The exTwitters are all in an uproar over Trump's suggestion that the Cleveland
MLB team be renamed back to the Cleveland Indians. One guy who claims to be Navajo posted "This would be better, right?" And the following picture as a kind of "how would you like it if it was done to you?" gotcha toward white people:
https://ibb.co/8DC5CgrB
I was like, you're right, it *is* better!
We should name the team "The Cleveland Whites" and the logo could be a guy in a fedora with a great credit score.
I'd totally support that team.
This reminds me of another such attempt to "teach" white people how horrible it is to have team named after them. Back in the early 2011's, some intramural
basketball team made the news when they named themselves "The Fightin' Whities" to show white people how offensive such things are for others. Instead of offending them, white people loved it and started buying "Fightin' Whities" merchandise in droves. The team eventually had to start putting social justice disclaimers on the jerseys and t-shirts (while still selling them, of course, they wouldn't say no to the $$$) to keep white people from using them for purposes of racial pride.
I love it when social justice stunts blow up in the faces of 'progressives' like that.
The exTwitters are all in an uproar over Trump's suggestion that the Cleveland >MLB team be renamed back to the Cleveland Indians. One guy who claims to be >Navajo posted "This would be better, right?" And the following picture as a >kind of "how would you like it if it was done to you?" gotcha toward white >people:
https://ibb.co/8DC5CgrB
I was like, you're right, it *is* better!
We should name the team "The Cleveland Whites" and the logo could be a guy in >a fedora with a great credit score.
I'd totally support that team.
This reminds me of another such attempt to "teach" white people how horrible >it is to have team named after them. Back in the early 2011's, some intramural >basketball team made the news when they named themselves "The Fightin' >Whities" to show white people how offensive such things are for others. >Instead of offending them, white people loved it and started buying "Fightin' >Whities" merchandise in droves. The team eventually had to start putting >social justice disclaimers on the jerseys and t-shirts (while still selling >them, of course, they wouldn't say no to the $$$) to keep white people from >using them for purposes of racial pride.
I love it when social justice stunts blow up in the faces of 'progressives' >like that.
On 7/24/2025 4:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
The exTwitters are all in an uproar over Trump's suggestion that the
Cleveland
MLB team be renamed back to the Cleveland Indians. One guy who claims
to be
Navajo posted "This would be better, right?" And the following picture
as a
kind of "how would you like it if it was done to you?" gotcha toward
white
people:
https://ibb.co/8DC5CgrB
I was like, you're right, it *is* better!
We should name the team "The Cleveland Whites" and the logo could be a
guy in
a fedora with a great credit score.
I'd totally support that team.
This reminds me of another such attempt to "teach" white people how
horrible
it is to have team named after them. Back in the early 2011's, some
intramural
basketball team made the news when they named themselves "The Fightin'
Whities" to show white people how offensive such things are for others.
Instead of offending them, white people loved it and started buying
"Fightin'
Whities" merchandise in droves. The team eventually had to start putting
social justice disclaimers on the jerseys and t-shirts (while still
selling
them, of course, they wouldn't say no to the $$$) to keep white people
from
using them for purposes of racial pride.
I love it when social justice stunts blow up in the faces of
'progressives'
like that.
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten over it.
On 7/24/2025 6:11 PM, Rhino wrote:
On 2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 7/24/2025 4:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and
The exTwitters are all in an uproar over Trump's suggestion that the
Cleveland
MLB team be renamed back to the Cleveland Indians. One guy who claims
to be
Navajo posted "This would be better, right?" And the following
picture as a
kind of "how would you like it if it was done to you?" gotcha toward
white
people:
https://ibb.co/8DC5CgrB
I was like, you're right, it *is* better!
We should name the team "The Cleveland Whites" and the logo could be
a guy in
a fedora with a great credit score.
I'd totally support that team.
This reminds me of another such attempt to "teach" white people how
horrible
it is to have team named after them. Back in the early 2011's, some
intramural
basketball team made the news when they named themselves "The Fightin' >>>> Whities" to show white people how offensive such things are for others. >>>> Instead of offending them, white people loved it and started buying
"Fightin'
Whities" merchandise in droves. The team eventually had to start putting >>>> social justice disclaimers on the jerseys and t-shirts (while still
selling
them, of course, they wouldn't say no to the $$$) to keep white
people from
using them for purposes of racial pride.
I love it when social justice stunts blow up in the faces of
'progressives'
like that.
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten over it. >>>
that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the
1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
I mean that it's an atrocious part of our past that lingers in memory
even generations removed. And that's why there's no "correct" attitude
that connects to it even distantly. The air is poisoned.
On 2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 7/24/2025 4:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and
The exTwitters are all in an uproar over Trump's suggestion that the
Cleveland
MLB team be renamed back to the Cleveland Indians. One guy who claims
to be
Navajo posted "This would be better, right?" And the following
picture as a
kind of "how would you like it if it was done to you?" gotcha toward
white
people:
https://ibb.co/8DC5CgrB
I was like, you're right, it *is* better!
We should name the team "The Cleveland Whites" and the logo could be
a guy in
a fedora with a great credit score.
I'd totally support that team.
This reminds me of another such attempt to "teach" white people how
horrible
it is to have team named after them. Back in the early 2011's, some
intramural
basketball team made the news when they named themselves "The Fightin'
Whities" to show white people how offensive such things are for others.
Instead of offending them, white people loved it and started buying
"Fightin'
Whities" merchandise in droves. The team eventually had to start putting >>> social justice disclaimers on the jerseys and t-shirts (while still
selling
them, of course, they wouldn't say no to the $$$) to keep white
people from
using them for purposes of racial pride.
I love it when social justice stunts blow up in the faces of
'progressives'
like that.
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten over it.
that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the
1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:24:36 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 7/24/2025 6:11 PM, Rhino wrote:
On 2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 7/24/2025 4:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and
The exTwitters are all in an uproar over Trump's suggestion that the >>>>> Cleveland
MLB team be renamed back to the Cleveland Indians. One guy who claims >>>>> to be
Navajo posted "This would be better, right?" And the following
picture as a
kind of "how would you like it if it was done to you?" gotcha toward >>>>> white
people:
https://ibb.co/8DC5CgrB
I was like, you're right, it *is* better!
We should name the team "The Cleveland Whites" and the logo could be >>>>> a guy in
a fedora with a great credit score.
I'd totally support that team.
This reminds me of another such attempt to "teach" white people how
horrible
it is to have team named after them. Back in the early 2011's, some
intramural
basketball team made the news when they named themselves "The Fightin' >>>>> Whities" to show white people how offensive such things are for others. >>>>> Instead of offending them, white people loved it and started buying
"Fightin'
Whities" merchandise in droves. The team eventually had to start putting >>>>> social justice disclaimers on the jerseys and t-shirts (while still
selling
them, of course, they wouldn't say no to the $$$) to keep white
people from
using them for purposes of racial pride.
I love it when social justice stunts blow up in the faces of
'progressives'
like that.
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten over it. >>>>
that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the
1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
I mean that it's an atrocious part of our past that lingers in memory
even generations removed. And that's why there's no "correct" attitude
that connects to it even distantly. The air is poisoned.
So in that case we should only refer to African Americans and never
use the term "blacks" because of that poisoned air.
2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
. . .
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten over it.
Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and
that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the
1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
On 7/24/2025 6:11 PM, Rhino wrote:
On 2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 7/24/2025 4:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and
The exTwitters are all in an uproar over Trump's suggestion that the
Cleveland
MLB team be renamed back to the Cleveland Indians. One guy who
claims to be
Navajo posted "This would be better, right?" And the following
picture as a
kind of "how would you like it if it was done to you?" gotcha toward
white
people:
https://ibb.co/8DC5CgrB
I was like, you're right, it *is* better!
We should name the team "The Cleveland Whites" and the logo could be
a guy in
a fedora with a great credit score.
I'd totally support that team.
This reminds me of another such attempt to "teach" white people how
horrible
it is to have team named after them. Back in the early 2011's, some
intramural
basketball team made the news when they named themselves "The Fightin' >>>> Whities" to show white people how offensive such things are for others. >>>> Instead of offending them, white people loved it and started buying
"Fightin'
Whities" merchandise in droves. The team eventually had to start
putting
social justice disclaimers on the jerseys and t-shirts (while still
selling
them, of course, they wouldn't say no to the $$$) to keep white
people from
using them for purposes of racial pride.
I love it when social justice stunts blow up in the faces of
'progressives'
like that.
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten over it. >>>
that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the
1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
I mean that it's an atrocious part of our past that lingers in memory
even generations removed. And that's why there's no "correct" attitude
that connects to it even distantly. The air is poisoned.
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
. . .
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten over it.
Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and
that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the
1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
Lemme Pigsplain. The root cause of lynchings was offensive names for
sports teams.
On 2025-07-24 6:24 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 7/24/2025 6:11 PM, Rhino wrote:What rubbish you spew! Of course we remember it, the way we remember the Holocaust: because it was horrible. I like to think we remember it so
On 2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 7/24/2025 4:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched
The exTwitters are all in an uproar over Trump's suggestion that
the Cleveland
MLB team be renamed back to the Cleveland Indians. One guy who
claims to be
Navajo posted "This would be better, right?" And the following
picture as a
kind of "how would you like it if it was done to you?" gotcha
toward white
people:
https://ibb.co/8DC5CgrB
I was like, you're right, it *is* better!
We should name the team "The Cleveland Whites" and the logo could
be a guy in
a fedora with a great credit score.
I'd totally support that team.
This reminds me of another such attempt to "teach" white people how
horrible
it is to have team named after them. Back in the early 2011's, some
intramural
basketball team made the news when they named themselves "The Fightin' >>>>> Whities" to show white people how offensive such things are for
others.
Instead of offending them, white people loved it and started buying
"Fightin'
Whities" merchandise in droves. The team eventually had to start
putting
social justice disclaimers on the jerseys and t-shirts (while still
selling
them, of course, they wouldn't say no to the $$$) to keep white
people from
using them for purposes of racial pride.
I love it when social justice stunts blow up in the faces of
'progressives'
like that.
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten over
it.
and that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in
the 1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
I mean that it's an atrocious part of our past that lingers in memory
even generations removed. And that's why there's no "correct"
attitude that connects to it even distantly. The air is poisoned.
that we'll never forget that it was wrong and won't ever do it again. I
think that's a perfectly correct attitude to take to lynchings and Holocausts.
On 7/24/2025 9:55 PM, Rhino wrote:
On 2025-07-24 6:24 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 7/24/2025 6:11 PM, Rhino wrote:What rubbish you spew! Of course we remember it, the way we remember
On 2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 7/24/2025 4:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched
The exTwitters are all in an uproar over Trump's suggestion that
the Cleveland
MLB team be renamed back to the Cleveland Indians. One guy who
claims to be
Navajo posted "This would be better, right?" And the following
picture as a
kind of "how would you like it if it was done to you?" gotcha
toward white
people:
https://ibb.co/8DC5CgrB
I was like, you're right, it *is* better!
We should name the team "The Cleveland Whites" and the logo could
be a guy in
a fedora with a great credit score.
I'd totally support that team.
This reminds me of another such attempt to "teach" white people
how horrible
it is to have team named after them. Back in the early 2011's,
some intramural
basketball team made the news when they named themselves "The
Fightin'
Whities" to show white people how offensive such things are for
others.
Instead of offending them, white people loved it and started
buying "Fightin'
Whities" merchandise in droves. The team eventually had to start
putting
social justice disclaimers on the jerseys and t-shirts (while
still selling
them, of course, they wouldn't say no to the $$$) to keep white
people from
using them for purposes of racial pride.
I love it when social justice stunts blow up in the faces of
'progressives'
like that.
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten
over it.
and that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation
in the 1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
I mean that it's an atrocious part of our past that lingers in memory
even generations removed. And that's why there's no "correct"
attitude that connects to it even distantly. The air is poisoned.
the Holocaust: because it was horrible. I like to think we remember it
so that we'll never forget that it was wrong and won't ever do it
again. I think that's a perfectly correct attitude to take to
lynchings and Holocausts.
My point is that even when we don't remember it we remember it. And it colors and inflames even today's most well-meant discourse.
On 7/24/2025 6:52 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
. . .
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten overDo you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and
it.
that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the
1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
Lemme Pigsplain. The root cause of lynchings was offensive names for
sports teams.
Close. Lynchings are the cause of the offense taken at the names.
The exTwitters are all in an uproar over Trump's suggestion that the Cleveland >MLB team be renamed back to the Cleveland Indians. One guy who claims to be >Navajo posted "This would be better, right?" And the following picture as a >kind of "how would you like it if it was done to you?" gotcha toward white >people:
https://ibb.co/8DC5CgrB
I was like, you're right, it *is* better!
We should name the team "The Cleveland Whites" and the logo could be a guy in >a fedora with a great credit score.
I'd totally support that team.
This reminds me of another such attempt to "teach" white people how horrible >it is to have team named after them. Back in the early 2011's, some intramural >basketball team made the news when they named themselves "The Fightin' >Whities" to show white people how offensive such things are for others. >Instead of offending them, white people loved it and started buying "Fightin' >Whities" merchandise in droves. The team eventually had to start putting >social justice disclaimers on the jerseys and t-shirts (while still selling >them, of course, they wouldn't say no to the $$$) to keep white people from >using them for purposes of racial pride.
I love it when social justice stunts blow up in the faces of 'progressives' >like that.
On 7/24/2025 4:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
The exTwitters are all in an uproar over Trump's suggestion that the Cleveland
MLB team be renamed back to the Cleveland Indians. One guy who claims to be >> Navajo posted "This would be better, right?" And the following picture as a >> kind of "how would you like it if it was done to you?" gotcha toward white >> people:
https://ibb.co/8DC5CgrB
I was like, you're right, it *is* better!
We should name the team "The Cleveland Whites" and the logo could be a guy in
a fedora with a great credit score.
I'd totally support that team.
This reminds me of another such attempt to "teach" white people how horrible >> it is to have team named after them. Back in the early 2011's, some intramural
basketball team made the news when they named themselves "The Fightin'
Whities" to show white people how offensive such things are for others.
Instead of offending them, white people loved it and started buying "Fightin'
Whities" merchandise in droves. The team eventually had to start putting
social justice disclaimers on the jerseys and t-shirts (while still selling >> them, of course, they wouldn't say no to the $$$) to keep white people from >> using them for purposes of racial pride.
I love it when social justice stunts blow up in the faces of 'progressives' >> like that.
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten over it.
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten over it.
Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and
that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the >>1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
Lemme Pigsplain. The root cause of lynchings was offensive names for
sports teams.
On 7/24/2025 6:52 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten over it. >>Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and
that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the
1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
Lemme Pigsplain. The root cause of lynchings was offensive names for
sports teams.
Close. Lynchings are the cause of the offense taken at the names.
On 2025-07-24 10:32 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 7/24/2025 9:55 PM, Rhino wrote:
On 2025-07-24 6:24 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 7/24/2025 6:11 PM, Rhino wrote:
On 2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 7/24/2025 4:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
I love it when social justice stunts blow up in the faces of
'progressives' like that.
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten
over it.
Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched
and that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation
in the 1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
I mean that it's an atrocious part of our past that lingers in memory
even generations removed. And that's why there's no "correct"
attitude that connects to it even distantly. The air is poisoned.
What rubbish you spew! Of course we remember it, the way we remember
the Holocaust: because it was horrible. I like to think we remember it
so that we'll never forget that it was wrong and won't ever do it
again. I think that's a perfectly correct attitude to take to lynchings
and Holocausts.
My point is that even when we don't remember it we remember it. And it
colors and inflames even today's most well-meant discourse.
And how is it colouring the discussion of renaming a baseball team? I'm
not seeing a connection. It just seems like more virtue-signalling from you.
On 2025-07-24 10:32 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 7/24/2025 9:55 PM, Rhino wrote:
On 2025-07-24 6:24 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 7/24/2025 6:11 PM, Rhino wrote:What rubbish you spew! Of course we remember it, the way we
On 2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 7/24/2025 4:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being
The exTwitters are all in an uproar over Trump's
suggestion that the Cleveland MLB team be renamed back
to the Cleveland Indians. One guy who claims to be
Navajo posted "This would be better, right?" And the
following picture as a kind of "how would you like it if
it was done to you?" gotcha toward white people:
https://ibb.co/8DC5CgrB
I was like, you're right, it *is* better!
We should name the team "The Cleveland Whites" and the
logo could be a guy in a fedora with a great credit
score.
I'd totally support that team.
This reminds me of another such attempt to "teach" white
people how horrible it is to have team named after them.
Back in the early 2011's, some intramural basketball
team made the news when they named themselves "The
Fightin' Whities" to show white people how offensive
such things are for others. Instead of offending them,
white people loved it and started buying "Fightin'
Whities" merchandise in droves. The team eventually had
to start putting social justice disclaimers on the
jerseys and t-shirts (while still selling them, of
course, they wouldn't say no to the $$$) to keep white
people from using them for purposes of racial pride.
I love it when social justice stunts blow up in the
faces of 'progressives' like that.
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't
gotten over it.
lynched and that this didn't finally end with the Civil
Rights legislation in the 1960s? How about some links to
prove your point?
I mean that it's an atrocious part of our past that lingers in
memory even generations removed. And that's why there's no
"correct" attitude that connects to it even distantly. The
air is poisoned.
remember the Holocaust: because it was horrible. I like to think
we remember it so that we'll never forget that it was wrong and
won't ever do it again. I think that's a perfectly correct
attitude to take to lynchings and Holocausts.
My point is that even when we don't remember it we remember it.
And it colors and inflames even today's most well-meant discourse.
And how is it colouring the discussion of renaming a baseball team?
I'm not seeing a connection. It just seems like more virtue-
signalling from you.
On 2025-07-24 10:21 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 7/24/2025 6:52 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:Lynchings caused a tiny handful of "activists" - NOT the vast majority
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
. . .
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gottenDo you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and >>>> that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the
over it.
1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
Lemme Pigsplain. The root cause of lynchings was offensive names for
sports teams.
Close. Lynchings are the cause of the offense taken at the names.
of Indians - to take offense at the name of a baseball team? Through
what torturous logic do you come to that conclusion?
2025-07-24 10:21 PM, moviePig wrote:
7/24/2025 6:52 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
. . .
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten over >>>>>it.
Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and >>>>that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the >>>>1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
Lemme Pigsplain. The root cause of lynchings was offensive names for >>>sports teams.
Close. Lynchings are the cause of the offense taken at the names.
Lynchings caused a tiny handful of "activists" - NOT the vast majority
of Indians - to take offense at the name of a baseball team? Through
what torturous logic do you come to that conclusion?
On 2025-07-24 10:21 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 7/24/2025 6:52 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:Lynchings caused a tiny handful of "activists" - NOT the vast majority
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten over >>>>> it.Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and >>>> that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the >>>> 1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
Lemme Pigsplain. The root cause of lynchings was offensive names for
sports teams.
Close. Lynchings are the cause of the offense taken at the names.
of Indians - to take offense at the name of a baseball team? Through
what torturous logic do you come to that conclusion?
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:24:36 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 7/24/2025 6:11 PM, Rhino wrote:
On 2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 7/24/2025 4:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and
The exTwitters are all in an uproar over Trump's suggestion that the >>>>> Cleveland
MLB team be renamed back to the Cleveland Indians. One guy who claims >>>>> to be
Navajo posted "This would be better, right?" And the following
picture as a
kind of "how would you like it if it was done to you?" gotcha toward >>>>> white
people:
https://ibb.co/8DC5CgrB
I was like, you're right, it *is* better!
We should name the team "The Cleveland Whites" and the logo could be >>>>> a guy in
a fedora with a great credit score.
I'd totally support that team.
This reminds me of another such attempt to "teach" white people how
horrible
it is to have team named after them. Back in the early 2011's, some
intramural
basketball team made the news when they named themselves "The Fightin' >>>>> Whities" to show white people how offensive such things are for others. >>>>> Instead of offending them, white people loved it and started buying
"Fightin'
Whities" merchandise in droves. The team eventually had to start putting >>>>> social justice disclaimers on the jerseys and t-shirts (while still
selling
them, of course, they wouldn't say no to the $$$) to keep white
people from
using them for purposes of racial pride.
I love it when social justice stunts blow up in the faces of
'progressives'
like that.
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten over it. >>>>
that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the
1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
I mean that it's an atrocious part of our past that lingers in memory
even generations removed. And that's why there's no "correct" attitude
that connects to it even distantly. The air is poisoned.
So in that case we should only refer to African Americans and never
use the term "blacks" because of that poisoned air.
On 7/24/2025 6:28 PM, shawn wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:24:36 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 7/24/2025 6:11 PM, Rhino wrote:
On 2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 7/24/2025 4:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and >>>> that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the
The exTwitters are all in an uproar over Trump's suggestion that the >>>>>> Cleveland
MLB team be renamed back to the Cleveland Indians. One guy who claims >>>>>> to be
Navajo posted "This would be better, right?" And the following
picture as a
kind of "how would you like it if it was done to you?" gotcha toward >>>>>> white
people:
https://ibb.co/8DC5CgrB
I was like, you're right, it *is* better!
We should name the team "The Cleveland Whites" and the logo could be >>>>>> a guy in
a fedora with a great credit score.
I'd totally support that team.
This reminds me of another such attempt to "teach" white people how >>>>>> horrible
it is to have team named after them. Back in the early 2011's, some >>>>>> intramural
basketball team made the news when they named themselves "The Fightin' >>>>>> Whities" to show white people how offensive such things are for others. >>>>>> Instead of offending them, white people loved it and started buying >>>>>> "Fightin'
Whities" merchandise in droves. The team eventually had to start putting >>>>>> social justice disclaimers on the jerseys and t-shirts (while still >>>>>> selling
them, of course, they wouldn't say no to the $$$) to keep white
people from
using them for purposes of racial pride.
I love it when social justice stunts blow up in the faces of
'progressives'
like that.
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten over it. >>>>>
1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
I mean that it's an atrocious part of our past that lingers in memory
even generations removed. And that's why there's no "correct" attitude
that connects to it even distantly. The air is poisoned.
So in that case we should only refer to African Americans and never
use the term "blacks" because of that poisoned air.
It might be that referring to them at all is an uphill climb.
On 7/25/2025 7:23 PM, shawn wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 18:12:43 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 7/24/2025 6:28 PM, shawn wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:24:36 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 7/24/2025 6:11 PM, Rhino wrote:
On 2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 7/24/2025 4:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and >>>>>> that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the >>>>>> 1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
The exTwitters are all in an uproar over Trump's suggestion that the >>>>>>>> Cleveland
MLB team be renamed back to the Cleveland Indians. One guy who claims >>>>>>>> to be
Navajo posted "This would be better, right?" And the following >>>>>>>> picture as a
kind of "how would you like it if it was done to you?" gotcha toward >>>>>>>> white
people:
https://ibb.co/8DC5CgrB
I was like, you're right, it *is* better!
We should name the team "The Cleveland Whites" and the logo could be >>>>>>>> a guy in
a fedora with a great credit score.
I'd totally support that team.
This reminds me of another such attempt to "teach" white people how >>>>>>>> horrible
it is to have team named after them. Back in the early 2011's, some >>>>>>>> intramural
basketball team made the news when they named themselves "The Fightin' >>>>>>>> Whities" to show white people how offensive such things are for others.
Instead of offending them, white people loved it and started buying >>>>>>>> "Fightin'
Whities" merchandise in droves. The team eventually had to start putting
social justice disclaimers on the jerseys and t-shirts (while still >>>>>>>> selling
them, of course, they wouldn't say no to the $$$) to keep white >>>>>>>> people from
using them for purposes of racial pride.
I love it when social justice stunts blow up in the faces of
'progressives'
like that.
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten over it.
I mean that it's an atrocious part of our past that lingers in memory >>>>> even generations removed. And that's why there's no "correct" attitude >>>>> that connects to it even distantly. The air is poisoned.
So in that case we should only refer to African Americans and never
use the term "blacks" because of that poisoned air.
It might be that referring to them at all is an uphill climb.
So we need to ignore an entire group of Americans because their name
has some dark associations. Or at least we can't talk about them but
if we can't reference them then there's not a lot we can do for them,
as a group. Seems like we are going to end up hurting them yet again.
Neither *for* them nor *to* them. The thought-experiment I have in mind
is to rewire our brains so that we're unable to categorize people by
their inherited characteristics...
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 18:12:43 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 7/24/2025 6:28 PM, shawn wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:24:36 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 7/24/2025 6:11 PM, Rhino wrote:
On 2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 7/24/2025 4:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and >>>>> that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the >>>>> 1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
The exTwitters are all in an uproar over Trump's suggestion that the >>>>>>> Cleveland
MLB team be renamed back to the Cleveland Indians. One guy who claims >>>>>>> to be
Navajo posted "This would be better, right?" And the following
picture as a
kind of "how would you like it if it was done to you?" gotcha toward >>>>>>> white
people:
https://ibb.co/8DC5CgrB
I was like, you're right, it *is* better!
We should name the team "The Cleveland Whites" and the logo could be >>>>>>> a guy in
a fedora with a great credit score.
I'd totally support that team.
This reminds me of another such attempt to "teach" white people how >>>>>>> horrible
it is to have team named after them. Back in the early 2011's, some >>>>>>> intramural
basketball team made the news when they named themselves "The Fightin' >>>>>>> Whities" to show white people how offensive such things are for others. >>>>>>> Instead of offending them, white people loved it and started buying >>>>>>> "Fightin'
Whities" merchandise in droves. The team eventually had to start putting
social justice disclaimers on the jerseys and t-shirts (while still >>>>>>> selling
them, of course, they wouldn't say no to the $$$) to keep white
people from
using them for purposes of racial pride.
I love it when social justice stunts blow up in the faces of
'progressives'
like that.
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten over it. >>>>>>
I mean that it's an atrocious part of our past that lingers in memory
even generations removed. And that's why there's no "correct" attitude >>>> that connects to it even distantly. The air is poisoned.
So in that case we should only refer to African Americans and never
use the term "blacks" because of that poisoned air.
It might be that referring to them at all is an uphill climb.
So we need to ignore an entire group of Americans because their name
has some dark associations. Or at least we can't talk about them but
if we can't reference them then there's not a lot we can do for them,
as a group. Seems like we are going to end up hurting them yet again.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 22:53:40 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 7/25/2025 7:23 PM, shawn wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 18:12:43 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 7/24/2025 6:28 PM, shawn wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:24:36 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 7/24/2025 6:11 PM, Rhino wrote:
On 2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 7/24/2025 4:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and >>>>>>> that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the >>>>>>> 1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
The exTwitters are all in an uproar over Trump's suggestion that the >>>>>>>>> Cleveland
MLB team be renamed back to the Cleveland Indians. One guy who claims >>>>>>>>> to be
Navajo posted "This would be better, right?" And the following >>>>>>>>> picture as a
kind of "how would you like it if it was done to you?" gotcha toward >>>>>>>>> white
people:
https://ibb.co/8DC5CgrB
I was like, you're right, it *is* better!
We should name the team "The Cleveland Whites" and the logo could be >>>>>>>>> a guy in
a fedora with a great credit score.
I'd totally support that team.
This reminds me of another such attempt to "teach" white people how >>>>>>>>> horrible
it is to have team named after them. Back in the early 2011's, some >>>>>>>>> intramural
basketball team made the news when they named themselves "The Fightin'
Whities" to show white people how offensive such things are for others.
Instead of offending them, white people loved it and started buying >>>>>>>>> "Fightin'
Whities" merchandise in droves. The team eventually had to start putting
social justice disclaimers on the jerseys and t-shirts (while still >>>>>>>>> selling
them, of course, they wouldn't say no to the $$$) to keep white >>>>>>>>> people from
using them for purposes of racial pride.
I love it when social justice stunts blow up in the faces of >>>>>>>>> 'progressives'
like that.
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten over it.
I mean that it's an atrocious part of our past that lingers in memory >>>>>> even generations removed. And that's why there's no "correct" attitude >>>>>> that connects to it even distantly. The air is poisoned.
So in that case we should only refer to African Americans and never
use the term "blacks" because of that poisoned air.
It might be that referring to them at all is an uphill climb.
So we need to ignore an entire group of Americans because their name
has some dark associations. Or at least we can't talk about them but
if we can't reference them then there's not a lot we can do for them,
as a group. Seems like we are going to end up hurting them yet again.
Neither *for* them nor *to* them. The thought-experiment I have in mind
is to rewire our brains so that we're unable to categorize people by
their inherited characteristics...
We would have to be blind to do that. We (humans) will always classify according to a difference. A darker skin tone is an obvious difference
that people will pick up on even if they come from the same culture.
Only way to avoid that would be to have one race (Aryan?)
Fri, 25 Jul 2025 22:53:40 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>:
7/25/2025 7:23 PM, shawn wrote:
Fri, 25 Jul 2025 18:12:43 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>: >>>>7/24/2025 6:28 PM, shawn wrote:
Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:24:36 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>: >>>>>>7/24/2025 6:11 PM, Rhino wrote:
2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
. . .
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten >>>>>>>>over it.
Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and >>>>>>>that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the >>>>>>>1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
I mean that it's an atrocious part of our past that lingers in memory >>>>>>even generations removed. And that's why there's no "correct" attitude >>>>>>that connects to it even distantly. The air is poisoned.
So in that case we should only refer to African Americans and never >>>>>use the term "blacks" because of that poisoned air.
It might be that referring to them at all is an uphill climb.
So we need to ignore an entire group of Americans because their name
has some dark associations. Or at least we can't talk about them but
if we can't reference them then there's not a lot we can do for them,
as a group. Seems like we are going to end up hurting them yet again.
Neither *for* them nor *to* them. The thought-experiment I have in mind
is to rewire our brains so that we're unable to categorize people by
their inherited characteristics...
We would have to be blind to do that. We (humans) will always classify >according to a difference. A darker skin tone is an obvious difference
that people will pick up on even if they come from the same culture.
Only way to avoid that would be to have one race (Aryan?)
So in that case we should only refer to African Americans and never
use the term "blacks" because of that poisoned air.
I mean that it's an atrocious part of our past that lingers in memory
even generations removed. And that's why there's no "correct" attitude
that connects to it even distantly. The air is poisoned.
shawn <[email protected]> wrote:
Fri, 25 Jul 2025 22:53:40 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>:
7/25/2025 7:23 PM, shawn wrote:
Fri, 25 Jul 2025 18:12:43 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>: >>>>>7/24/2025 6:28 PM, shawn wrote:
Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:24:36 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>7/24/2025 6:11 PM, Rhino wrote:
2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
. . .
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten >>>>>>>>>over it.
Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and >>>>>>>>that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the >>>>>>>>1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
I mean that it's an atrocious part of our past that lingers in memory >>>>>>>even generations removed. And that's why there's no "correct" attitude >>>>>>>that connects to it even distantly. The air is poisoned.
So in that case we should only refer to African Americans and never >>>>>>use the term "blacks" because of that poisoned air.
It might be that referring to them at all is an uphill climb.
So we need to ignore an entire group of Americans because their name >>>>has some dark associations. Or at least we can't talk about them but
if we can't reference them then there's not a lot we can do for them, >>>>as a group. Seems like we are going to end up hurting them yet again.
Neither *for* them nor *to* them. The thought-experiment I have in mind >>>is to rewire our brains so that we're unable to categorize people by >>>their inherited characteristics...
We would have to be blind to do that. We (humans) will always classify >>according to a difference. A darker skin tone is an obvious difference
that people will pick up on even if they come from the same culture.
Only way to avoid that would be to have one race (Aryan?)
Multiple people in this thread have tried, and failed, to civilize
moviePig. In a thread begun to discuss a humorous suggestion to rename
the baseball team to make a point, moviePig demonstrates that he cannot >distinguish between speech/press and murder, and still tries to convince
his troll-feeding audience on Usenet that speech/press that someone might >take offense at is the far more serious issue than murder and ethnic >cleansing.
That we might classify people due to a perceived difference isn't
illegal. It's not rude. It's not a crime. It's not discrimination.
moviePig will never stop trying to convince you that black is white, up
is down, censorship is liberty, offense is criminal, and murder
shouldn't be taken seriously.
Usenet needs to collectively spit the hook out. moviePig has you but
good. moviePig cannot and will never behave in an acceptable manner.
This reminds me of another such attempt to "teach" white people how horrible >it is to have team named after them. Back in the early 2011's, some intramural >basketball team made the news when they named themselves "The Fightin' >Whities" to show white people how offensive such things are for others. >Instead of offending them, white people loved it and started buying "Fightin' >Whities" merchandise in droves. The team eventually had to start putting >social justice disclaimers on the jerseys and t-shirts (while still selling >them, of course, they wouldn't say no to the $$$) to keep white people from >using them for purposes of racial pride.
I love it when social justice stunts blow up in the faces of 'progressives' >like that.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 16:18:27 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<[email protected]> wrote:
shawn <[email protected]> wrote:
Fri, 25 Jul 2025 22:53:40 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>: >>>>7/25/2025 7:23 PM, shawn wrote:
Fri, 25 Jul 2025 18:12:43 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>: >>>>>>7/24/2025 6:28 PM, shawn wrote:
Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:24:36 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>>7/24/2025 6:11 PM, Rhino wrote:
2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
. . .
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten >>>>>>>>>>over it.
Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and >>>>>>>>>that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the >>>>>>>>>1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
I mean that it's an atrocious part of our past that lingers in memory >>>>>>>>even generations removed. And that's why there's no "correct" attitude >>>>>>>>that connects to it even distantly. The air is poisoned.
So in that case we should only refer to African Americans and never >>>>>>>use the term "blacks" because of that poisoned air.
It might be that referring to them at all is an uphill climb.
So we need to ignore an entire group of Americans because their name >>>>>has some dark associations. Or at least we can't talk about them but >>>>>if we can't reference them then there's not a lot we can do for them, >>>>>as a group. Seems like we are going to end up hurting them yet again.
Neither *for* them nor *to* them. The thought-experiment I have in mind >>>>is to rewire our brains so that we're unable to categorize people by >>>>their inherited characteristics...
We would have to be blind to do that. We (humans) will always classify >>>according to a difference. A darker skin tone is an obvious difference >>>that people will pick up on even if they come from the same culture.
Only way to avoid that would be to have one race (Aryan?)
Multiple people in this thread have tried, and failed, to civilize >>moviePig. In a thread begun to discuss a humorous suggestion to rename
the baseball team to make a point, moviePig demonstrates that he cannot >>distinguish between speech/press and murder, and still tries to convince >>his troll-feeding audience on Usenet that speech/press that someone might >>take offense at is the far more serious issue than murder and ethnic >>cleansing.
That we might classify people due to a perceived difference isn't
illegal. It's not rude. It's not a crime. It's not discrimination.
moviePig will never stop trying to convince you that black is white, up
is down, censorship is liberty, offense is criminal, and murder
shouldn't be taken seriously.
Usenet needs to collectively spit the hook out. moviePig has you but
good. moviePig cannot and will never behave in an acceptable manner.
There's no hooks involved here as I'm just pointing out how ludicrous
the concept is because there's no solution to trying to avoid
offending people who are intent on finding offense.
Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
. . .
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten over it.
Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and
that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the >>1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
Lemme Pigsplain. The root cause of lynchings was offensive names for
sports teams.
Neither *for* them nor *to* them. The thought-experiment I have in mind
is to rewire our brains so that we're unable to categorize people by
their inherited characteristics...
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 22:53:40 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 7/25/2025 7:23 PM, shawn wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 18:12:43 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 7/24/2025 6:28 PM, shawn wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:24:36 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 7/24/2025 6:11 PM, Rhino wrote:
On 2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 7/24/2025 4:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and >>>>>>> that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the >>>>>>> 1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
The exTwitters are all in an uproar over Trump's suggestion that the >>>>>>>>> Cleveland
MLB team be renamed back to the Cleveland Indians. One guy who claims >>>>>>>>> to be
Navajo posted "This would be better, right?" And the following >>>>>>>>> picture as a
kind of "how would you like it if it was done to you?" gotcha toward >>>>>>>>> white
people:
https://ibb.co/8DC5CgrB
I was like, you're right, it *is* better!
We should name the team "The Cleveland Whites" and the logo could be >>>>>>>>> a guy in
a fedora with a great credit score.
I'd totally support that team.
This reminds me of another such attempt to "teach" white people how >>>>>>>>> horrible
it is to have team named after them. Back in the early 2011's, some >>>>>>>>> intramural
basketball team made the news when they named themselves "The Fightin'
Whities" to show white people how offensive such things are for others.
Instead of offending them, white people loved it and started buying >>>>>>>>> "Fightin'
Whities" merchandise in droves. The team eventually had to start putting
social justice disclaimers on the jerseys and t-shirts (while still >>>>>>>>> selling
them, of course, they wouldn't say no to the $$$) to keep white >>>>>>>>> people from
using them for purposes of racial pride.
I love it when social justice stunts blow up in the faces of >>>>>>>>> 'progressives'
like that.
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten over it.
I mean that it's an atrocious part of our past that lingers in memory >>>>>> even generations removed. And that's why there's no "correct" attitude >>>>>> that connects to it even distantly. The air is poisoned.
So in that case we should only refer to African Americans and never
use the term "blacks" because of that poisoned air.
It might be that referring to them at all is an uphill climb.
So we need to ignore an entire group of Americans because their name
has some dark associations. Or at least we can't talk about them but
if we can't reference them then there's not a lot we can do for them,
as a group. Seems like we are going to end up hurting them yet again.
Neither *for* them nor *to* them. The thought-experiment I have in mind
is to rewire our brains so that we're unable to categorize people by
their inherited characteristics...
We would have to be blind to do that. We (humans) will always classify >according to a difference. A darker skin tone is an obvious difference
that people will pick up on even if they come from the same culture.
Only way to avoid that would be to have one race (Aryan?)
Thu, 24 Jul 2025 22:52:03 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]>: >>Rhino <[email protected]> wrote:
2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
. . .
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten over it.
Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and >>>that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the >>>1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
Lemme Pigsplain. The root cause of lynchings was offensive names for
sports teams.
Given lynching started (or at least was more visible) after
Appotomotox who won the 1865 World Series?
shawn <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 16:18:27 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<[email protected]> wrote:
shawn <[email protected]> wrote:
Fri, 25 Jul 2025 22:53:40 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>: >>>>>7/25/2025 7:23 PM, shawn wrote:
Fri, 25 Jul 2025 18:12:43 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>7/24/2025 6:28 PM, shawn wrote:
Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:24:36 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>>>7/24/2025 6:11 PM, Rhino wrote:
2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
. . .
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten >>>>>>>>>>>over it.
Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and
that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the >>>>>>>>>>1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
I mean that it's an atrocious part of our past that lingers in memory >>>>>>>>>even generations removed. And that's why there's no "correct" attitude
that connects to it even distantly. The air is poisoned.
So in that case we should only refer to African Americans and never >>>>>>>>use the term "blacks" because of that poisoned air.
It might be that referring to them at all is an uphill climb.
So we need to ignore an entire group of Americans because their name >>>>>>has some dark associations. Or at least we can't talk about them but >>>>>>if we can't reference them then there's not a lot we can do for them, >>>>>>as a group. Seems like we are going to end up hurting them yet again.
Neither *for* them nor *to* them. The thought-experiment I have in mind >>>>>is to rewire our brains so that we're unable to categorize people by >>>>>their inherited characteristics...
We would have to be blind to do that. We (humans) will always classify >>>>according to a difference. A darker skin tone is an obvious difference >>>>that people will pick up on even if they come from the same culture. >>>>Only way to avoid that would be to have one race (Aryan?)
Multiple people in this thread have tried, and failed, to civilize >>>moviePig. In a thread begun to discuss a humorous suggestion to rename >>>the baseball team to make a point, moviePig demonstrates that he cannot >>>distinguish between speech/press and murder, and still tries to convince >>>his troll-feeding audience on Usenet that speech/press that someone might >>>take offense at is the far more serious issue than murder and ethnic >>>cleansing.
That we might classify people due to a perceived difference isn't >>>illegal. It's not rude. It's not a crime. It's not discrimination.
moviePig will never stop trying to convince you that black is white, up >>>is down, censorship is liberty, offense is criminal, and murder
shouldn't be taken seriously.
Usenet needs to collectively spit the hook out. moviePig has you but >>>good. moviePig cannot and will never behave in an acceptable manner.
There's no hooks involved here as I'm just pointing out how ludicrous
the concept is because there's no solution to trying to avoid
offending people who are intent on finding offense.
Do you truly believe in your heart that you can civilize moviePig?
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 16:18:27 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<[email protected]> wrote:
shawn <[email protected]> wrote:
Fri, 25 Jul 2025 22:53:40 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>:
7/25/2025 7:23 PM, shawn wrote:
Fri, 25 Jul 2025 18:12:43 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>:
7/24/2025 6:28 PM, shawn wrote:
Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:24:36 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>> 7/24/2025 6:11 PM, Rhino wrote:
2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
. . .
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten >>>>>>>>>> over it.
Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and
that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the >>>>>>>>> 1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
I mean that it's an atrocious part of our past that lingers in memory >>>>>>>> even generations removed. And that's why there's no "correct" attitude
that connects to it even distantly. The air is poisoned.
So in that case we should only refer to African Americans and never >>>>>>> use the term "blacks" because of that poisoned air.
It might be that referring to them at all is an uphill climb.
So we need to ignore an entire group of Americans because their name >>>>> has some dark associations. Or at least we can't talk about them but >>>>> if we can't reference them then there's not a lot we can do for them, >>>>> as a group. Seems like we are going to end up hurting them yet again.
Neither *for* them nor *to* them. The thought-experiment I have in mind >>>> is to rewire our brains so that we're unable to categorize people by
their inherited characteristics...
We would have to be blind to do that. We (humans) will always classify
according to a difference. A darker skin tone is an obvious difference
that people will pick up on even if they come from the same culture.
Only way to avoid that would be to have one race (Aryan?)
Multiple people in this thread have tried, and failed, to civilize
moviePig. In a thread begun to discuss a humorous suggestion to rename
the baseball team to make a point, moviePig demonstrates that he cannot
distinguish between speech/press and murder, and still tries to convince
his troll-feeding audience on Usenet that speech/press that someone might
take offense at is the far more serious issue than murder and ethnic
cleansing.
That we might classify people due to a perceived difference isn't
illegal. It's not rude. It's not a crime. It's not discrimination.
moviePig will never stop trying to convince you that black is white, up
is down, censorship is liberty, offense is criminal, and murder
shouldn't be taken seriously.
Usenet needs to collectively spit the hook out. moviePig has you but
good. moviePig cannot and will never behave in an acceptable manner.
the concept is because there's no solution to trying to avoida charged fallback reference that overpowers logical argument.
offending people who are intent on finding offense. I'm guessing that historical crimes abet such intentions by providing
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 19:34:33 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<[email protected]> wrote:
shawn <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 16:18:27 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<[email protected]> wrote:
shawn <[email protected]> wrote:
Fri, 25 Jul 2025 22:53:40 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>:
7/25/2025 7:23 PM, shawn wrote:
Fri, 25 Jul 2025 18:12:43 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>> 7/24/2025 6:28 PM, shawn wrote:
Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:24:36 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>>>> 7/24/2025 6:11 PM, Rhino wrote:
2025-07-24 5:04 PM, moviePig wrote:
. . .
Yes, we used to lynch (etc.) blacks ...and still haven't gotten >>>>>>>>>>>> over it.
Do you seriously mean to claim that blacks are still being lynched and
that this didn't finally end with the Civil Rights legislation in the
1960s? How about some links to prove your point?
I mean that it's an atrocious part of our past that lingers in memory
even generations removed. And that's why there's no "correct" attitude
that connects to it even distantly. The air is poisoned.
So in that case we should only refer to African Americans and never >>>>>>>>> use the term "blacks" because of that poisoned air.
It might be that referring to them at all is an uphill climb.
So we need to ignore an entire group of Americans because their name >>>>>>> has some dark associations. Or at least we can't talk about them but >>>>>>> if we can't reference them then there's not a lot we can do for them, >>>>>>> as a group. Seems like we are going to end up hurting them yet again. >>>>Neither *for* them nor *to* them. The thought-experiment I have in mind >>>>>> is to rewire our brains so that we're unable to categorize people by >>>>>> their inherited characteristics...
We would have to be blind to do that. We (humans) will always classify >>>>> according to a difference. A darker skin tone is an obvious difference >>>>> that people will pick up on even if they come from the same culture. >>>>> Only way to avoid that would be to have one race (Aryan?)
Multiple people in this thread have tried, and failed, to civilize
moviePig. In a thread begun to discuss a humorous suggestion to rename >>>> the baseball team to make a point, moviePig demonstrates that he cannot >>>> distinguish between speech/press and murder, and still tries to convince >>>> his troll-feeding audience on Usenet that speech/press that someone might >>>> take offense at is the far more serious issue than murder and ethnic
cleansing.
That we might classify people due to a perceived difference isn't
illegal. It's not rude. It's not a crime. It's not discrimination.
moviePig will never stop trying to convince you that black is white, up >>>> is down, censorship is liberty, offense is criminal, and murder
shouldn't be taken seriously.
Usenet needs to collectively spit the hook out. moviePig has you but
good. moviePig cannot and will never behave in an acceptable manner.
There's no hooks involved here as I'm just pointing out how ludicrous
the concept is because there's no solution to trying to avoid
offending people who are intent on finding offense.
Do you truly believe in your heart that you can civilize moviePig?
No, but I can provide myself with a bit of entertainment.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 22:53:40 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
Neither *for* them nor *to* them. The thought-experiment I have in mindThat would be terrible as I would regularly be confused between my son
is to rewire our brains so that we're unable to categorize people by
their inherited characteristics...
and his two sisters...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 37:03:26 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,369 |