What's in the News? 2.0

Started by Tolvo, January 16, 2019, 05:34:38 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Oniya

Gillette is basically using it's 'the best a man can get' tagline to promote men behaving better:  being good role models for their kids, treating people with respect (really, regardless of gender - I've seen some of the toxic shit men throw at other men), and so forth.  The usual suspects are upset about it.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Tolvo

Yeah.

The ad shows instances of smaller boys and teenagers bullying other boys and dads stepping in to stop the harassment and fights, it is very anti-sexism but also is broadly anti-bullying regardless of gender, with their young boys watching them and learning to stand up against bullies. So it's pretty explicit in not stating "Male = bad" but that it is toxic masculinity that is the problem and that men can be better than being violent, sexist, and bullies. And to raise a new generation of men who will do the right things and stand up and make society better for everyone.

Cognitive Brainfart

Unpopular opinion, but ah well. I didn't like the ad at all. I first saw it here, through this thread, I'm not sure if it even is/was on tv here at all. Gilette, in my opinion, doesn't give a single solitary crap about women's rights or bullying, they are just using emotional topics to stir people's emotions and sell a product. In general, I don't like preachy moralizing ads coming from large corporations. Of course, I'm not going crazy or write 25 Twitter posts or boycott Gilette or whatever - those reactions are just as dumb tbh. I just didn't like the commercial.

IrishWolf

#28
Quote from: Skynet on January 19, 2019, 04:31:33 PM
High school students chant "Build the Wall!" at a Native American Vietnam Veteran.

I admire this man's self-control. If I were in his shoes I'd have replied "You're more immigrants than I am, now get off my land!"

It would appear there is a great deal more context to this, then what has been presented in this story, including that no one can be heard chanting "Build the Wall".

Video.
<Rendered into a link; underaged in the video thumbnail. -Staff>

Iniquitous

#29
Quote from: IrishWolf on January 20, 2019, 08:01:52 PM
It would appear there is a great deal more context to this, then what has been presented in this story, including that no one can be heard chanting "Build the Wall".

Video.
<Rendered into a link; underaged in the video thumbnail. -Staff>

What came to light is that there was a group of black Hebrew Israelites that were quoting Old Testament scriptures. The idiots noticed them and began harassing/taunting them. Nathan Phillips, the Native American Elder, and other Native Americans stepped between the two parties to try and peacefully defuse the situation.  Nathan began drumming only after the situation continued to escalate.

Now, how did this all come out?  Because the smug faced asshole in the video had his mother release a statement blaming everything on the "black muslims".

No matter how this is spun, these children have been raised to hate and have an idol in the White House to look up to.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Lustful Bride

Shouldn't the cops have been keeping all these demonstrations separate form one another for this very reason?

Tolvo

Quote from: Lustful Bride on January 20, 2019, 08:59:15 PM
Shouldn't the cops have been keeping all these demonstrations separate form one another for this very reason?

They're supposed to, but they don't always. There have been numerous occasions where they totally screw this up, such as Charlottesville. Where police had complete disorganization and different plans between multiple precincts, told Neo Nazis and counter protesters to all go in the same area(Police were confused about which side was for which, and kept switching what they'd tell people, so everyone ended up on both sides mixed in with one another and tried to force out the people who they were told did not belong by police), ordered cops not to break up fights because it was too dangerous, and where they said a spot should have a concrete barrier as it was ripe for someone to drive through and kill people but failed to put it up, this is the spot where Heather Heyer was murdered by James Alex Fields. The police had complete lack of communication with one another, though they did do some things right but a problem with that was a lot of the things that they did right were suggestions for safety they gave to the Alt Right which the Alt Right ignored and escalated things even more. As well many of the officers there lacked training in dealing with these sorts of events.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcoYKuoiUrY

Shaun has a good summary of a lot of the problems with police communication in this video. Though it is 53 minutes long so I understand not watching it since it's like being told to watch a movie. But he also linked his sources in the description. So here is a report on the events, what the Police did right and what they did wrong.

https://www.huntonak.com/images/content/3/4/v2/34613/final-report-ada-compliant-ready.pdf

Regina Minx

Quote from: Lustful Bride on January 20, 2019, 08:59:15 PM
Shouldn't the cops have been keeping all these demonstrations separate form one another for this very reason?

Which police would that be? Since the Lincoln Memorial is on the National Mall, that puts it in the jurisdiction of th United States Park Police. Who are not getting paid because of the shutdown.

IrishWolf

#33
Quote from: Iniquitous on January 20, 2019, 08:40:06 PM
What came to light is that there was a group of black Hebrew Israelites that were quoting Old Testament scriptures. The idiots noticed them and began harassing/taunting them. Nathan Phillips, the Native American Elder, and other Native Americans stepped between the two parties to try and peacefully defuse the situation.  Nathan began drumming only after the situation continued to escalate.

Now, how did this all come out?  Because the smug faced asshole in the video had his mother release a statement blaming everything on the "black muslims".

No matter how this is spun, these children have been raised to hate and have an idol in the White House to look up to.

Maybe you should watch the full, raw video, recorded by a member of the Black Hebrew Israelites and posted to facebook, because it is far far far more then a simple, quoting the Old Testament scriptures. Warning, it is about an hour and forty-five minutes long.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3EC1_gcr34

I personally like the follow highlights

3:11 "Indian means Savage"

34:30 "A damn buffalo wont save you"

36:00 "Thats the reason why your drunkards in the casinos and plantations."

37:00 "You damn uncle tomahawk."

45:46 "You see that, the lord said to warn you wicked people, whoever is living foul, who ever is breaking the commandments of god, whoevers a faggot and a lesbo and a dyke."

50:30 "All you *intelligible* are school shooters."

54:30 "You believe in a faggot child molester"

1:08:30 *MAGA types start school chant*

1:12:19 *Nathan Phillips arrives*

1:19:00 "Get out nigga get out"

1:22:27 "The Greeks were a bunch of homosexuals, just like the Romans

1:25:00 "You give faggots rights"

1:26:44 *students head for their bus*

Quote from: Lustful Bride on January 20, 2019, 08:59:15 PM
Shouldn't the cops have been keeping all these demonstrations separate form one another for this very reason?

Because it wasn't a demonstration. The Lincoln Memorial was a meeting place for the students after the March for Life, people from the Indigenous People's March were there after their event and the Black Hebrew Israelites are street preachers, who set up shop there. 

sdparquinn

Quote from: Tolvo on January 19, 2019, 10:51:22 PM
As I said I based my statements on the actions and words of the people I have seen objecting, largely Incels, MRA's, PUA's, Neo Nazis, are the groups who were most vocally angry. I mentioned I wasn't even sure if moderate conservatives were angry about the ads. The groups and figures I did see reacting in anger towards the ad and calling for boycotts are people who support bulling, harassment, and assault. The poster boys for this are the Alt Right and Piers Morgan.

People can hate the ad simply because it is progressive or feminist even if they agree with it due to them hating progressives and feminists. But the core outrage came from a lot of hate groups and those were the people vocally pushing it. And #MeToo is explicitly an anti-sexual assault and anti-sexual abuse movement as such taking a strong position in opposition of that would align someone with supporting rape for instance, since they are against anti-rape stances. It is like when people claim to be Anti Anti Fascists, that would mean they are Fascists and are Pro Fascism, and if they don't want to be called that to use different terminology and not support Fascism.

You can find conservatives not close to these groups and people who also did not like the ad, but when they join hands with the groups leading this charge they're going to be associated with and will be known for supporting their hateful views and ideologies.

If people rally around hate groups and hate leaders and agree with them, they'll be associated with them.
Of course there's a ton of very gross people objecting to the add, but if you're convinced it's *only* alt right types well I have a doozie for you: Slavoj Zizek, like it or not one of the biggest figures of the far left, wrote a piece against the advertisement.

I love Nazi punchers as much as the next guy. And I am aware of antifa and wholeheartedly support their actions. And as someone to the far far side of the left, as you and I are, you should also know well that there's a whole ideological apparatus that goes along with antifa that extends to more than just being anti-fascist (my agreement with their anti-capitalist stances is part of the reason for my support). Saying "antifa is just anti-fascist" as if that's *all* it is is absurd. It's a conglomeration of left wing militants and yes the rest of the leftist ideology comes along for the ride. As much as I like them if someone expresses disapproval due to it's ties to leftist ideas, and I then claim that their objection is really just cause they're some kind of Nazi or Nazi sympathizer, I'm probably going to look like a strawmanning fool. And it's not going to go over well with people listening that don't already share my political leanings.

Perfect example being the Jordan Peterson interview with that british journalist. He made her look like a fool despite how easy it is to dismantle Peterson's nonsense *partly because she misrepresented his views and he threw it back at her and called her on it*.

And the same applies to the whole Gillette thing. Even if you think it's entirely manufactured outrage by the right (and yeah that probably the case), there's going to be people that hear and agree with the outrage, that aren't nazis and aren't aware that the origin of the controversy is said far right wingers, and probably going to be further alienated when you try to put them in same boat as genocidal lunatics.

Tolvo

Quote from: sdparquinn on January 20, 2019, 11:07:15 PM
Of course there's a ton of very gross people objecting to the add, but if you're convinced it's *only* alt right types well I have a doozie for you: Slavoj Zizek, like it or not one of the biggest figures of the far left, wrote a piece against the advertisement.

I love Nazi punchers as much as the next guy. And I am aware of antifa and wholeheartedly support their actions. And as someone to the far far side of the left, as you and I are, you should also know well that there's a whole ideological apparatus that goes along with antifa that extends to more than just being anti-fascist (my agreement with their anti-capitalist stances is part of the reason for my support). Saying "antifa is just anti-fascist" as if that's *all* it is is absurd. It's a conglomeration of left wing militants and yes the rest of the leftist ideology comes along for the ride. As much as I like them if someone expresses disapproval due to it's ties to leftist ideas, and I then claim that their objection is really just cause they're some kind of Nazi or Nazi sympathizer, I'm probably going to look like a strawmanning fool. And it's not going to go over well with people listening that don't already share my political leanings.

Perfect example being the Jordan Peterson interview with that british journalist. He made her look like a fool despite how easy it is to dismantle Peterson's nonsense *partly because she misrepresented his views and he threw it back at her and called her on it*.

And the same applies to the whole Gillette thing. Even if you think it's entirely manufactured outrage by the right (and yeah that probably the case), there's going to be people that hear and agree with the outrage, that aren't nazis and aren't aware that the origin of the controversy is said far right wingers, and probably going to be further alienated when you try to put them in same boat as genocidal lunatics.

Please don't then try to misrepresent what I said then if you think it hurts your own image to do so. Inventing things for a fictional version of me to have said which the real me didn't does not make for a strong case. I never said it was only the alt right doing it, I said they were leading the charge and were very vocal about it and they were who people were rallying around for it.

Being against specific antifascist groups and organizations is different from broadly being against antifascists in their entirety. These are very different statements for someone to make. Antifa does mean antifascist, that is the common thread among all antifascists, as it isn't a single organization and as I've mentioned in the past is many small groups that have common interests and goals. Many groups go about this in many different ways. Being against antifascisms is supporting fascisms flat out. Being against specific forms of antifascism is very different. If someone is says they are against anti-racism, that means they support racism. If someone says they aren't against anti-racism but do not trust or like Shaun King, that is more specific and does not directly show support for racism, but rather they do not agree with Shaun King's words or actions.

I said it is bad for them to associate with and agree with Neo Nazis and empower them and that it hurts their image to do so. Do you disagree with this statement? Do you think it is neutral or good for people to agree with Neo Nazis and empower them or that it is good for their image to do so?

I did not say that all people who hate the add are genocidal Neo Nazis, I said people who do so and rally around Neo Nazis who do will cause them to be associated with each other. If you put yourself in the same boat as the Neo Nazis people will associate you with them.

I am very specific and explicit in what I say, I don't know why people imagine all sorts of things I don't state are what I really said and that what I really said should be ignored. It's rather frustrating when nothing I say matters to anyone and people will just constantly jump to conclusions based on nothing I've actually said.

Silk

The thing is about the Gillet ad is that I can understand the fustration for a lot of guys. Because it can be seen as a symptom of a continuous cause where large corperations continue to moral grandstand and think they can come in and tutor people about things they really don't have business in doing so. It would'nt supprise me if the backlash wasn't actively sought after for the contriversy. But were reaching a point in society that it's not just becoming "MRA's Incels and Kekistanians" who are having enough of being treated as if they're the cause of the worlds problems with regular mixed messages, they're doomed if they do, doomed if they don't.

But for a lot of guys in particular talking down to them is always a very abrasive thing to do that will only really serves to piss them off. Which to be fair I don't blame them. Especially when it comes from a company that typically goes to "inspire" men to "be the best they can get" to going to a company that tells them to do better, who happens to sell razors. If it was the usual role reversal scenario, the Ad would've been taken off within the day over accusations of man-splaining.

And lets not even go into the fact Gillet is one of the LAST companies I want to hear moral grandstanding from, I'd sooner hear KFC talk about Veganism given it's child labor practices


Skynet

Quote from: IrishWolf on January 20, 2019, 08:01:52 PM
It would appear there is a great deal more context to this, then what has been presented in this story, including that no one can be heard chanting "Build the Wall".

Quote from: IrishWolf on January 20, 2019, 10:28:08 PM
Maybe you should watch the full, raw video, recorded by a member of the Black Hebrew Israelites and posted to facebook, because it is far far far more then a simple, quoting the Old Testament scriptures. Warning, it is about an hour and forty-five minutes long.

At first I was going to question your sources, given the validity of the first linked video given well...stuff like criticizing social media companies for cutting ties with Alex Jones and belonging to what looks to be a typical conservative clickbait channel if thumbnails and titles are anything to go by.

But thank you for at least linking a fuller link and the summary video, although granted I do not have time to see that anytime soon.


Tolvo

Quote from: Tolvo on January 16, 2019, 05:34:38 AM
Though it is still a company selling a product so they may have wanted this publicity and backlash as a form of marketing.

Probably people may have noticed based on my sternly anti-capitalist stances, I don't like corporations. I don't like these sorts of industries, I hate marketing. I think capitalism inherently supports exploitation of others. The ad has a good message but as I said in the OP, is still made by a corporation selling something. And as the article I linked states, if people clicked it in the OP, is counter to their previous messaging in ads. It also mentions they're donating millions to advocacy groups, though for such a large corporation that really isn't much money. But the actual message of the ad which was made by people with a focus on making videos about fighting hate and violence that was hired by Gillette as it says in the article, I think is good itself.

If the roles were reversed the ad wouldn't make much sense. Certain parts can still work like the anti-bullying message depicting girls bullying each other, but the anti-sexism message wouldn't really work. Because it would be showing various scenes that are not nearly as common. There are still women who harass and assault men but the numbers are incredibly different in regards to how often that occurs. Still even more men sexually harass and assault other men. Women harassing and assaulting men is a problem, but it isn't as much of an epidemic as men harassing and assaulting women is.

https://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2012/mar/19/rod-monroe/intimate-partner-violence-second-leading-cause-dea/

Though one does have to be careful, while it is a leading cause of deaths by homicide for women killed by romantic partners, and a leading cause of death for women, the data only has been observed in around 16 states and while it is still beat out by cancer and heart disease, so it is not the leading cause of death but is up there. People often claim it is the leading cause of death for women under 50 or that it is the 6th leading cause of death, which is based on it falling under homicide which on certain charts is number 6 or 5 or 3 but above 40% but under 50% of them are homicides carried out by romantic partners against women. And again that's based on data from under 20 states so not even half. So saying it is a leading cause is correct, saying it is the leading cause or that 7% of women under 50 die this way is not verifiable and the data currently doesn't support it.

https://www.cdc.gov/women/lcod/2015/all-females/index.htm

For instance here for different age groups it varies, and it changes based on ethnicity and other factors.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1635092

There are various small studies on this and data samplings but they're not all as drastically conclusive as people tend to say they are and we don't have good national averages to look at. As in the above data sample men were more likely to be murdered, but women were more likely to be murdered by a romantic partner, a small percentage of women are murderers. Though this is from 1992, and the CDC one is from 2015, so they won't accurately reflect specifically 2018 or what things will specifically be like in 2019.

Warning for the next link, it is stats on sexual abuse, assault and rape across genders and age groups and ethnic groups.

https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics

I also don't really see how the ad talked down to anyone, it showed very clear examples of good things men can do that were really obvious, with their negative examples being really obvious like grabbing women, stalking women, attacking other people. It didn't sit there and say men are evil and sexist, it showed men who were and men who were better than that and said to be better. If someone feels they were spoken down to, they might have really bad views on consent and boundaries if that was information above their head or beyond their understanding or if they do the things that were shown as negative examples. And again, the message was from men to men, it featured Terry Crews, if it were the complete reverse situation that would be women telling women not to assault men, how would that be considered mansplaining by any means?

Nachtmahr

Might be worth considering a separate thread for the Gilette discussion. It's an interesting one, and ideally one worth having.

I personally strongly disagree with the ad for multiple reasons. From what I've seen, the idea that it's mostly hate-groups or incels calling it out is an extremely misleading generalization. Most of the criticism I've seen of it has been perfectly legitimate.
~Await the Dawn With Her Kiss of Redemption, My Firebird!~
~You Were the Queen of the Souls of Man Before There Was the Word~

Iniquitous

#41
Quote from: IrishWolf on January 20, 2019, 10:28:08 PM
Maybe you should watch the full, raw video, recorded by a member of the Black Hebrew Israelites and posted to facebook, because it is far far far more then a simple, quoting the Old Testament scriptures. Warning, it is about an hour and forty-five minutes long.

Video.
<Linked; minors in the video. -Staff>

I personally like the follow highlights

3:11 "Indian means Savage"

34:30 "A damn buffalo wont save you"

36:00 "Thats the reason why your drunkards in the casinos and plantations."

37:00 "You damn uncle tomahawk."

45:46 "You see that, the lord said to warn you wicked people, whoever is living foul, who ever is breaking the commandments of god, whoevers a faggot and a lesbo and a dyke."

50:30 "All you *intelligible* are school shooters."

54:30 "You believe in a faggot child molester"

1:08:30 *MAGA types start school chant*

1:12:19 *Nathan Phillips arrives*

1:19:00 "Get out nigga get out"

1:22:27 "The Greeks were a bunch of homosexuals, just like the Romans

1:25:00 "You give faggots rights"

1:26:44 *students head for their bus*

Because it wasn't a demonstration. The Lincoln Memorial was a meeting place for the students after the March for Life, people from the Indigenous People's March were there after their event and the Black Hebrew Israelites are street preachers, who set up shop there.

If you re-read what I posted to begin with, I never said this was a simple situation.  Nor did I defend the black Hebrew Israelites.  I simply stated that the incident was, at the very least, a situation of Native Americans (at least one of them), attempting to defuse a situation.  The fact that some dumb t**twaffle in Ky decided to claim her son acted the way he did was because of the scary "black muslims" is what exacerbated the whole situation. So, let's look at this from the ground up shall we?

1. The blacks are not muslims.  I think we can all agree on that right? (Please take note this time that I am not defending their speech)
2. The ignorant school boys aren't mature enough to be allowed in public without real adult supervision.
3. Nathan Phillips was trying to keep things from getting worse - an admirable move in my eyes in this day and age.
4. The ignorant school boys learned their racism from their parents. A fact well established by mommy dearest blaming the black "muslims"
5. This is the sad state of our country, made all the worse by Mango Mussolini in the oval office.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Tolvo

Quote from: Nachtmahr on January 21, 2019, 09:14:43 AM
Might be worth considering a separate thread for the Gilette discussion. It's an interesting one, and ideally one worth having.

I personally strongly disagree with the ad for multiple reasons. From what I've seen, the idea that it's mostly hate-groups or incels calling it out is an extremely misleading generalization. Most of the criticism I've seen of it has been perfectly legitimate.

If the mods feel the need to they can, but I'm not sure what else there really is to say. Again, I have to base it off what I see and what is reported and observed. The people reacting in outrage to the ad that are trying to rally others are mainly hateful people. I keep trying to find people who don't have a history of bigotry that are figures calling it out in anger. The furthest from the extremists I can find is Sarah Palin, which is not who someone wants probably representing them as not over reacting and as not a hateful person.

There has been leftist critique of the company itself but it's quite a bit different and based in the history of the company and their business practices and exploitation of people not the content of the ad. SNL compared fighting toxic masculinity to trying to get men and boys to not burst through walls like the Kool-Aid man is that what you mean? When I check on youtube as well many of the most viewed video responses are by far right extremists and bigots peppered in between news channels discussing the outrage uploaded to youtube. It seems honestly like most news is just about the fact that there is outrage not the ad itself, which I imagine wouldn't have gotten this much attention if not for people reacting to it. So if it was all just for marketing the alt right and MRA's have been good publicity for Gillette. I still don't even know if a large portion of conservatives are up in arms about the ad or if it's just the extremist fringe.

Nachtmahr

Quote from: Tolvo on January 21, 2019, 09:44:17 AM
Again, I have to base it off what I see and what is reported and observed. The people reacting in outrage to the ad that are trying to rally others are mainly hateful people. I keep trying to find people who don't have a history of bigotry that are figures calling it out in anger. The furthest from the extremists I can find is Sarah Palin, which is not who someone wants probably representing them as not over reacting and as not a hateful person.

Could you share some of that reporting? I do feel that we might have very different ideas of who's hateful and who isn't. Most of the criticism I've seen, even from controversial figures and commentators, has not been hateful, but rather calm and measured. I make a habit of getting different takes from different sources, and on this one I find that I agree more with some of the people I think you may have labeled as hateful.

Quote from: Tolvo on January 21, 2019, 09:44:17 AM
There has been leftist critique of the company itself but it's quite a bit different and based in the history of the company and their business practices and exploitation of people not the content of the ad.

Well, I'd definitely agree with that criticism, although I'd also criticize the ad. It's "woke capitalism". Social causes hijacked for free PR. I mean, this is still a company that's trying to sell men razors while pretending to care about a social cause. I mean, what progressive platform is Gilette as a company speaking from? I disagree with the ad on a lot of things and I think it takes a reductionist view of gender that's shared across the progressive wing of the modern left. But at the end of the day, it's not just the message that I disagree with, it's also the fact that it's a company using genuine abuse, for example the MeToo movement, to sell their product. Let's not forget, at the end of the day, that's what this is for. To plant the idea that you're somehow helping victims of abuse of fighting a social cause by buying Gilette products. It's a ridiculous notion.
~Await the Dawn With Her Kiss of Redemption, My Firebird!~
~You Were the Queen of the Souls of Man Before There Was the Word~

Tolvo

https://www.newsweek.com/tomi-lahren-bashes-gillettes-controversial-toxic-masculinity-ad-1296564

Tomi Lahren

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/15/gillette-ad-not-pc-guff-piers-morgan-macho-stereotype-boys

Piers Morgan(Who is the originator of a lot of the calls for Boycott)

https://www.advocate.com/media/2019/1/15/bigots-james-woods-piers-morgan-are-furious-gillette

James Woods.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-gillette-ad-masculinity_us_5c423a7ce4b0bfa693c37e41

Candace Owens.

Then various people at Fox News. Sarah Palin's is honestly barely even much compared to the rest of them more so she just has a horrid past(Like calling black people dogs). But the people above are white supremacists and hate the #MeToo movement. Others are basically just hundreds of random youtubers some names I recognize some I don't though when i click their channels they tend to be far right. Russia Today, Daily Wire(Far Right and white supremacist filled), various MGTOW youtube organizations, Rebel Media(Far Right), Ben Shapiro(Neo Nazi), tons of video game channels for some reason talking about this that are either a guy in a t-shirt with a hipster looking beard or a guy in a suit staring into a camera, hundreds of these.

Most actual news sources just talk about the outrage from the big names leading the call for a boycott, mainly Piers Morgan is who is in all the articles. Most don't even talk much about the ad tbh as the ad itself isn't super newsworthy. Though there is criticism from progressives but again they are pretty detached and different from the right wing outrage machine and is about again the use of marketing via moral messages to sell a product, criticisms of exploitation done by Gillette, of companies and industries like this. So very different from the right wing criticism I see that is more so rooted in misogyny and hatred of the #MeToo movement. And again, I don't see a ton of more moderate conservatives even really making a stink about it. Possibly because doing so could involve associating with people who would really damage their image.

Nachtmahr

It is definitely safe to say that we have wildly different views and opinions, and I don't think a debate would bear fruit. I respect your views, but I do strongly disagree.
~Await the Dawn With Her Kiss of Redemption, My Firebird!~
~You Were the Queen of the Souls of Man Before There Was the Word~

IrishWolf

Quote from: Iniquitous on January 21, 2019, 09:22:40 AM
If you re-read what I posted to begin with, I never said this was a simple situation.  Nor did I defend the black Hebrew Israelites.  I simply stated that the incident was, at the very least, a situation of Native Americans (at least one of them), attempting to defuse a situation.  The fact that some dumb t**twaffle in Ky decided to claim her son acted the way he did was because of the scary "black muslims" is what exacerbated the whole situation. So, let's look at this from the ground up shall we?

I'll give you being technically right.

Quote from: Iniquitous on January 20, 2019, 08:40:06 PM
What came to light is that there was a group of black Hebrew Israelites that were quoting Old Testament scriptures. The idiots noticed them and began harassing/taunting them.

What you did was drastically downplay what the Black Hebrew Israelites were doing. They were not just quoting scriptures, if they were, nothing would have happened. What they were doing was reading out scriptures and using them to justify hauling racial and homophobic slurs, at anyone who was within sight. Nor did the students begin harassing the Black Hebrew Israelites, they were the victims of insults and slurs first. If you watch that video, its very clear to see who started it.


Quote1. The blacks are not muslims.  I think we can all agree on that right? (Please take note this time that I am not defending their speech)

I totally agree, however you act like this mother, who wasn't there, would know that. You act like the kid, as his face is being splashed over media as some sort of horrible racist and the calls for doxxing, followed by death threats against him and his family starting rolling in, would know the finer details of this small cult.

Quote2. The ignorant school boys aren't mature enough to be allowed in public without real adult supervision.

I disagree. They are high schoolers, thats old enough to be off the apron strings. And ignorant? Is trying to drown out hate filled slurs with school chats, ignorant?

Quote3. Nathan Phillips was trying to keep things from getting worse - an admirable move in my eyes in this day and age.

Agreed, his intentions were noble and commendable. I think his execution was flawed and could have been done better with a few simple changes. Had everything worked out as he intended, it would have been a beautiful moment. In fact, it still could have been a good moment, if the media hadn't taken an out of context clip and made the boys out as terrible, evil MAGA types, who had surrounded a peaceful Native American vet and taunted him.

Quote4. The ignorant school boys learned their racism from their parents. A fact well established by mommy dearest blaming the black "muslims"

Thats your option. I'll even give you that mom had a racist moment but again, context. This wasn't some long thought out plan, this statement was released in the middle of a media storm and hate mob, calling in death threats. I doubt the kid knew just who and what the Black Hebrew Israelites are and described them as bearded black men preaching hate. Which is true but can lead to the mind jumping to conclusions. Mom was right in who caused the commotion, just not what they were.

Quote5. This is the sad state of our country, made all the worse by Mango Mussolini in the oval office.

Thats your option again. I'd say its being made worse by the media publishing stories, which were not vetted, as fast as they can to get clicks.

These kids have been made out to be monsters and Nick Sandmann, as been singled out.

He has been doxxed.
He and his family are getting death threats.
People on social media are offering rewards, if someone hurts him and sends them a video.

Every time, for the rest of his life, when he applies for a school, a job or a loan, people will google his name and find story after story, with his name and face, about how he harassed a Native American vet. He will have to explain, every time, if potential employers/admission officers/bank personal let him explain, that its not true. People across the world think he did a terrible thing, compare him to nazis and make lists with his face, being among the most punchable.

All for what? Awkwardly standing there, smiling, when a strange man walked right up to him, almost nose to nose, beating a drum.

Skynet

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-students-full-video-shows-viral-protest-new-light/2635085002/

According to this USA Today article, some of the high school students did a tomahawk chop motion associated with some sports teams that use Native iconography in their logos.

The Florida Seminoles are one of the few exceptions, but most sports teams receive lots of criticisms from Native Americans for either using them without permission or in a mocking manner aka Chief Yahoo or the Washington Redskins.

This does not absolve the black anti-semites,* although doing a tomahawk chop gesture to a Native American can easily come across as a racist taunt.


*I'm calling them that and not their official name b/c they're stealing Jewish culture and claiming it for their own while denigrating the original culture in question. They have nothing to do with Israel or the Hebrew language.

Regina Minx

#48
Quote from: IrishWolf on January 20, 2019, 10:28:08 PM
Maybe you should watch the full, raw video, recorded by a member of the Black Hebrew Israelites and posted to facebook, because it is far far far more then a simple, quoting the Old Testament scriptures. Warning, it is about an hour and forty-five minutes long.

Video.
<Linked; minors in video. -Staff>


My summary:

Regarding the Black Israelites: Having come from a DC suburb, I'm familiar with them. They're very aggressive and combative street preachers and freely use racial slurs. It's not unfair to call them as a cult, not unlike the Westboro Baptist Church

In any case, this is my summary and impression of the entire video: the Black Israelites are yelling at the High School kids and vice versa. The more aggressive language came from the Black Israelites at the start. They did use homophobic slurs and used the N-word directed at one of the high schoolers. Not pictured is who started what. But put a hyperaggressive black supremacist group on one end and a crowd of mostly white high school boys in MAGA hats, not much of a spark is required to start something. This is the situation that Phillips walked into, saying that he decided to put himself between them. What's not in dispute is what happened when he did: the students parted around him and he was then surrounded by them, and they are visibly laughing, jeering and chanting.

I’ve seen various people claiming in the light of the new videos that the kids might simply be milling around or laughing uncomfortably or even chanting in unison with Phillips’ drumming. That’s a stretch by any definition and the ‘tomahawk chop’ hand motions kind of prove that to be a lie. The boy who was at the center of the confrontation on the other side of Phillips, Nick Sandman, later released a statement in which he claims he was “startled and confused” and attempting to defuse the situation by “remaining motionless and calm.” He says he was saying a “silent prayer” in hopes that the situation would not get out of hand.

Yeah, no. In the same video, you can see Nick Sandman hipping and hawing around Phillips like the rest of the kids just before the standoff and he seems more cocky and defiant than anything like trying to appeal for calm. Eyewitnesses claim they heard the boys making various denigrating remarks about Native Americans. I heard some of those on the video but not all of them. Phillips and Sandman gave conflicting accounts of whether Sandman refused to move as Phillips tried to walk up the steps. The video itself makes it hard to resolve that. I don’t think Sandman’s explanation is credible. I think he decided to stand his ground and smile a kind of satisfied smile to show he wasn’t backing down. Meanwhile, his friends are surrounding both of them, goofing, taunting, jeering. Again, the tomahawk chop tells the story.

The upshot is that when you watch all the videos and the long-cut from the Black Israelites, you do get a lot more context to what led up to that video moment. But it doesn’t greatly change the substance of what you see on the video, which is a middle-aged Native American activist beating a ceremonial drum in front of what appears to be a bemused and cocky teenager. The teenagers (mostly wearing MAGA hates) surround them and the classmates jeer and taunt the man with chopping motions. To me, Sandman’s grin looks self-satisfied and arrogant.

IrishWolf

I agree, doing the tomahawk chop at a Native American, is mocking and could be racist.

However, from what I saw, it look like the students thought they were doing it with Mr. Phillips, not at him. They've just finished a sports cheer, he walks up, beating his drum and stands before them for a few seconds, as if he's joining them. What might be the first Native American themed sports thing that jumps to mind? Was it a good choice? No but it could be understandable. The students are bouncing to the beat, they sound happy, not mocking. The people filming note that Mr. Phillips has calmed them down. Not to mention, from the video, it looks like they've all stopped, when Mr. Phillips comes face to face Mr. Sandmann and the situation turns awkward.