Do they need us to set up a safe space for their disgusting bigotry?

everything depicted in "Dear White People"has been committed by white people...what's the problem???? And getting worse......

You know how delicate they are

This year has to be a record.

then I guess I will certainly have to watch it!

(And just for the record, I am 69 years old, white, and live in Kentucky)

I will be watching it and I am 69 and live in Oklahoma.

They have a great selection of movies, maybe not as many huge blockbusters as when they first started but a fantastic selection of choices, nonetheless.

But, I think it is the original series that are the draw for people now.

I don't intend to not watch the movie because white people are called out. I'm white. Keeping my subscription to Netflix.

I am quite sure this will have little effect on Netflix. Perhaps it will even be good for them.

that's really really upsetting them.

It's their party and they'll cry if they want to. Rahowaaaahhhhhhhhhh!

If I'd known that, I would have boycotted them a long time ago.

that people may have ignored otherwise.

We've had repeated calls for "a conversation on race" for the past eight years now. It hasn't happened, despite a couple of historically eloquent speeches on the topic by President Obama and it certainly isn't going to happen as long as Steve Bannon is calling the shots at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Race is the most important single element of America's history. It's horrors as part of a centuries-long international genocide of tens of millions of Africans and their descendants make race in America a subject which we can only tiptoe around.

The youth of the country is ready to discuss race much as they are ready to discuss gay issues. The arts, of which this film and TV show are part, may lead America to a place where conversation may some day be possible. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting if I were you though.

Most of us know about the EC, a holdover relic from slavery that got trump elected, but not many were aware of rule 19 of the Senate that turtle man used to silence Sen. Warren.

Sheshe2 posted it's racist origin yesterday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8617348

Most people's knowledge of the electoral college goes as far as the US map on the evening news.

Ever wonder how those EC votes are allocated to each state? Do you automatically assume that this allocation is strictly in conformance with what is defined in the constitution?

Well those would be incorrect assumptions.

The number of EC votes, and congressional seats, used to be a very fluid number, based on each decade's census...and this is important: seats were usually not lost unless the actual population in a state decreased. Instead each year seats were added for the higher growth states (or new states).

But, each decade's re-allocation became a more and more fierce fight...and space for chairs in congress started to become a genuine concern.

So, circa 1920, congress became hopelessly stalemated on the re-allocation, and circa 1929 everybody said 'screw it' and went to today's static system - where the only seats added afterwards were for new states/DC...basically making the EC a zero sum game, where if Alabama's population grows, and California's grows slower, instead of merely gaining a seat in Alabama, a seat is also lost in California...a twofer. And it magnifies the discrepancies between low and high population states, since there is a 'floor' to the number of EC votes, coupled with an effective cap on states that may be growing, but just not as fast as the smaller states.

So there you have it. Statistically, the original EC would have a very minimal impact, if the original intent had been held - although congress would likely have 900 seats. I haven't run the numbers, but I assume the razor thin electoral victory in 2000 would not have been, if there hadn't been an impasse circa 1920.

Most here know that the EC is heavily weighted in favor of say, a sparsely populated state like Wyoming with under a million population.

The EC as it now stands, makes Wyoming's votes 3 times as powerful as those of California's with a population of 38 million.

Yeah, we know it's not fair.

Now give me your take on rule 19

Seems to date back to an era when senators were not subject to a popular vote, but rather were upper crust insiders who got appointed in a smoky back room...IOW a club.

Sheshe2 posted it yesterday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8617348

Spread the love!

Supreme Court. Not sure if that's true but I heard that.

Race, slavery, racism, and the fallout from those permeate all American culture, from the fashion we wear to the music we listen to. We need an open, honest discussion.

If the TV show is anywhere near as good as the movie, it'll be one to never miss.

And if there's anybody who *needs* to watch it, it's the very people who would boycott it.

From last summer, when my family went and visited my parents for a week:

DAD (flipping through TV channels): Stupid BET, don't know why they need their own channel Y'know, if someone started White Entertainment TV, they'd be called racist.

Me: They don't need to start a new channel for that, it already exists.

Dad: What?

Me: TNN

Nice thought, but in reality, it will never occur.

Are you saying like a nationwide conference call? I don't know of a conference bridge that can handle that many simultaneous open ports.

Just based on the things I see on this site I don't see that happening anytime too soon. Hell, I got called a racist for saying that it doesn't matter if a principal is black or white...it's WRONG and unacceptable to refer to elementary students using a racial slur, no matter the context while discussing the kids with other staff members.

It's too bad, but if I'm going to be called a racist for saying that white and black principals should be treated the same way and under the same standards then how the hell can a productive conversation even happen? I've stood up for inequality and bias all my damn life and am in no way racist...but I still got accused of being one. Attempts to alienate those who DO care and want to have that difficult conversation is kind of counterproductive.

I know that for myself, I don't sort people by gender, race, age, sexual preference, religion, etc...I sort people by whether or not they are an asshole and I respond to them as such. Makes life super simple.

http://www.themarysue.com/dear-white-people-white-genocide/

Apparently, asking white folks not to do blackface for Halloween is too damn much for some people to handle.

I had a link or had read a page about how they train people in terminology like that, but I can't find it. Found this little bit though from the campaign: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141322009

I am aware. Thank you for assuming that I was ignorant of such matters and educating me accordingly. Lil ol me never would have figured it out otherwise, tee hee *hair twirl*

I did not call you out or say that you were ignorant. You are reading into what I wrote things that I was careful to exclude.

I made absolutely NO reference to YOU.

I can only go by what you wrote. You used the word "bigot", appropriately, but I wanted to be sure that readers knew there was background that went beyond mere bigots. It was current in my mind because I had recently seen an article about the training around terminology like that, an article that I wrote I had to tried to retrieve but was unable.

That was all. Relax.

to tell a woman to "relax" after they hint/point out that you are mansplaining at them. It kinda compounds the sexism.

If it wasn't in reference to me and meant to educate others, then there was no need to direct the post to me specifically. If it was simply additional background info for others, you could have stated that. You did not and your phrasing didn't indicate that it was directed at anyone other than me. It looked (and still does, when I look back at your post even after your explanation) like you assumed I didn't know any better.

I'm glad you linked it. It's good for people to know. I just wish it hadn't come in the form of a post that looked like you were trying to educate me about the subject. That's all.

YOU are the one making gender assumptions. You think that I should interpret

in gender terms, as the words of a woman. So you cry "mansplaining" at me and say there was sexism in previous posts where there was none; only your sexist assumption. The implication in the way you write is that I should have immediately jumped to the conclusion that you were a woman from the "hair twirl" and reacted sexistly, as if men and TGs and others do not twirl their hair.

You are the one introducing and doubling down on sexual stereotypes.

That you identify as a woman was not in evidence until your post 51 (to which this replies). I had no reason to interpret "hair twirl" or "lil ol me" as indicative of any gender or sexual preference and, therefore, I did not.

You introduced the "hair twirl" bit but then when I didn't jump at it sexistly you have now posted as if I did. It seems you are spoiling for a fight.

I tell posters to "relax" when they would benefit from doing so, without regard to their gender or sexual identification and often without knowing and certainly without caring what their identity is. The word "relax" is gender neutral and has no reference to any gender or sexual stereotype. Men and women both benefit from relaxing.

Bugs Bunny says "unlax".

You are barking up the wrong tree.

As far as "directing it to you", there is nowhere else to place the post since you used the word "bigot" (again, appropriately) and therefore when responding to the word with information, there was no other post to respond to.

That's how internet forums work.

Male oriented user name vs an effeminate one. Yes, that can give the impression of mansplaining.

I pointed out how your post was explaining AT me and not adding to what I said. It was patronizing. Your jab at the end about "how internet forums work" would be another example of being needlessly patronizing. (While I doubt it was intentional the first time, I have my doubts about your last reply.)

It's fine if you disagree but ultimately, I'm letting you know that your post felt needlessly antagonistic and insulting. Had your response been generalized or offered as actual supporting information (your offering was more like a correction as you start it with "actually&quot , we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

You don't get to decide whether or not someone else finds your behavior offensive. Good day and good luck.

Men and women are free to call themselves whatever they want, especially on the internet. If you want to style your internet name as "effeminate" you are free to do so, but I made no assumption either way and I don't even have any cultural referents to guide me if I were to try to put a gender styling on it. Googling it now, I find that it has several associations with Minecraft as the first hits; not much gender guidance in that!

My post #21 did not contradict your post #9 at all. It wasn't "at" you, it was "at" the terminology of "white genocide".

I'm sorry you feel that way about post #21. It certainly was not my intention and I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

It was generalized. It certainly was NOT specific to you since it did not refer to you or disagree with you in the slightest.

It certainly was supporting. It took what you wrote and went further. There was no contradiction.

So this is what your kvetching boils down to. All the word "actually" means is "in fact", meaning that what follows is information. In the case of post #21 it was information about the terminology and nothing that was contradictory to what you wrote. If you wish to take offense at the word "actually" I can't stop you from being offended, but I think other readers will join me now being amused at depth of your offense against that word.

Of course not. You are also free to take offense at the information that I like cats, if you want to.

I have little with which to gauge either way the sincerity of that remark.

With taking actions to exclude Muslims, finding ways to set them apart, and Michael Flynn calling them inferior... all the first actions of actual genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_stages_of_genocide

It's scary to think that, with just a tiny amount of tweaking, various institutes and policies can easily lead to unthinkable horror.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Thanks for the heads-up.

I'll be watching for it.

According to Trump they are all out of work and bankrupt because someone took their jobs.

Nordstrom's stock went up 4% yesterday, maybe Netflix will see the same kind of increase?

If it is as good as 13TH, the documentary on US prisons it will be very informative and eye opening. 13th is on Netflix.

tonight after a long day of shoveling snow! i hope this netflix series has record rentals! People need to lighten the hell up. Fuck the alt right.

With a giant cup of Starbucks coffee.

Decaf, of course.

Last edited Fri Feb 10, 2017, 07:50 PM - Edit history (1)

13th refers to the 13th amendment and mass incarceration especially for African American males.

You WILL NOT be entertained. You should watch it anyway.