federal Courthouse in Baltimore. MD., and be tested concerning her knowledge of the Constitution, her knowledge of the past and present (at that time) Potus, her knowledge of the Founding Fathers, and the years of the war for independence and the date of the foundation of the Federal Republic, and incidentally, the State names. She was also questioned about cooking traditional food, apple pie, hamburgers, hot dogs mashed potatoes, etc. She had to have 3 independent witnesses that were not family members testify before the Judge concerning her character. That is how it was done back then. Not now, I know, but back then it was the norm. Her earliest personal memory of the U.S., is of a U.S. Army soldier, stopping and giving her a candy bar and a handful of hard candy, while she and her family were fleeing from communist soldiers, and being protected by U.S. soldiers while the South Koreans were in a forced long march from Seoul to Inchon. To this day, whenever she passes a candy store, she searches for the exact kind of hard candy she was given by that G.I. She is Asian. I am the product of Irish immigrants, and I am 2nd generation, and born and raised in my early life in NY. Do you think I am not aware of prejudice and racist hate, or that I am tolerant of same? Do generations change? Absolutely. Are people creatures of their life experience? Absolutely. Do the life experiences of a person from a certain generation translate into a category that is automatically branded by other generations? Absolutely. None of those personal observations serve to change the position I presented.... the unequal application of rules of standards of behavior established by an entity. Your life experiences can never be experienced by me, and my life experiences can never be experienced by you. That limitation does not prevent discussion. If anyone reading our discussion has a thought or comment concerning the discussion, I welcome it, and do not consider it as trolling or interfering, in case it was on the reader's mind. Again then you are not understanding or refuse to understand the situation. Her contract was not renewed not because of this incident but a culmination of incidents with the apex being that of making fun of and taunting transgender individuals. It was not her 'politics'. I think what she was actually let go over and what she wants to make it out to be are two different things. BTW... I realized something... did you get yourself suspended again? Because you responded here and not there... I completely understand your position, and I completely understand the point of your comments. It is simply that you are not understanding my position of equal application of standards instituted by an entity. You are quite intelligent. You don't want to address that position, even after repeating it 5 times. I can not change your assumption of my position, and attempt to interpret it as something it is not, nor can I make the position more clear. I agreed in general with your comments, 2 times. I am not and did not claim it was politics. I stated quite the opposite. I hope you are not intentionally refusing to misunderstand my position. That is not discussion. That is negation, and dismissal. Nothing will change. I don't want to assume you are deliberately doing so on purpose and interpreting incorrectly just to provoke a silly argument. But, I do wonder. I read your comment concerning my selecting a sad emoji in the thread. You quickly assumed my disagreement with your post. To the contrary, I agree, and it is sad to me that a person does as you stated. Do you not understand, now for the third time, that I agree? Would you be happy if I selected a trophy or heart emoji? I won't because it is sad that the situation had to conclude in the manner it did. But, that is not the issue I have discussed. You invited me to respond instead of posting an emoji. Three days ago, I stated I will not be commenting or posting anymore in the CGC. If it pleases you, I will not use emojis anymore. My reasons for not posting comments anymore have been stated. I was interested in your thoughts and comments on the rest of my post in this discussion. You have chosen not to, so that does not leave anymore discussion points for exchange of ideas on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by Buzzetta on Feb 13, 2021 13:35:05 GMT -8
Again then you are not understanding or refuse to understand the situation. Her contract was not renewed not because of this incident but a culmination of incidents with the apex being that of making fun of and taunting transgender individuals. It was not her 'politics'. I think what she was actually let go over and what she wants to make it out to be are two different things. BTW... I realized something... did you get yourself suspended again? Because you responded here and not there... I completely understand your position, and I completely understand the point of your comments. It is simply that you are not understanding my position of equal application of standards instituted by an entity. You are quite intelligent. You don't want to address that position, even after repeating it 5 times. I can not change your assumption of my position, and attempt to interpret it as something it is not, nor can I make the position more clear. I agreed in general with your comments, 2 times. I am not and did not claim it was politics. I stated quite the opposite. I hope you are not intentionally refusing to misunderstand my position. That is not discussion. That is negation, and dismissal. Nothing will change. I don't want to assume you are deliberately doing so on purpose and interpreting incorrectly just to provoke a silly argument. But, I do wonder. I read your comment concerning my selecting a sad emoji in the thread. You quickly assumed my disagreement with your post. To the contrary, I agree, and it is sad to me that a person does as you stated. Do you not understand, now for the third time, that I agree? Would you be happy if I selected a trophy or heart emoji? I won't because it is sad that the situation had to conclude in the manner it did. But, that is not the issue I have discussed. You invited me to respond instead of posting an emoji. Three days ago, I stated I will not be commenting or posting anymore in the CGC. If it pleases you, I will not use emojis anymore. My reasons for not posting comments anymore have been stated. I was interested in your thoughts and comments on the rest of my post in this discussion. You have chosen not to, so that does not leave anymore discussion points for exchange of ideas on the subject. Your argument falls flat because it is based on inequitable treatment. However, I do not believe that your argument is based on the facts of Gina Carano but on the experiences you feel others have had. I readily admit that "emoji speak" for lack of a better word can often be misinterpreted. If I misinterpreted it, then that is on me and I was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Buzzetta on Feb 13, 2021 13:47:59 GMT -8
And as expected acquitted. Were his words dangerous ? Yes Were his words misleading if not lies? Yes Were his words directly responsible for causing the riot? 57 - 43 felt they were but not enough to convict. However, the one thing that troubles me in the idea that some were trying to claim that the impeachment charge in of itself was unconstitutional. If that had become a precedent then that could cause serious ripples down the line. It COULD have meant that a departing president bares no responsibility from 1st Wednesday of November until January 20th at 12:01 PM. It COULD have meant that questions would arise of the Presidency in general as far as the lawfulness of policy created by that President from the 1st Wednesday of November until January 20th at 12:01 PM. I do see this as doing longterm harm to the Republican Party as it fractures over the cult of Trump which is a shame. I can at least say I saw the writing on the wall in early 2017 as to what a show this would be for four years and quickly registered as an Independent. In the meantime I hope he eats as many heart attack inducing hamburgers as he wants, hoping he strokes out and ends up in a human shell of a wheelchair bound prison. And before people say that liberals are violent, sorry there kiddies. I am a Brooklyn born Italian American. I wish people death on Christmas for cutting us off in traffic. BTW: Hopes, and dreams are covered by 1st Amendment protection as they are figurative wishes and not overt directives or persuasive gestures for others to come to arms against a target.
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Feb 13, 2021 13:54:27 GMT -8
Again then you are not understanding or refuse to understand the situation. Her contract was not renewed not because of this incident but a culmination of incidents with the apex being that of making fun of and taunting transgender individuals. It was not her 'politics'. I think what she was actually let go over and what she wants to make it out to be are two different things. BTW... I realized something... did you get yourself suspended again? Because you responded here and not there... I completely understand your position, and I completely understand the point of your comments. It is simply that you are not understanding my position of equal application of standards instituted by an entity. You are quite intelligent. You don't want to address that position, even after repeating it 5 times. I can not change your assumption of my position, and attempt to interpret it as something it is not, nor can I make the position more clear. I agreed in general with your comments, 2 times. I am not and did not claim it was politics. I stated quite the opposite. I hope you are not intentionally refusing to misunderstand my position. That is not discussion. That is negation, and dismissal. Nothing will change. I don't want to assume you are deliberately doing so on purpose and interpreting incorrectly just to provoke a silly argument. But, I do wonder. I read your comment concerning my selecting a sad emoji in the thread. You quickly assumed my disagreement with your post. To the contrary, I agree, and it is sad to me that a person does as you stated. Do you not understand, now for the third time, that I agree? Would you be happy if I selected a trophy or heart emoji? I won't because it is sad that the situation had to conclude in the manner it did. But, that is not the issue I have discussed. You invited me to respond instead of posting an emoji. Three days ago, I stated I will not be commenting or posting anymore in the CGC. If it pleases you, I will not use emojis anymore. My reasons for not posting comments anymore have been stated. I was interested in your thoughts and comments on the rest of my post in this discussion. You have chosen not to, so that does not leave anymore discussion points for exchange of ideas on the subject.
|
|