Jump to content

Would Roger Goodell ever punish the Wood Man?


GreekJet
 Share

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

And They will be looked at as a racist. 
If you’re someone who uses the N word, you’re a racist.  That’s the world today, like it of not so take it out of your vocabulary 

 

Again.  People who use street language may or may not be a truly racist.  When people use street language it gives people and some elements in the mass media with an agenda the pretext to label that individual as a racist.  There is a hell of a difference between a true racist and a person who has been incorrectly labeled as a racist.

Another thought here.  It is ironic that some of the same elements in the mass media that are vehicles for unjustly labeling individuals as racist also happen to be conduits for encouraging people to use street language. The public is constantly bombarded with street language in the mass media. That includes networks, Hollywood and the recording industry.

Have you ever considered why the owners/shareholders of record companies along with producers and promoters are not crucified as "racist" because they manufacture market and profit from musical recordings that are rife with street language ??? The same goes for Hollywood studios, produces and directors that manufacture and sell products that are packed with language.

Odd that they all seem to get a pass, eh ??? 

If some idiot who uses street language gets labeled as a racist and nailed to a cross in the mass media... Well, then those record company and Hollywood execs that have any part in any production that uses what the mass media deems as "racist" language should ALL also be nailed to crosses for inciting racist behavior

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, THE BARON said:

Again.  People who use street language may or may not be a truly racist.  When people use street language it gives people and some elements in the mass media with an agenda the pretext to label that individual as a racist.  There is a hell of a difference between a true racist and a person who has been incorrectly labeled as a racist.

Another thought here.  It is ironic that some of the same elements in the mass media that are vehicles for unjustly labeling individuals as racist also happen to be conduits for encouraging people to use street language. The public is constantly bombarded with street language in the mass media. That includes networks, Hollywood and the recording industry.

Have you ever considered why the owners/shareholders of record companies along with producers and promoters are not crucified as "racist" because they manufacture market and profit from musical recordings that are rife with street language ??? The same goes for Hollywood studios, produces and directors that manufacture and sell products that are packed with language.

Odd that they all seem to get a pass, eh ??? 

If some idiot who uses street language gets labeled as a racist and nailed to a cross in the mass media... Well, then those record company and Hollywood execs that have any part in any production that uses what the mass media deems as "racist" language should ALL also be nailed to crosses for inciting racist behavior

There’s street lingo and there are words, named and language that we all know to be racist.  It doesn’t need defining or explaining.  You’re going a long way to defend racism.  It’s not the past, the days of explaining it off are over
People don’t want it, don’t want to hear why it’s okay to use words that they find racist and offensive.  Are you really trying to explain why it’s ok

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, THE BARON said:

I understand what you are getting at, though.  Not every old geezer is an ignorant bigot or chauvinist. If that was the case, we never would have gotten civil rights in the 60's.  Still... With older generations, in the main, the percentage of enlightened people was smaller. 

Enlightened? Who exactly qualifies as "enlightened" You mean like the "woke" people that think free speech covers throwing molotov cocktails/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2020 at 10:23 PM, Darnold Schwarzenegger said:

Johnson’s real crime was allegedly asking a British official about the possibility of The British Open Golf Championship being played at Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland. W

Only thing in Whitlock's screed that halfway makes sense.  As an ambassador,  Johnson's request to the Brits-possibly our most valuable ally-would have been an irresponsible carrying of a self-dealing message by the President.  If Johnson made the request-we don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2020 at 10:23 PM, Darnold Schwarzenegger said:

In the book 1984, Newspeak is the language invented by the totalitarian government to get people to embrace English Socialism.

No, Newspeak was set up in Orwell's novel by the government to get people to accept English totalitarianism, not socialism.  Fact is, Orwell actually was a socialist, as evidenced by Orwell's own words:

Quote

 "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."

Whitlock is being dishonest here, trying to confuse the reader between socialism and totalitarianism.  Shame on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2020 at 10:23 PM, Darnold Schwarzenegger said:

According to CNN, the State Department investigated complaints that Johnson commented on the attractiveness of women, said women worked harder and cheaper than men, wondered why black people celebrate Black History Month and opined that the absence of black fathers in the home was a real challenge. A source told CNN that an official who overheard the black father remark was “stunned” and immediately reported the incident.

 

I’m “deeply troubled” that a State Department official was “stunned” by Johnson’s comment on the importance of black fathers. I don’t know a single black person unconcerned with the general state of the black family. Seventy-five percent of black children are born to unwed mothers and raised in homes with an absent father.

Because, Whitlock, Woody Johnson's said these words to people in his capacity as ambassador, that is, officially representing the United States of America.  It's a job requirement to watch your tongue and not make comments that can reflect badly on the US government. 

 

I guess Whitlock's idea of an ambassador who does a good job is one who says things like:

"You know for a Polish guy that fellow really knows his stuff".

"That Irish department head really has it together for a guy who's likely hitting the bottle that he keeps in his desk all the time".

"I'm completely amazed at the calmness and competence of D'Ascenzo considering everybody knows Italian guys walk around with a permanent hard -on".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2020 at 10:23 PM, Darnold Schwarzenegger said:

By demonizing the truth and glorifying lies, the mainstream media intentionally deny black people liberty. The media limit free thought and expression. The media act as the enemy of black people.

So where is mainstream media demonizing the truth and where is it glorifying lies?  Got any eamples, Whitlock?

Quote

It’s racist to regard 75 percent of black pregnancies ending in children being raised without a father in the home as a real challenge. But it’s righteous to regard less than .0001 of police encounters ending in murder as proof of systemic racism.

Nobody says it's racist, there are many articles written about the problems of a fatherless home.  But why is Johnson bringing up the problems of black people especially in his position as ambassador?  As official US representative in Britain, he's pointing a finger at black people especially and that's not his job.  If Johnson wants to leave his ambassadorship and commence a career as a social issues researcher, let him go ahead and say what he wants about any  group's families-if he can back it up with data.  As long as Johnson's in the position he's in, he's obligated to represent ALL groups in the US in a favorable light  to Britain and the rest of the world, not point out their problems.

 

And since the police have been on camera killing black arrestees for the past few years, why is Whitlock opposed to his own group protesting it?  Eight minutes of watching a man having his air cut off by arresting officers until he was lifeless on the ground they were pinning him to.  Whitlock opposes the protest.  Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2020 at 10:23 PM, Darnold Schwarzenegger said:

 

The New York Times 1619 Project that reduces America’s entire narrative arc to slavery is an Orwellian rewriting of history. Every organized and unorganized civilization on the planet has history with human slavery. And every racial group has been a slave and enslaver. But we’re supposed to believe America is the lone country defined by that history.

Now Whitlock is just getting stupid.  What the hell is an unorganized civilization?  By definition, a civilization is a large group of people who work together in an organized way.  And does Whitlock want to seriously compare American civilization, which came into existence during the Enlightenment, to civilizations that had slavery a thousand years previously?  Especially when we came into existence with the words about all men being created equal.

 

Fact is, while the US should be proud to be the first modern democracy without an aristocratic class, we were also one of the last technologically advanced countries on Earth to still have slavery in 1861.  Apparently Whitlock thinks that's not a big deal, even though his own flesh and blood most likely felt the lash until Emancipation.  What the hell is wrong with him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, 20andOut said:

Enlightened? Who exactly qualifies as "enlightened" You mean like the "woke" people that think free speech covers throwing molotov cocktails/

I would not consider the use of violence as "enlightened".  Your question is a complication of the obvious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

There’s street lingo and there are words, named and language that we all know to be racist.  It doesn’t need defining or explaining.  You’re going a long way to defend racism.  It’s not the past, the days of explaining it off are over
People don’t want it, don’t want to hear why it’s okay to use words that they find racist and offensive.  Are you really trying to explain why it’s ok

 

If  you have surmised that anything I have written in this thread is a defense of racism or racist notions, I'd say your are well out of your depth here.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, THE BARON said:

If  you have surmised that anything I have written in this thread is a defense of racism or racist notions, I'd say your are well out of your depth here.  

Maybe you should stop trying to make be wrong or putting words in your mouth and read your posts.

If you arent savvy enough to understand, people who feel racism in ways you can't imagine believe that people who use that kind of language in any way, for any reason, whatever, are exhibiting racist ways and are racist.  Youre just not getting it, I didn't call anyone a racist, I'm just pointing out how using racist names with your friends on the streets of Brooklyn isnt viewed as ok. 

Thats it, its simple, but you'll argue its ok all day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

Maybe you should stop trying to make be wrong or putting words in your mouth and read your posts.

If you arent savvy enough to understand, people who feel racism in ways you can't imagine believe that people who use that kind of language in any way, for any reason, whatever, are exhibiting racist ways and are racist.  Youre just not getting it, I didn't call anyone a racist, I'm just pointing out how using racist names with your friends on the streets of Brooklyn isnt viewed as ok. 

Thats it, its simple, but you'll argue its ok all day

Either you are a young fellow or you are not engulfing yourself in the larger points of this discussion.  I'm not arguing in favor of using street language.   To the contrary.   People who use street language always risk hurting peoples feelings and offending them.  That is not OK.  It's bad news.  I'm saying it is not just to label an individual as a convinced racist if they are heard using street language.  I'm not giving them a pass.  They are foolish and insensitive.  Regardless, these days, people need to keep their heads and look at issues and people from all angles without going off half-coked like a mass media trained Pavlovian dog.  The laws of the country are judicious.  "Race" and gender are social issues.  They have to be tackled socially.  Free discussion is important.  Street language is a bad idea for many reasons, but none of us should make specious claims of racism if some idiot uses controversial language.  

So.. I'm right with you on language.  It is BAD to use street language.  Don't do it.

And now, you should also see and agree that making specious claims of racism is often used as a political weapon.  Let's finger the real bad guys and not get so worked up over a jackass that  is not true racist, but is guilty of not being fluent in media speak.  

 Again... Street language is a bad idea.  Don't do it.  Peoples feelings can be hurt and it is easily misunderstood. Even if no offense was intended and no racist/sexist notions are harbored.  It is to be avoided. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, kelticwizard said:

Now Whitlock is just getting stupid.  What the hell is an unorganized civilization?  By definition, a civilization is a large group of people who work together in an organized way.  And does Whitlock want to seriously compare American civilization, which came into existence during the Enlightenment, to civilizations that had slavery a thousand years previously?  Especially when we came into existence with the words about all men being created equal.

 

Fact is, while the US should be proud to be the first modern democracy without an aristocratic class, we were also one of the last technologically advanced countries on Earth to still have slavery in 1861.  Apparently Whitlock thinks that's not a big deal, even though his own flesh and blood most likely felt the lash until Emancipation.  What the hell is wrong with him?

You really don't think slavery exists today?? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, kelticwizard said:

No, Newspeak was set up in Orwell's novel by the government to get people to accept English totalitarianism, not socialism.  Fact is, Orwell actually was a socialist, as evidenced by Orwell's own words:

Whitlock is being dishonest here, trying to confuse the reader between socialism and totalitarianism.  Shame on him.

Socialism is often a feel good tool used to usher in totalitarianism though slowly at first. "Hey, we're all going to be equal and have this great stuff, but to get there we're going to have to change some things. To change those things we'll need temporary authority to make those change without the pesky government mechanisms normally required to make said changes..." It's an old story seen played throughout history. It often starts with telling people how they are allowed to think and what they are allowed to express. When people speak up the mob shouts them down and goes after them. Seems familiar to what is going on now as the mob has become judge and jury with their own ever shifting standards. The road to hell is paved with 'good intentions'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2020 at 1:37 PM, Rangers9 said:

Theoretically Kraft did a lot worse at least in terms of personal behavior. And he so far no recrimination from Roger. 

Kraft could get convicted of bank robbery his peon Goodell would do nothing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Embrace the Suck said:

Socialism is often a feel good tool used to usher in totalitarianism though slowly at first. "Hey, we're all going to be equal and have this great stuff, but to get there we're going to have to change some things. To change those things we'll need temporary authority to make those change without the pesky government mechanisms normally required to make said changes..." It's an old story seen played throughout history. It often starts with telling people how they are allowed to think and what they are allowed to express. When people speak up the mob shouts them down and goes after them. Seems familiar to what is going on now as the mob has become judge and jury with their own ever shifting standards. The road to hell is paved with 'good intentions'. 

FE5162A2-B116-44D5-B9B0-6A273BBD96B9.jpeg.03a5b74757399d22152f3e13a5c07722.jpeg

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Embrace the Suck said:

Socialism is often a feel good tool used to usher in totalitarianism though slowly at first. "Hey, we're all going to be   equal and have this great stuff, but to get there we're going to have to change some things. To change those things we'll need temporary authority to make those change without the pesky government mechanisms normally required to make said changes..." It's an old story seen played throughout history. It often starts with telling people how they are allowed to think and what they are allowed to express. When people speak up the mob shouts them down and goes after them. Seems familiar to what is going on now as the mob has become judge and jury with their own ever shifting standards. The road to hell is paved with 'good intentions'. 

You are saying that nice functioning democratic capitalist countries started letting in socialism and became authoritarian?  Where did this ever happen?  The two major authoritarian socialist countries of our time are Russia and China.  China went from being an occupied colony which existed to enrich it's conqueror straight to authoritarian socialism with no capitalist interlude in between.  Russia went from being a feudal monarchy straight to authoritarian socialism with no capitalist interlude.  Eastern Europe went from being mostly capitalist but had authoritarian socialism forced upon by Russia during WWII.  Your notion of nice wealthy capitalist countries which fell into authoritarianism by adopting socialism is a myth.

Meanwhile, the socialist economies of Western Europe have led to a higher standard of living than we have over here, as measured by lifespan.  It should be pointed out that the Western European model-and now even the model of Eastern European nations who were able to break away from the Russian Bear in 1991-involve having private ownership of many sectors of the economy.  They are _not_ "The government owns and runs everything", they are mixed economies.  Just to give you some idea how well it works, the Czech Republic before 1991 was Russian hostage with awful living standards.  Now they are a thriving nation with a mixed socialist-capitalist economy whose lifespan is about equal to the US.  Western Europe is full of free countries, just like the US. The "watch out you might fall into authoritarian socialism"  theme is bunk.  If there is something we have to watch out for, it's falling into oligarchy as the wealth in this nation flows into fewer and fewer hands at the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, kelticwizard said:

Fact is, while the US should be proud to be the first modern democracy without an aristocratic class, we were also one of the last technologically advanced countries on Earth to still have slavery in 1861.

 

12 hours ago, Savage69 said:

You really don't think slavery exists today?? 

I said technologically advanced.  Actually, there are two tecchnologically advanced, though poor, countries with slaves in India and China.  However, how much of that is slavery as we knew it here and how much of it is child brides and other leftover cultural artifacts that we presently classify as slavery is open to question.  At any rate in both countries the rate is under 2%.  In 1861 we had two states-Mississippi and S. Carolina-where slaves were over 50% of the population!

E5Ogdjp.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, kelticwizard said:

You are saying that nice functioning democratic capitalist countries started letting in socialism and became authoritarian?  Where did this ever happen?  The two major authoritarian socialist countries of our time are Russia and China.  China went from being an occupied colony which existed to enrich it's conqueror straight to authoritarian socialism with no capitalist interlude in between.  Russia went from being a feudal monarchy straight to authoritarian socialism with no capitalist interlude.  Eastern Europe went from being mostly capitalist but had authoritarian socialism forced upon by Russia during WWII.  Your notion of nice wealthy capitalist countries which fell into authoritarianism by adopting socialism is a myth.

Meanwhile, the socialist economies of Western Europe have led to a higher standard of living than we have over here, as measured by lifespan.  It should be pointed out that the Western European model-and now even the model of Eastern European nations who were able to break away from the Russian Bear in 1991-involve having private ownership of many sectors of the economy.  They are _not_ "The government owns and runs everything", they are mixed economies.  Just to give you some idea how well it works, the Czech Republic before 1991 was Russian hostage with awful living standards.  Now they are a thriving nation with a mixed socialist-capitalist economy whose lifespan is about equal to the US.  Western Europe is full of free countries, just like the US. The "watch out you might fall into authoritarian socialism"  theme is bunk.  If there is something we have to watch out for, it's falling into oligarchy as the wealth in this nation flows into fewer and fewer hands at the top.

I never said they had to be happy productive capitalist societies to start. I said the people in charge tell the masses we're all going to be happy and equal but we need the power to make the needed changes to bring about a utopia. Western Europe has also had the benefit of not having to pay for it's security for the most part thanks to the US. I have family spread all over Europe and they do well, but it isn't as amazing as people in the US (who suffer from a grass is greener on the other side mentality) like to think. Going on a short vacation to Europe doesn't mean you know what's going on there either. They have a lot of social and economic issues that you don't hear much about in the news which is why there are more than a few countries looking to leave the EU. Take a look at Venezuela and how they went from rich to poor and desperate. The only real experience most people in the US have with socialism is the public school system and welfare both of which are generally a disaster when you look at their results as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Embrace the Suck said:

I never said [socialist countries] they had to be happy productive capitalist societies to start. I said the people in charge tell the masses we're all going to be happy and equal but we need the power to make the needed changes to bring about a utopia.

In other words, you are saying that when a country goes socialist, the people gradually give up their rights, correct?  And my question, unanswered, was where did this happen?  I've already dealt with Russia and China-when the Communists took over there the people didn't give up any rights because under their previous regimes, (Czarist and colonial, respectively), they didn't have any rights in the first place.  Hence, no rights given up under the Communists.  The Communists didn't add any rights, mind you, but they didn't take any away.

 

The Western European Socialist experience, by contrast, is quite different.  After WWII, they all started adding national health care and other social programs while maintaining private enterprise for most of the economy.  It works quite well, and as previously stated, they have a higher standard of living than us as measured by lifespan.  In fact, it worked so well that when the Eastern European countries, (who were forced to live in poverty under Russian-style Communism since WWII), were able to break away from the Iron Curtain in 1991, they adopted Western European style Socialism and moved forward quickly.  For instance, in the first few years after breaking away from Russian dominance, the lifespan of the average Czech man grew by six years, which I think you will agree is phenomenal.

 

Now, I'm not saying Western Europe is Paradise on Earth or that the US is no longer First World, but our standard of living is not ahead of the pack like it used to be.  We've been slipping back for quite awhile, while Western European style Socialist, (actually mixed socialist-capitalist)  societies move ahead of us. And when you break your leg over there, you don't have to worry about how much it's going to cost to get it fixed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...