The Racist left think that black people should not appear on food packaging

[Leonhard]

Because I don't get "outraged" is no indicator that I'm OK with something. I'm more of a doer than an emoter.

I think we just have different working definition of outrage now. You either think this is okay, and respond that you're okay with it, or you respond that it is not okay, not racist etc, and why are the left so <insert whatever it is you think the Left is doing wrong>. The latter I'd consider outrage.

[Cow Poke]

I think we just have different working definition of outrage now.

Outrage is an emotion that often leads to chaos. I don't get outraged. I evaluate, formulate and execute.

You either think this is okay, and respond that you're okay with it, or you respond that it is not okay, not racist etc, and why are the left so <insert whatever it is you think the Left is doing wrong>. The latter I'd consider outrage.

OK, so what is it about which I am supposed to be "outraged"?

[Leonhard]

Outrage is an emotion that often leads to chaos. I don't get outraged. I evaluate, formulate and execute. ... OK, so what is it about which I am supposed to be "outraged"?

"I never, in my wildest imagination, looked at any of those items and had a racist thought. Hate is in the eye of the beholder, I guess."

"And, often, like the Me Too movement, they come back to bite the very agitators that started the whole thing."

"Ya know, 10 years ago, comedians were complaining that they can't even tell jokes anymore without being offensive..... [Talks about stuff comedians can't say] This is what the TALIBAN does - destroy culture, destroy artifacts, outlaw music, control the narrative.... "

All of those are outraged statements, condemnations, emotional ejaculations. Especially that last one where you compare criticism of comedians who made horrible stereotypes about homosexuals and women (and other things) being criticised for it, and comparing it to the Taliban.

If you don't see any of this as outrage, then I don't think I can ever get you to see any of your actions as outrage.

[Cow Poke]

"I never, in my wildest imagination, looked at any of those items and had a racist thought. Hate is in the eye of the beholder, I guess."

Yeah, no outrage.

"And, often, like the Me Too movement, they come back to bite the very agitators that started the whole thing."

More lack of outrage.

"Ya know, 10 years ago, comedians were complaining that they can't even tell jokes anymore without being offensive..... [Talks about stuff comedians can't say] This is what the TALIBAN does - destroy culture, destroy artifacts, outlaw music, control the narrative.... "

An opinion void of outrage.

All of those are outraged statements,

No. We OBVIOUSLY have very different ideas of what "outrage" is.
I'll go with Webster -

outrage noun
Definition of outrage
(Entry 1 of 2)
1 : an act of violence or brutality arranged outrages and assassinations— Anthony West
2a : injury, insult do no outrages on silly women or poor passengers— William Shakespeare
b : an act that violates accepted standards of behavior or taste an outrage alike against decency and dignity— John Buchan
3 : the anger and resentment aroused by injury or insult Many people expressed outrage at the court's decision.

condemnations, emotional ejaculations. Especially that last one where you compare criticism of comedians who made horrible stereotypes about homosexuals and women (and other things) being criticised for it, and comparing it to the Taliban.

A comparison made in a very calm, possibly dismissive, manner.

If you don't see any of this as outrage, then I don't think I can ever get you to see any of your actions as outrage.

Sorry, Leon - I'm just a calm guy. I don't do outrage. Perhaps in its grossly overused form, but --- no anger, no resentment --- just observations.

[Leonhard]

I think it is fair to say we've used the terms in very different ways then Cow Poke. At any rate, my point was that I don't see the use of this discussion. The removal of a logo like this in no way seems to be important at all. And I have absolutely zero stakes in it. I just don't think the removal of the logo can be considered racist.

[Cow Poke]

I think it is fair to say we've used the terms in very different ways then Cow Poke.

At any rate, my point was that I don't see the use of this discussion. The removal of a logo like this in no way seems to be important at all. And I have absolutely zero stakes in it. I just don't think the removal of the logo can be considered racist.

Always good to see you, Leon.

[Mountain Man]

It would be racist if they in they used African American cultural symbols, images, etc, and used that to brand and benefit themselves without the money going back into those communities. It doesn't have to be a disparaging symbol in order for it to be bad. As long as the group in power gets to benefit from, or represent the minority (for the majority's group benefit), it is a case of racism.

Now in this case I think it is so minor and insignificant than I'm honestly surprised that people here are outraged over it.

But it is still a case of racism.

How is that racist? Would it be exploitive if a black owner chose an image of a white man as the logo for his company?

[Leonhard]

How is that racist?

Because one is the domineering an normative group. And the way they choose to do things can impact the other group. It doesn't work the other way around.

Would it be exploitive if a black owner chose an image of a white man as the logo for his company?

In order for it to be exploitative we would have to be in a situation where that group was in power, and the majority. Without that it can't almost be definition be exploitative.

[rogue06]

It would be racist if they in they used African American cultural symbols, images, etc, and used that to brand and benefit themselves without the money going back into those communities.

Would this then be racist?

pelosi.jpg pelosi2.jpg

I mean it is definitely pandering^[1] but they definitely "used African American cultural symbols, images, etc, and used that to brand and benefit themselves" so...








1. I recently read that the West African kente cloth that they chose is from one of the tribes that was heavily involved in the slave trade -- not as victims but as those who captured and sold them.

[JimL]

Would this then be racist?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]46094[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]46095[/ATTACH]

I mean it is definitely pandering^[1] but they definitely "used African American cultural symbols, images, etc, and used that to brand and benefit themselves" so...








1. I recently read that the West African kente cloth that they chose is from one of the tribes that was heavily involved in the slave trade -- not as victims but as those who captured and sold them.

Yeah, I guess the black people in the photo are being racist too. What a balloon head!

[Ronson]

Would this then be racist?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]46094[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]46095[/ATTACH]

I mean it is definitely pandering^[1] but they definitely "used African American cultural symbols, images, etc, and used that to brand and benefit themselves" so...








1. I recently read that the West African kente cloth that they chose is from one of the tribes that was heavily involved in the slave trade -- not as victims but as those who captured and sold them.

Nauseating staged photos. Pelosi and Schumer are such pandering twits.

[JimL]

Nauseating staged photos. Pelosi and Schumer are such pandering twits.

It was a symbolic gesture of the solidarity within the democratic party born out of the racist treatment of blacks by law enforcement and the party's intent to reform systemic racism. That's not pandering, it's messaging. Perhaps you don't like the message, but that's on you.

[Darth Executor]

It was a symbolic gesture of the solidarity within the democratic party born out of the racist treatment of blacks by law enforcement and the party's intent to reform systemic racism. That's not pandering, it's messaging. Perhaps you don't like the message, but that's on you.

There is no systemic racism against black people, they are pandering to black criminals and their friends/allies because they don't want to be killed while committing crimes. This is congruent with Democrat behavior in general during the BLM riots. They want their armies of criminals to operate unrestricted. It's why the attack the second amendment, and when that failed decided to start terrorizing normal people like George Zimmerman who used it to defend themselves.

[Leonhard]

Would this then be racist? ... 1. I recently read that the West African kente cloth that they chose is from one of the tribes that was heavily involved in the slave trade -- not as victims but as those who captured and sold them.

It might be! It depends! Were they handed those by someone of that culture? It is always healthy and good to participate, and there's such a thing as cultural appreciation. If however if it was Nancy Pelosi's idea and she demanded it be done like that, then that's where you'd get some racist overtones of cultural appropriation. It would be sleazy pandering. If it was some event they had been invited to, and they were offered that, then they ought to wear it. I really can't tell just from that image which is which.

I also haven't judged anything racist in this thread. I still don't know if the board of directors or shareholders are diverse or mainly white, or what the history of those companies were to begin with. It literally doesn't matter to me that an oatmeal company decided to change their logo.

[Ronson]

It was a symbolic gesture of the solidarity within the democratic party born out of the racist treatment of blacks by

Democrat-led cities ? ...

law enforcement and the party's intent to reform systemic racism. That's not pandering, it's messaging. Perhaps you don't like the message, but that's on you.

They're posing like Hollywood actors (similar people, I know) wearing African garb that they know nothing about. Posers. Fakes. Hoping to shore up their voter base with those embarrassing poses.