Fox ran the article for its racist angle, your move. Nothing inflames you "politically correct" racists more than being declared a racist.
So she didn't say everything was peachy before or that this is something she just discovered about America. So you added that to validate your righteous indignation.
As is, sounds not unlike thousands of other mothers of black children in America. The only reason you know her opinion is someone asked her. You got mad because she's white and a celebrity, neither of which prevent her from having concerns for her black kids.
Very similar article. Hollywood reporter ran it for it's racist angle also?
Racism is much more alive than people thought.(under the new administration)........ We can't deny it anymore.....
Who besides her was denying it? Kaepernick wasn't. Was she unaware of Trayvon Martin? Do i REALLY need to list more examples? We implies her and others. She was saying her and others were trying to deny it. Who here has been denying racism has been going on to the extent it has been?
She's been hyper aware of racism issues her entire life but suddenly she's woke AF.
"We really don't know what's driving this," Hertling said. "We need to be be careful not to overinterpret or overreact."
Bou literally googled up and posted an article basically saying we don't ing know what happened.
Maybe the Starbuck's incident was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Or the "directions" shooting.
Not a good week tbh.
No one's calling her woke. No one's congratulating her at all, really. Just a bunch of triggered conservatives getting pissy because a celebrity they don't like opened her yap about politics. It really is hilarious how mad you are about this, and how you have to invent a perspective that you can justify your anger over. Her comments are so benign they're hardly newsworthy, yet here you are.
Poor white guys. We're such an oppressed group in America now
I actually agree with this scalding hot take. Crime is much lower now than in decades past. People literally get triggered when they hear that as they want to believe its getting worse for some reason.
Here is a fascinating article on people believing crime is getting worse when its not http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...-with-reality/
I could make the same comment about any race in America tbh. Nobody has it that bad because of their race.
We know you would.
Nobody has it that bad because of their race.
You're right, everyone is born on an equal playing field today and history has had no impact on any particular race.
Nice strawman. Never said everyone is on the same playing field. That will never happen.
You: Nobody has it that bad because of their race.
Me: This country's history of racism causes many people of color to be born at a disadvantage today.
You: That's a strawman
That's just flat out lying. The left has this tendency to want to change the words they are arguing against. You see it time after time here. It's as if the actual quote is no longer available and you cannot recall exactly what was said, but the truth is that you can see plainly what was said and it doesn't fit your narrative, so you alter the words.
You're not alone.
Professor Semantics to the rescue again.
Anyway, those are my words I paraphrased, not Nathan's. Feel free to spend the next two pages dissecting how one sentence is fundamentally different from the other, we're all dying to read it.
You're such a whiny stupid little .
But what can be expected from a re ed impressionable goober who went from supporting Bernie's attacks on billionaires tho trickle down economics in the space of a year?
I mean honestly you're too ing stupid to live. One insanely re ed ideology to the next. I sincerely expect you to convert to Rastafarianisim in 6 months
Professor Semantics to the rescue again.
Anyway, those are my words I paraphrased, not Nathan's. Feel free to spend the next two pages dissecting how one sentence is fundamentally different from the other, we're all dying to read it."paraphrased"
Those two sentences aren't even remotely similar. The first is a strawman and the 2nd is you trying to recover from it by rewording it. Do you think Nathan's response was to your paraphrase?
Why do you feel the need to paraphrase yourself?
Try approaching it straight on instead of sideways.
What do you think the sentence "You're right, everyone is born on an equal playing field today and history has had no impact on any particular race" in response to "Nobody has it that bad because of their race" actually meant, if not "This country's history of racism causes many people of color to be born at a disadvantage today." ?
Because the paraphrase fit the format of that post better than a straight quote of a sarcastic post. The point was to translate the post without sarcasm. I didn't expect the Semantics Inquisition.Why do you feel the need to paraphrase yourself?
Try approaching any argument without obsessing over paraphrasing. It's kinda your thing now and it's pretty silly.Try approaching it straight on instead of sideways.
"If you make a decision then commit to it for life. That's what us smart folks do."
You're misusing the term "paraphrasing" here. You didn't paraphrase anything except perhaps your meaning, because the actual sentence was obviously meant as sarcasm. So if you want to paraphrase yourself, at least make it somewhat similar to your original statement. It was obvious Nathan was responding to that comment at face value. You did infer that he said something that he did not say.
Heaven forbid someone point out that you changed your entire sentence, but not his, to try to get around the strawman you created.
Strawman
Description: Subs uting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.
Here I have corrected your dishonest paraphrasing. Now does it appear as a strawman? Odd how facts work.
par·a·phrase
ˈperəˌfrāz/
verb
- 1.
express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity.
That's what I did.
In response to "Poor white guys. We're such an oppressed group in America now", Nathan responded, "I could make the same comment about any race in America tbh. Nobody has it that bad because of their race."It was obvious Nathan was responding to that comment at face value. You did infer that he said something that he did not say.
Heaven forbid someone point out that you changed your entire sentence, but not his, to try to get around the strawman you created.
What do you believe I inferred that was not present in Nathan's post, that I later misrepresented in my paraphrase?
If I wanted to do it your way I might as well have just replied "Nuh uh!"
But you didn't do it to achieve greater clarity. You did it to debunk the "strawman" claim levied on you by Nathan. Nathan didn't say he didn't understand your comment. You didn't say "allow me to rephrase that".
Plus, when you use sarcasm, paraphrasing as you did doesn't accurately show any sarcasm was ever used. So you didn't really paraphrase yourself, you simply dropped the sarcasm and pretended that's what Nathan was responding to. It's becoming quite common to see blatant dishonesty disguised as a paraphrase when the real quote is apparent for all to read, on the same page.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
