Harry Marks wrote:

ant wrote:

We should not confuse kente cloth with Confederate flags,

No one is confusing kente clothes with confederate flags, Harry.. Only you are.

The fact check is in despite your strawman's digression.

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you were so confusing them. I meant to head off any interpretations in that direction. I apologize for the appearance of a strawman attack - I could have been clearer about avoiding it.

No, Harry.. you're more intelligent than that.

You know what you did. And I know what your intent was.

ant wrote: No, Harry.. you're more intelligent than that.

You know what you did. And I know what your intent was.

Umm, really? I lived in West Africa for a while. I have several items of kente cloth in my house. I am interested in this stuff.

The cited article made some efforts to put things in perspective. I made some more. I don't really know why you posted the "random fact check" but I was interested in heading off one possible implication. If you want to see that as an attack, that is your privilege, but it doesn't put you in a good light. Kind of a "protests too much" position.

If you want to see that as an attack

Who said I saw it as an attack? Why are getting jumpy about this?


The kente apparel worn by Pelosi and her democratic thugs was a pandering ploy to win favor..
It was also a very dumb choice because historically the people that fashioned that clothe also had skeletons in their closet related to the immoral practice of slavery.. The irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife.


One thing you were attempting to do was put lipstick on a pig.



It's nice that you once lived in West Africa.. I'm am sure there are racists there too.

ant wrote:

If you want to see that as an attack

Who said I saw it as an attack? Why are getting jumpy about this?

Okay, I stand corrected. "Strawman attack" was my phrase. But "strawman" was yours, and attack is the usual implication, so you could maybe see how I jumped to that conclusion.

ant wrote:The kente apparel worn by Pelosi and her democratic thugs was a pandering ploy to win favor..

One person's pandering is another person's politicking. I am fine with using a variety of symbolism to express solidarity with constituents, and I see nothing wrong with using kente cloth. My church choir wears kente stoles regularly, and nobody sees anything debased about it. At least, not that I know of.

ant wrote:It was also a very dumb choice because historically the people that fashioned that clothe also had skeletons in their closet related to the immoral practice of slavery.. The irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

I disagree. Now, if the Dem leadership had been advocating taking down statues of Jefferson and Washington at the same time, I would see some irony. If they were trying to expunge every possible taint of America's original sin, then yes, I could understand why kente cloth could be subject to the same treatment. But I don't think that was the case.

Is the British Union Jack a racist symbol? The British wealth that won wars in the 18th and 19th century was built on slave labor in the West Indies and on exploitation of India. So nobody meeting with the Brits should allow the Union Jack to be flown? I just don't see it.

The Ashante Empire was an empire. It dominated others, and it participated in the wealth-building atrocity of capturing and selling other people as slaves. Much of the wealth of the Middle East before oil was also gained from slave trading. Honesty, yes, I am in favor of honesty. Irony? In the eye of the beholder, I guess.

ant wrote:One thing you were attempting to do was put lipstick on a pig.

Well, again, I don't see it. If someone hires a mariachi band to play at a rally in Arizona or California, I don't think it is pandering. If they play Gloria Estefan tunes in Miami, that just makes sense. And if they play polka music in Milwaukee, people don't get pushed out of shape about it. No matter what terrible things the Polish ruling class may have done.

ant wrote:It's nice that you once lived in West Africa.. I'm am sure there are racists there too.

You think? The assumption of white privilege is so strong there that it got tiresome, even to me, the beneficiary. But I also learned a few things about its visibility to ordinary Africans and possible invisibility to ex-pats. In short, it's all about the money.

You are apologetically civil in this thread but talk about how family members of mine should be "sick" of something I've said in another?


You are a blazing hypocrite, Harry.

Forget COVID19 restrictions and go to church.

ant wrote:You are apologetically civil in this thread but talk about how family members of mine should be "sick" of something I've said in another?

The point was meant to be a pattern of how you discuss things, not a particular thing you said. My suggestion would be that when you feel someone has misunderstood or mischaracterized your point, that you simply clarify without any blame or belligerence involved.

But where would be the fun in that, right?

,.-)

Harry Marks wrote:

ant wrote:You are apologetically civil in this thread but talk about how family members of mine should be "sick" of something I've said in another?

The point was meant to be a pattern of how you discuss things, not a particular thing you said. My suggestion would be that when you feel someone has misunderstood or mischaracterized your point, that you simply clarify without any blame or belligerence involved.

But where would be the fun in that, right?

,.-)

It's not a "feeling" when someone claims you have written something that is in fact nowhere to be found in the post.

It's called dishonest characterization. It was very clearly done.

And you are patronizing me for insinuating it is just a "feeling" that I have when it happens.

Bullshit.

The more cheeky you are with me the more I call you out for it.

ant wrote:

Harry Marks wrote:


ant wrote:
You are apologetically civil in this thread but talk about how family members of mine should be "sick" of something I've said in another?


The point was meant to be a pattern of how you discuss things, not a particular thing you said. My suggestion would be that when you feel someone has misunderstood or mischaracterized your point, that you simply clarify without any blame or belligerence involved.

But where would be the fun in that, right?

,.-)

Harry wrote:
"If I was in a family with ant, I would get pretty fed up with the "I never said that" line. It has become clear by now that ant likes to dance up to the line of saying offensive things and then dance away from them when somebody takes the bait. I'm trying to just enjoy watching the dance - it has a certain artistry."


What a perfect example of how easy it can be to jump to conclusions or misunderstand a simple comment. Harry's comment was in no way disparaging to your family, ant. Your family may be the most patient and tolerant people in the world. As I read the comment, Harry simply stated that if HE were part of a family that included you, HE would "...get pretty fed up with ...."

LevV wrote:What a perfect example of how easy it can be to jump to conclusions or misunderstand a simple comment. Harry's comment was in no way disparaging to your family, ant. Your family may be the most patient and tolerant people in the world. As I read the comment, Harry simply stated that if HE were part of a family that included you, HE would "...get pretty fed up with ...."

Thanks for trying to clarify, Lev, and I certainly agree with your characterization. I only brought up "family" as an illustration of "people who have to live with you," which was a way of underlining "this is not just a fluke or coincidence, we are seeing a pattern." But if one is feeling belligerent (I have been there, as everyone here knows), all kinds of things can be hot buttons, setting off confrontational behavior.

When I notice patterns of my own problematic behavior, whether it be pontificating or virtue signalling or writing off the top of my head without considering how it sounds to others, I think it is a good idea to consider where these patterns come from. If someone points it out and I disagree, I let it go, (or try to), but it is a good idea to give it some thought first. Because I know that human beings often respond primarily based on their emotions, and even avoid the real subject in order to minimize emotional upset, and the result can be fairly irrational. And I am a human being, so I probably do that too.

Ant seems to be focused on the "echo chamber" of liberal discourse. And that's fair enough - it is good for any of us to hear a different perspective. My comment about his pattern (like his comments in the past about my conformism to an echo chamber, I presume) are not meant to be weapons in a battle over the difference in perspective. They are just observations that might be useful to think about. That doesn't mean the difference in perspective doesn't feed into the commenting, but it does mean the comments can be taken at face value.

The Lenin statue in Seattle is has not been touched


https://seattle.curbed.com/2019/8/27/20 ... ue-history


Imagine a political party in the US thinking Lenin is morally superior.... to any degree


This is the twisted mind of the left