LaxPower Back-Up Stick

I have seen a study done on whites who have visited the Lynching Museum in Montgomery AL. They are generally very negative on the museum, many very offended by it - not the concept that someone would perpetrate this kind of horror, but the fact that they were told it really happened. Wish I could remember where I saw the study results.

French decry portrait of Madame DeFarge.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 3:57 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:08 am

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 8:58 pm

They likewise won't understand the immense offensiveness of those, like Trump, using the word "lynching" to describe a fully judicial process such as impeachment.

Precisely when did "lynching" become a racist trope ?

Probably not precise but at about this era (1890’s - 1920’s) I would guess lynching became associated with racism. When do you gather it happened?

So, TLD, why do we think that those on here who are darn reliable Trump 'supporters' or at least 'apologists' would have such difficulty understanding the sensitivities around this word? And when it became so associated specifically with racial terror?

Do they really have no idea about the scale of the reign of terror during Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and thereon???
Could they simply be ignorant of the scale of that period, the orders of magnitude greater, relative to 'lyching' as simply a mob taking action to put someone to death for an accusation in lieu of a judicial proceeding?

Or does it go deeper than mere ignorance?

I am surprised at the level of preoccupation. Not surprised at Old Blue Eyes.... as I recall him saying that an ethnic couple, that was told "no apartments were available" in a complex while the next set of applicants were shown plenty of availability, may not have experienced racism. Even when the property manager told the next couple that "those people bring roaches and pests with them so I won't rent to them"..... said the propery manager may have other reasons...... Who cares about Fair Housing Laws..... that's for liberals..... Cut from the same cloth as Frank and Donald Trump.... But the infatuation with race is puzzling......

jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 4:09 pm I have seen a study done on whites who have visited the Lynching Museum in Montgomery AL. They are generally very negative on the museum, many very offended by it - not the concept that someone would perpetrate this kind of horror, but the fact that they were told it really happened. Wish I could remember where I saw the study results.

Another grievance museum....

jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 4:09 pm I have seen a study done on whites who have visited the Lynching Museum in Montgomery AL. They are generally very negative on the museum, many very offended by it - not the concept that someone would perpetrate this kind of horror, but the fact that they were told it really happened. Wish I could remember where I saw the study results.

I saw something about the project...pretty sure it was 60 Minutes. It was unsettling.

Where is Kevin Costner or Wyatt Earp when you need him!!

some morning cuteness for all ~ a future Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

AOC grandstands some more. This time with Zuck.

The answer is simple. Facebook needs to pick a lane.

Is Facebook a platform or a publisher?

If facebook is a platform, they need to not edit/censor anything, even incorrect disinformation.

If facebook is a publisher, it can edit anything it wants. But it's liable for it.

Why doesnt AOC legislate the answer?

It worked. She got her soundbyte, and it's going viral.

The answer, imho, isn't simple at all. Zuckerberg needs to figure out a way to keep R's and D's from realizing how dangerous FB is, and using anti-trust to dismantle itt.

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:39 pm AOC grandstands some more. This time with Zuck.

The answer is simple. Facebook needs to pick a lane.

Is Facebook a platform or a publisher?

If facebook is a platform, they need to not edit/censor anything, even incorrect disinformation.

If facebook is a publisher, it can edit anything it wants. But it's liable for it.

Why doesnt AOC legislate the answer?

The essential problem is that because Facebook uses algorithms to increase engagement, it preferentially shows each user the type of content that does the best job of getting the user to keep clicking and viewing. It has been argued that this is a type of publishing, so if courts agree, Facebook can be liable.

They clearly do not want that conclusion.

perhaps the wrong thread, but it's an interesting question- is it content, or a vehicle.

zuckerberg is a career criminal so i have no reason to trust him.

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:53 pm

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:39 pm AOC grandstands some more. This time with Zuck.

The answer is simple. Facebook needs to pick a lane.

Is Facebook a platform or a publisher?

If facebook is a platform, they need to not edit/censor anything, even incorrect disinformation.

If facebook is a publisher, it can edit anything it wants. But it's liable for it.

Why doesnt AOC legislate the answer?

The essential problem is that because Facebook uses algorithms to increase engagement, it preferentially shows each user the type of content that does the best job of getting the user to keep clicking and viewing. It has been argued that this is a type of publishing, so if courts agree, Facebook can be liable.

They clearly do not want that conclusion.

That's how the argument is framed. I think it is simpler than that. Are they a broadcast platform? The answer is clearly yes. This is the same paradigm as all the other publishing systems. Radio, TV, newspapers, etc. They are not telephones, postal systems or emails, essentially "direct cast" systems, 1 sender - 1 receiver (intended). The should be regulated like a broadcast system. "Direct cast" usage of radio is regulated differently than "Broadcast" radio.

Excepting the nazi female area tat, ie: The Iron Cross, this would be my kinda congresswoman.

Will our friends here on the left cancel the Nazi identifier in their midst?!? Or just more Orange Man Bad? I say this as an ex-Dem.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... NAKED.html

She musta been hittin' dat 'chronic'.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:18 pm Excepting the nazi female area tat, ie: The Iron Cross, this would be my kinda congresswoman.

Will our friends here on the left cancel the Nazi identifier in their midst?!? Or just more Orange Man Bad? I say this as an ex-Dem.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... NAKED.html

Man...that black square is small.

How can you tell the difference between a Nazi Iron Cross (w/o inset Swastika), a pre-1934 Iron Cross and a Biker Cross? You can't. To tell the truth when I saw the photo of her ex-husband I immediately thought biker. She seems like see was a wild child. She is still pretty cute. I'd worry less about her tattoo and more about her policy positions, as I guess her constituents have.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:27 pm How can you tell the difference between a Nazi Iron Cross (w/o inset Swastika), a pre-1934 Iron Cross and a Biker Cross? You can't. To tell the truth when I saw the photo of her ex-husband I immediately thought biker. She seems like see was a wild child. She is still pretty cute. I'd worry less about her tattoo and more about her policy positions, as I guess her constituents have.

It's a hunch only, but if any Republican congresswoman had the Iron Cross tat there, jhu72 wouldn't be on here to offer any olive branch excuse.

Whadya think, folks?

as a rule I judge Nazis by their actions and policy positions. Don't need no nude pictures. But if they are female and cute, I'll look.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:18 pm Excepting the nazi female area tat, ie: The Iron Cross, this would be my kinda congresswoman.

Will our friends here on the left cancel the Nazi identifier in their midst?!? Or just more Orange Man Bad? I say this as an ex-Dem.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... NAKED.html

That's a Nazi identifier? Where is the swastika that is pictured in the DailyMail drawing?

Whoops. It's not there. Any other "stories" you'd like to share from the Daily Mail? Inside info. on Area 51, perhaps? Elvis is still here? Figure of Jeezus in a potato chip?

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:47 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:18 pm Excepting the nazi female area tat, ie: The Iron Cross, this would be my kinda congresswoman.

Will our friends here on the left cancel the Nazi identifier in their midst?!? Or just more Orange Man Bad? I say this as an ex-Dem.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... NAKED.html

That's a Nazi identifier? Where is the swastika that is pictured in the DailyMail drawing?

Whoops. It's not there. Any other "stories" you'd like to share from the Daily Mail? Inside info. on Area 51, perhaps? Elvis is still here? Figure of Jeezus in a potato chip?

Whatcha talking 'bout, Willis?!?!? That's an Iron Cross. All the good skinheads have 'em.

Perchance if this had been a Republican congresswoman, would you be looking to ignore the obvious, or would you be calling for a summary execution?