Tim Scott clashes with 'The View' hosts after calling out 'disgusting message' about race (1 Viewer)

[Echo]

Good to see Tim Scott go on 'The View' and call out the hosts for some of the deplorable things they said about him and blacks. To me 'The View' is close to a cult. They're as extreme as 'The Young Turks.' No big difference really. Both shows have been caught in lie after lie after lie. Credibility ranks at zero.

Tim Scott clashes with 'The View' hosts after calling out 'disgusting message' about race

Sen. Tim Scott called out the hosts of "The View" on Monday over "offensive, disgusting message" to young people on race and argued

www.foxnews.com

 

[SFIDC3]

Off the top of my head, I can think of only 2 prominent black Republicans that didn't subscribe to the same rhetoric that the likes of Scott, Owens, and McWhorters and they are Powell & Rice. Neither of which were elected officials, as a matter of fact, neither has really spoken at a Republican campaign event. Why is that?

Because, while they may be "mis-guided" they are at least.....sane?

 

[Optimus Prime]

The only black republican I knew for the longest was JC Watt

He did the response to the state of the union in the Clinton years

Honestly don’t remember anymore about him than that

 

[LA - L.A.]

It’s a cornerstone of Vivek’s campaign

I haven't paid attention to Vivek's campaign, so I didn't know he was playing that game.

Not politician but it’s Paul’s favorite McWhorter’s claim to fame

If you're referring to John McWhorter, I don't agree with a lot of his views on language. I see valid points in most of what he says, but I don't agree with a lot of the assumptions he makes and conclusions he draws. For instance, he claims that people only use the word "thug" when referring to instances of crimes committed by people who are black. I know that it is used by a lot of people in that racist way, but it's not as cut and dry as he insists that it is.

I avoid using the term to describe anyone who is not white, out of courtesy and respect. I don't do it out of any sort of the pejorative definition of "wokism." I do it for the same reason I don't use vulgarity around children. It's just simple courtesy and politeness. And I show that simple courtesy and politeness, even though I have very strong views about the bigotry that are the root of judging any language as vulgar. George Carlin was one of my favorite comedians.

The only people that ever tried to physically bully or intimidate me when I was growing up were other boys who were white. I always called them thugs, especially after Iearned about the Thugees of India. I get McWhorter's concerns over the use of the word, but insisting on it being an absolute tends to shut down any meaningful dialogue. We need more genuine dialogue not less. And we need to be adults, not petulant children, when someone asks us to make miniscule adjustments to language we use when in their presence.

Food for thought, we don't think it's asking a lot not to fart in our general direction. In fact we expect people not to out of simple courtesy and politeness. Farting is a physical process that we sometimes don't have much control over, but we all make as much of a physical effort as needed to avoid farting in someone's general direction. Those of us who don't, are considered jerks.

But somehow it's asking too much of someone to simply use or not use certain words when around us? Using or not using certain words are not what people are objecting to. Let's all be very honest and very clear about that. What's really being objected to is treating everyone with equal respect, courtesy and politeness.

It's much less of an issue of what comes out of our mouths toward other people. It's much more of an issue of what comes out of our hearts toward other people.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I haven't paid attention to Vivek's campaign, so I didn't know he was playing that game.

If you're referring to John McWhorter, I don't agree with a lot of his views on language. I see valid points in most of what he says, but I don't agree with a lot of the assumptions he makes and conclusions he draws. For instance, he claims that people only use the word "thug" when referring to instances of crimes committed by people who are black. I know that it is used by a lot of people in that racist way, but it's not as cut and dry as he insists that it is.

I avoid using the term to describe anyone who is not white, out of courtesy and respect. I don't do it out of any sort of the pejorative definition of "wokism." I do it for the same reason I don't use vulgarity around children. It's just simple courtesy and politeness. And I show that simple courtesy and politeness, even though I have very strong views about the bigotry that are the root of judging any language as vulgar. George Carlin was one of my favorite comedians.

The only people that ever tried to physically bully or intimidate me when I was growing up were other boys who were white. I always called them thugs, especially after Iearned about the Thugees of India. I get McWhorter's concerns over the use of the word, but insisting on it being an absolute tends to shut down any meaningful dialogue. We need more genuine dialogue not less. And we need to be adults, not petulant children, when someone asks us to make miniscule adjustments to language we use when in their presence.

Food for thought, we don't think it's asking a lot not to fart in our general direction. In fact we expect people not to out of simple courtesy and politeness. Farting is a physical process that we sometimes don't have much control over, but we all make as much of a physical effort as needed to avoid farting in someone's general direction. Those of us who don't, are considered jerks.

But somehow it's asking too much of someone to simply use or not use certain words when around us? Using or not using certain words are not what people are objecting to. Let's all be very honest and very clear about that. What's really being objected to is treating everyone with equal respect, courtesy and politeness.

It's much less of an issue of what comes out of our mouths toward other people. It's much more of an issue of what comes out of our hearts toward other people.

My thing with McWhorter is mostly his opinion on victimhood.

That’s what Paul mostly posted from him

It was an attitude of “I made it. Therefore either

A. There’s no such thing as racism

Or

B. I didn’t let racism stop me or get me down

To me it always comes across like the one in a million person who is able to quit drinking or smoking cold turkey, then turns their nose up at anyone who struggles with it

 

[LA - L.A.]

My thing with McWhorter is mostly his opinion on victimhood.

That’s what Paul mostly posted from him

It was an attitude of “I made it. Therefore either

A. There’s no such thing as racism

Or

B. I didn’t let racism stop me or get me down

To me it always comes across like the one in a million person who is able to quit drinking or smoking cold turkey, then turns their nose up at anyone who struggles with it

I agree and I think it stems from the BS myth of rugged individualism and exceptionalism. Too many people who overcome social obstacles have a tendency to deny that a big factor in them overcoming the social obstacles was that someone without those social obstacles gave them a break. For some reason, they can't bring themselves to accept and acknowledge that. It happens with poverty.

Moses Storm in his Trash White comedy special talks about how he gets held up as an example of how anyone can pull themselves out of poverty with hard work and talent. He refutes that by pointing out that he sees himself as talented and he knows he's worked really hard, but none of that would have made any difference without catching a lucky break.

He acknowledges that his success has more to do with luck than talent and hard work. He goes on to point out that there are thousands of equally or more talented people than him that work really hard that will never have success because they won't get the lucky break that he got.

He also talks about the biological fact that not many people seem to know. The physical stresses of being born into poverty and raised in it impedes the full development of the parts of the brain that give people the skills they need to get themselves out of poverty. Being raised in poverty neurologically handicaps the abilities that a person needs the most to pull themselves out of poverty on their own.

I would think the stresses of being constantly discriminated against probably has similar effects. To be clear, it does not mean that people in poverty or those who are discriminated against are dumb or inferior in any way. It just means that the notion they have the same opportunity that everyone else has is BS. A loose metaphor would be that they have to compete with one hand tied behind their back, while everyone else gets to use two hands. Using your analogy, it's like one person who biologically has at most mild withdrawal symptoms when they quit drinking or smoking, telling a person who biologically experiences the most severe of withdrawal symptoms, "it's easy for anyone to quit smoking or drinking, so if you're having a hard time with it, that's a you problem."