Many sources are reporting what we can read at ABC News,
NASCAR banned the Confederate flag from its races and properties on Wednesday, formally distancing itself from what for many is a symbol of slavery and racism that had been a familiar sight at stock car events for more than 70 years.
The move comes amid social unrest around the globe following the death in police custody of George Floyd, an unarmed black man in Minneapolis. Protests have roiled the nation for days and Confederate monuments are being taken down across the South — the tradtiional fan base for NASCAR.
[...] The issue was pushed to the fore this week as Bubba Wallace, NASCAR's lone black driver, called for the banishment of the Confederate flag and said there was "no place" for them in the sport. At long last, NASCAR obliged.
"The presence of the confederate flag at NASCAR events runs contrary to our commitment to providing a welcoming and inclusive environment for all fans, our competitors and our industry," NASCAR said. "Bringing people together around a love for racing and the community that it creates is what makes our fans and sport special. The display of the confederate flag will be prohibited from all NASCAR events and properties."
[...] The move was announced before Wednesday night's race at Martinsville Speedway where Wallace, an Alabama native, was driving a Chevrolet with a #BlackLivesMatter paint scheme. Wallace got a shoutout on Twitter from several athletes, including NBA star LeBron James, for using the paint scheme in the race.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by looorg on Thursday June 11 2020, @02:09PM (72 children)
Even tho it was apparently the lone black NASCAR driver that brought this up, again after it utterly failed the last time it was brought up, I'm left to wonder if it's better to appease people that doesn't even care or watch NASCAR then to potentially piss off your actual fan-base. It seems like a very poor business decision. Time will tell I guess, that said I would be surprised if it actually had any long term impact -- on the flags and the audience -- as this appears to be more about signaling then anything else. It's not like people that hated, or didn't like, NASCAR before are going to start watching now just cause the flag is gone, even tho I doubt the flag will be gone for long or at all really.
Good luck with that. So they are going to ask them nicely and they will tell ya'll to go fuck yourself and long live Dixie? In turn they'll do nothing so it will mean nothing? Or are races now coming with some kind of dress-code/car-code/flag-code etc?
Problem then as noted is that it seems a fair amount of the fan-base likes confederate flags. So they can come together just once they get rid of all the rednecks that is their core audience ... Somehow I don't see any new audience coming around to fill the void of alienated fans.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Bot on Thursday June 11 2020, @02:19PM (48 children)
worse, it IMPLICITLY, so DANGEROUSLY, implies that to come together you must renounce to your identity. Putting it simply, you are more free under a Roman emperor than at the NASCAR races.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Touché) by c0lo on Thursday June 11 2020, @03:41PM (3 children)
Listen, if one wants to come together, one IMPLICITLY need to change the worn-for months-underwear and wash oneself. Now, one has to ask... just how DANGEROUS is that for one's identity?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday June 12 2020, @01:51PM
Well, one must not do any of those things, but those that come into contact with you, will sure appreciate said change.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday June 13 2020, @01:17PM (1 child)
Are you able to conceive Pacific social interactions while retaining your own identity without forcing others to forfeit theirs? Because if you do you should be wary of one dimensional propaganda.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday June 13 2020, @11:46PM
It doesn't parse. Check that recurrent neural network of yours, it got outta whack, maybe you should retrain it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @03:52PM
Italian maga moron cares about NASCAR, gee you just having a burning need to let everyone know what a piece of shit racist you are hih?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 11 2020, @04:47PM (10 children)
Yeah, I felt the same way when the Catholics quit doing the Mass in Latin. Appeasement to get more people to join.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @04:58PM (9 children)
Please note: many of us Catholics (about .1% worldwide) still attend the old Mass in Latin.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 12 2020, @12:19AM (8 children)
Because Jesus spoke so much Latin right? All alllll those Church fathers in places like Greece and Asia Minor (Turkey) were all about Latin, right?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @12:27AM (2 children)
I don't know what language you think this guy [wikimedia.org] would speak, but it ain't none of that brown gibberish.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 12 2020, @12:40AM
Italian, most likely, as like many portrayals of Jesus, he appears to be modeled after Cesare Borgia :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday June 12 2020, @09:12AM
Is he doing the very first ice bucket challenge?
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @02:08AM (3 children)
A more logical justification for the modern use of Latin is that it lacks native speakers in the present day. Even on the scale of decades, a language that's commonly used can evolve significantly and its words can take on new meanings. For example, the word "gay" has significantly shifted in its typical meaning over the past 50 years. Using language that lacks native speakers and is typically not used in conversation significantly reduces the chance that a word in an old text will be understood differently than what is intended by the text. The spoken language of Jesus was probably Aramaic and many other ancient texts were written in Hebrew or Greek. The Latin translation from those other languages is imprecise, but further translation into other languages may lose some further meaning from the original text. It's a bit like compressing a WAV as an MP3, then wanting to convert the MP3 to an OGG. The OGG may be a good approximation of the original WAV, but some information is lost each time. None of this is intended to comment on the validity of Catholicism, just to provide a practical explanation for why a religious institution that's nearly 2,000 years old might use a language that isn't spoken natively by anyone.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 12 2020, @01:00PM (2 children)
There are some very good direct translations that don't rely on the Latin at all. I am a big fan of Young's Literal that you can find on biblegateway.org, for example.
And remember, the Roman Catholic Church is *not* "nearly 2000 years old." It's barely 1695 years old, as it was created by Constantine at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. And Jesus himself would recognize very little of its doctrine or dogma, as would his disciples. Hell, Paul (Saul of Tarsus) was already throwing gravel in the works not 30 years after Jesus' own death...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2020, @01:06AM (1 child)
Undoubtedly there are very good direct translations. The problem with many translations of the Bible is that they were influenced by whatever political or dogmatic positions were favorable to whoever was funding the translation. The King James Version is a fine example of this, as well as a good example of how linguistic drift can be a problem. That's not an easy translation for modern speakers of English to understand.
Any distinction between 1,695 years and nearly two millennia is arguing semantics and isn't relevant in this context. The New Testament was written in the later half of the first century. If you accept the later end of the range for authorship of Revelation, it could perhaps extend into the very early second century, but it is generally believed to have been written around 95 CE. The doctrine of the Catholic Church was heavily influenced by the Church Fathers [wikipedia.org], whose writings actually spanned several centuries between the second and eighth centuries. While many of the Church Fathers came after the Council of Nicaea, quite a few of them predate it as well. Even over the span of about six centuries between the first and last of the Church Fathers, there was more than enough time for very significant linguistic drift. In that context, the distinction between 1,250 years, 1,695 years, or 1,850 years really isn't relevant.
Consider how English has changed during that time span. Here are a couple of videos about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y63dBBlHlSk [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fxy6ZaMOq8 [youtube.com]
Linguistic drift is a significant issue. The translations that are good today might be as difficult to understand in a few hundred years as the King James Version is to modern English speakers in 2020.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 18 2020, @12:38AM
All true, but missing my point: even within a few decades of Jesus' death, Paul was preaching something almost entirely at odds with the Synoptics (and John), *before* these were written, claiming to be a disciple among/above disciples despite never having met Jesus personally. That...is a hell of a claim to make in the face of 12/13 people who knew the man personally for years.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday June 13 2020, @01:28PM
The disciples spoke in tongues, Rome had the most influence, and the new alliance was beyond the originally invited. Matthew 22. So Latin is a perfect choice for Roman Catholics. Other churches didn't get so lucky, but the frictions are mostly political. Protestantism is another matter, as it was bloodshed, probably about a two pronged infiltration.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 5, Informative) by epitaxial on Thursday June 11 2020, @04:56PM (22 children)
You mean the losers who fought a war in order to keep slaves?
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @05:22PM (4 children)
It is a bad omen when you forget who lost in your party's previous uprising, while raring for a new one.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @06:43PM (3 children)
No film at Eleven.
That trope is so tired.
The racists were abandoning the Democratic party as far back the 1940s.
Johnson's New Society, The Civil Rights and Voting Rights [wikipedia.org] Acts plus Nixon's "Southern Strategy" [wikipedia.org] sealed the deal.
More actual history rather than your bullshit:
https://whyy.org/articles/fifty-years-ago-civil-rights-and-the-newly-conservative-gop/ [whyy.org]
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30011020-democracy-in-chains [goodreads.com] (If you're functionally illiterate, which seems likely, you can watch a discussion here [c-span.org])
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/698456 [uchicago.edu]
This is *opinion* and shouldn't be construed as history, but it clarifies quite a few things that are wrong with your bullshit:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-republican-party-was-founded-to-fight-white-supremacy-heres-how-its-embraced-it-now [thedailybeast.com]
Another discussion which says things you don't want to hear:
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/805713126 [npr.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @08:09PM (2 children)
the party of bigots remains the party of bigots. Recoloring your bigotry means nothing.
The inverse racism is NOT an inverse of racism. Same as a mirrored image is still the same thing, in a reflection.
An inverse of racism is the ABSENCE of racism. Totally unpossible when you need bigots flocking to your flag, isn't it?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @10:28PM (1 child)
That's adorable!
Are you available for parties?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @11:22PM
Feeling smart again today?
(Score: -1, Troll) by AssCork on Thursday June 11 2020, @05:22PM (15 children)
Hole E. Shite. Another failure of our public education system.
The "War Between The States" was about Rights. Specifically a State's Rights versus the Federal Government - Like the right for the Federal Government to demand tax money from the citizens of a State. The right of a Federal Government to pass laws that impact every state. The right of the Federal Government to withhold said collected tax money from States that pass laws Big Brother doesn't like.
To put it more simply;
The Civil War was about a State's Right to legalize Marijuana versus the Federal Government's Right to make random plants just as illegal as Heroin.
FYI: Slavery was already passe at that point, and there were much, much fewer slave owners than before (not that there was ever a large number of slave owners in the first place). Lincoln was advised that he would probably have a bill on his desk during his term to outlaw slavery, but Lincoln threatened the Confederacy with it as a barganing chip to try and prevent them from seceding from the Union.
And before you give me any "citation needed" bullshit, you've been using google since you were 10 years old - go read a fucking WikiPedia article yourself, god dammit.
Just popped-out of a tight spot. Came out mostly clean, too.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Immerman on Thursday June 11 2020, @05:55PM (9 children)
Sorry, you've fallen for Confederate attempts to re-write history. Try reading some actual well-researched history rather than the propaganda you've been swallowing.
It was about one specific "right" - the right to keep fellow Americans as slaves.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @06:03PM
Go easy on these fools, many of them came from areas in the US that have schools teaching "states rights" and "war of northern aggression" as the reality of the Civil War. So they went most of their adult lives angry at all the liberal assholes trying to spin their states as nasty slavers, and now that the vast majority of people know better it is tough for them to drop their long held school taught beliefs and realize their community lied through their teeth.
The Confederacy was about owning slaves and white supremacy.
That is a tough pill for people to swallow when they've been taught everything was hunky-dorie their whole lives.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @06:39PM (6 children)
Wow, you are REALLY ignorant. STUPENDOUSLY ignorant.
A key factor in the run up to the Civil War WAS slavery, but not as you are saying.
Lesson: The USA was in a period of expansion, taming and settling the rest of the continent (and clearing Indians off it, by the US Govt).
The question was: would the NEW states admitted be free or slave? There was no push at all from the US govt to "abolish slavery" where it already existed.
See Missouri Compromise:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise [wikipedia.org]
This and other issues such as taxation and protectionist policies forcing Southern states to sell cotton to Northern mills where they could otherwise have gotten a better price from more sales to Britain (the big cotton consumer in Europe, probably the world [someone can check this], with 80% of its cotton supplied by the South) lead to a rivalry between the North and South. The two regions were very different in their economies and demography.
So no, the Civil War was not fought to "free the slaves." This is the propaganda taught to justify putting down an independence movement, and that doesn't sit well with our founding myth of a nation that fought a war of independence with Britain so we could be free. (Bear in mind that we were a slave nation during our time as rebel Colonials, with many Yankee states [Connecticut, etc.] being slave states!)
So the South made a bid for independence by seceding. Lincoln entered the Civil War devoted to keeping the USA in one piece, not eliminating slavery.
Proof in his own words:
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that...."
The Emancipation Proclamation was only issued well into the war in 1863, and it only applied to the slave states that were NOT in the Union. It was an attempt to foment a slave uprising in the rebel states (but not the slaveholding Union states) and to retcon a moral cause for the North which was getting tired of fighting as invaders and losing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @08:58PM (4 children)
> So no, the Civil War was not fought to "free the slaves."
For the south, the war was entirely about maintaining slavery.
Initially, some in the north, including Lincoln were not eager to free enslaved people, but facts on the ground and the need for additional troops changed, at least, Lincoln's mind. But, even if Lincoln wasn't among them, there were a large number of Republicans, in the north, who were abolitionists (before that party switched from a left progressive party to the far-right racist fascist party it is today).
So, the north's motivations were not all goodness and righteousness, but the south's were entirely evil and vile.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @10:09PM (3 children)
"were entirely evil and vile"
That isn't fair, they had other reasons but the problem is slavery was such a part of society that the overlap means they couldn't be untangled completely.
That said, just like we don't bother discussing the valid reasons the German public allowed the Nazis to come into power we in the US shouldn't bother wondering what valiidity there was to the pro-slavery Confederacy.
If some of the same issues are around today like state's rights then those can be addressed separate from the Confederate flag and the slave owning assholes that split the country.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @10:33PM (2 children)
The real reason we know the South was morally wrong is because they lost the war, and the winner writes the history books.
If the South had won (meaning they got their independence), they would be a nation that fought for its freedom first from an oppressive United Kingdom, and a second time from an equally despotic empire called the United States that sought to deny them their freedom to leave the Union just as they had entered it, as free states. Slavery would have ended before the 19th Century was over due to increased mechanization as mechanical harvesters replaced slaves by being cheaper and much faster, allowing greater profit. You'd still have the problem of a redundant black workforce to deal with and its anybody's guess how that would have ended. Maybe they would've been sent back to Africa in Liberia.
Point is, we (the USA) won our independence from Britain, so we claim moral superiority. If we had lost, the history books would have written about a war cooked up by Britain's age old enemy France using ungrateful, easily manipulated Colonists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @09:55AM (1 child)
You mean the "French and Indian War"? Of course, with such a wacko reading of the scumsucking treason of the slave-owning south, I guess you ♪♫ "don't know much about history"♪♫ [songlyrics.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @02:49PM
If you are an American, your country was founded on treason by fighting a war of secession against Britain.
The North (New England in particular) was at the forefront of this treason.
"Treason" is determined by who loses in a war. If the war is won by their side, they are patriots.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @10:00PM
Also if any stupid people try to play the "secession wasn't just about slavery" card feel free to use this quote from the vice president of the CSA himself, Alexander "Shitface" Stephens:
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday June 11 2020, @06:57PM
As usual, there are a great many perspectives on any large topic.
Was the Civil War about slaves? Sure, for some folks - particularly the slaves and the Federals who granted the slaves their freedom - that's a big part of the war.
Down on the farm, it was a whole lot of us vs. them. Some of my family was quite ashamed that their boy went off to war and drew a pension when it was over - not that they didn't welcome the pension money, just that they didn't want the neighbors knowing which side Johnny fought on when he went off to war (only one side paid a pension.)
When it was over, it continued to be about us vs. them, and them did plenty of carpet bagging when it was all over - don't kid yourselves: money drove that war as much as it drove any other.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @07:01PM
The "States Rights" you refer to wasn't stuff like legalization of marijuana. The "Rights" in question were those that allowed the white residents of those states to own other human beings.
You are perhaps ignorant or perhaps being disingenuous. This all came to a head after the Kansas-Nebraska Act [historyplace.com] and the huge backlash from that.
In fact, if you actually *read* the statements of support/secession made by the states that made up the Confederacy, *every single one* made legal slavery the *most important* reason for secession.
But don't believe me. Read the words of the folks who voted to secede:
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states [battlefields.org]
https://www.historians.org/teaching-and-learning/teaching-resources-for-historians/the-decision-to-secede-and-establish-the-confederacy-a-selection-of-primary-sources [historians.org]
I'd also point out that there was an economic argument that secessionists/slaveholders made as well: That those enslaved humans represented a market value of USD$4 Billion in 1861 dollars [in2013dollars.com] which would be worth *trillions* today.
So. Not only were the secessionistS racist scumbags who thought it was okay to own other human beings, they *really* wanted to protect their "investment" which made up the bulk of the wealth in the Confederacy.
You have been lied to and believed it and/or are lying even though you know the truth. Which one (or both) is it?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday June 11 2020, @08:18PM (2 children)
I'm sure that you won't be interested in Jon Oliver's Last Week Tonight episode about the Confederacy, but in it he points out that several different Confederate states literally had "one of our core principles is the continuation of slavery" in their constitutions.
So obviously they were linked somewhat, but you can't claim slavery wasn't a large part of the war.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @12:47AM (1 child)
Just look at the formal declarations as to why they left. Lots of talk about slavery, not so much about state's rights. Starting with Mississippi:
And South Carolina:
And Georgia:
And Texas:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @10:49PM
Confederate apologists:
Confederates:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @03:49AM
Read "The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States". It's all about slavery and you're an ignorant asshole.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @05:51AM
Can't we all just come together and agree finally the South is shit and ya'll are jealous and want to live in California?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Immerman on Thursday June 11 2020, @05:52PM
>worse, it IMPLICITLY, so DANGEROUSLY, implies that to come together you must renounce to your identity.
Only if your identity is based on militant racism.
The Confederacy existed for only a few years, and was *always* about defending slavery. The rest of Southern culture predates it by a very long time, and is in no way represented by the Confederate battle flag.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @05:58PM
American stock car racing originated from bootlegging during Prohibition [themobmuseum.org], modifying cars to carry more alcohol and souping them up to outrun the police. How, exactly, does illegally transporting moonshine in souped up cars [smithsonianmag.com] have anything to do with the Confederacy?
Here's a hint: it doesn't. NASCAR's origins are in the South and the sport is most popular there, but the history and culture of the sport isn't rooted in anything relating to the Confederacy. Bootlegging was hardly limited to the South and has nothing to do with Confederate flags or issues of race.
As for the idea that respecting others means renouncing your identity altogether, here's what Dale Earnhardt thought about that [nbcsports.com].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @06:12PM
I agree with Bot on this. I will never renounce my identity. Back when Romans conquered you, they would enslave you and move you thousands of miles from your homeland to erase your heritage. That didn't work then and it won't work now.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 12 2020, @12:17AM (5 children)
You mean like Constantine, who created the ROMAN Catholic Church you're constantly shilling for, you slimy fucking Opus Dei catspaw, you? Here's a newflash: if your "identity" is linked to the flag of a 160-year-old group of traitorous slavers, maybe it's time to re-evaluate that identity. Kind of hard to "come together" when part of your "identity" is "yeah that one driver? he should be property."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday June 12 2020, @11:06AM
>Constantine, who created the ROMAN Catholic Church
No he made it official, which means all those pagans priests had to convert or else. Who knows, maybe the first pedo clerics were born that way.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday June 12 2020, @11:30AM (3 children)
As for the second part of your rambling: the confederate flag shares the same colors and symbols of the USA flags. Arguing its name and symbols are misleading to push a racist agenda is post facto useless rationalization. You can do that, but then in the name of the soviet crimes you should renounce to display any form of leftism. In the name of black crimes you should renounce to display any form of black identity. And so on. Well maybe these reasonings will come into fashion after dealing with the whites, who knows.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 12 2020, @01:05PM (2 children)
That's fucking retarded and even you know it is. But you may be interested to know that I fly *no* flag and consider myself a citizen of the world, even if for tax purposes I'm an American.
Now, I understand full well that you are loyal to nothing except your weirdo Opus Dei cult, but in the US, the Confederate flag represents traitors. And not only traitors but traitors who attempted a war with the nation in order to keep owning human beings as property and chattel slaves, as laid out (and this was pointed out upthread) in the relevant documents giving their reasons for secession.
You aren't a functional human being. You sold your soul, assuming you had one, to a 1700-year-old multinational corporation masquerading as a religion, whose beliefs its ostensible founder would not recognize (and some of which would make him vomit with loathing), all for your own selfish ends. You don't know even the half part of which you speak about, which is probably why you keep talking about it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @03:48PM (1 child)
He's an Italian redneck. Or a redneck that moved to Italy. Whatever, just an asshole.
We're in a transition ohase from a group of people who grew up insulated, and a group who has had more access to knowledge than ever in history. It is sad that we have to drag these babies kicking and screaming to the book of knowledge and say READ!!
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday June 13 2020, @09:04PM
It's not that innocuous. He's a hardcore "trad-Cath" (look it up) and is more than a little unhinged: if you have some counter-apologetics skills, as I do, and can start putting cracks into the theological foundations of his worldview, he starts acting weird. Seriously weird, as in his diction and sentence structures degrade, he starts losing his cool, and half the time he'll just run away rather than continue talking.
This man is diseased. He truly does want a pre-Vatican-II theocracy, and is willing to throw everything up to and including the actual things Jesus taught into the burning hands of this Moloch-idol of his to see it happen.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday June 11 2020, @02:24PM (16 children)
I see this as a statement from NASCAR: it's not just Bezos who's going to say "I'm glad to see you go as a customer" to D-bags who can't let go of a past so many generations back that they never met anybody who lived in it.
Tip-toeing around the belligerent because you're afraid you might trigger them is how we continue to keep a simmering pot of belligerents just waiting for an excuse to strut around behaving badly.
Regardless of how it happened, the fire-ant hill has been kicked, and it's an opportunity for us to assess whether we want to just walk away and let them continue to own their little pile of decay, or maybe it's time to get out the poison and be done with them.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by looorg on Thursday June 11 2020, @02:31PM (15 children)
Can't the same be said about the people that are upset? They didn't live in the south at the time, they didn't pick any cotton or whatnot. So they are upset about something that happened to someone else. Perhaps they should just drop this whole proxy-outrage they fell about things that didn't happen to them.
As I said who cares if some people like NASCAR also wave confederate flags if you don't even watch NASCAR or care about it. You just care about the "hateflag" they might wave (or have on clothing, or stickers on their car or whatever) but then care nothing for the sport or the event. Seems like they are just hunting for things to be upset about on behalf of other people so they can feel good about themselves.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday June 11 2020, @02:59PM (13 children)
Disclaimer: I don't agree with this logic. From my perspective, equity initiatives for the past FIVE DECADES have given unequal (higher levels of) opportunity to those of the supposed disadvantaged races, sexes, etc. Coming from the "privileged" race, I was so fortunate to have two schoolteachers for parents, who themselves had parents who were career auto mechanics, maintenance men, schoolteacher and hairdressers - so privileged that I got off light on discipline once in 5th grade as compared to the other kid in the fight who had darker skin. Race _may_ have played a part in my being passed over for layoffs one time in 2005. Meanwhile: persons of color had a a larger selection of colleges that would admit them, lower bars for scholarships, advantage in getting interviews at larger companies, etc. But, I digress.
The logic I don't agree with is: descendants of slaves started from a disadvantaged socio-economic position which was perpetuated for 100 years after the Civil War ended, and therefore, now 55 years further on they are still disproportionately poor. Equity initiatives "obviously" haven't gone far enough and they need more.
I agree with the Obama statement: "Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome."
Sure, society is still biased here and there. Opportunities are never 100% equal for all people, never will be - that's the logical outcome of freedom + human nature. Nepotism, favoritism to the familiar. In my opinion we should never base our assessment of equity initiatives on outcomes, only on opportunities. From my perspective, equity programs, if anything, give too much opportunity advantage to minorities at this time.
As for NASCAR and symbolism... there's been a fair amount of activity at Daytona Speedway in recent years attempting to reshape the image of the NASCAR fanbase away from the picture of a bunch of drunk rednecks. This may just be another step along that road.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @03:44PM
Aren't they actually drunk rednecks?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @03:49PM
>Equity initiatives "obviously" haven't gone far enough and they need more.
You see, these programs that have been in place for decades did not solve the problem like we wanted. Therefore we will continue doing the same thing with more money and expect a different result. Failure of these programs and initiatives is more evidence of the need for more money to combat systemic *ism undermining said programs and initiatives.
Coincidentally, if the problem was solved all of those non-profits and movements that have built up considerable power and influence will find themselves obsolete and lacking donor support.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 11 2020, @04:02PM (3 children)
Well they have a higher likelihood of being murdered by the police and going to jail for stuff white folks would get a warning for. That's not quite the extra opportunity they were hoping for, though.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday June 11 2020, @04:58PM
And this is some of the chaotic froth that will always exist... equity incentives most likely "steered" me on an 11 year detour mid career, potentially costing me millions in lifetime compensation and potentially developmentally injuring my young children costing their future caregivers many millions more. Nobody's ever going to make everything right or fair.
The police bubble of racial bias, particularly manifest in the South East U.S. but to a lesser extent all over, is long overdue for deflation. While we're at it, let's not forget to do something about the economic bias that exists in police actions and especially the justice system.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @05:01PM (1 child)
Numbers don't bear that out AT ALL.
I would link to the government's own stats on this, but you'd never read it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @10:06PM
Actually, here are the facts [pnas.org].
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 11 2020, @04:28PM
Oh, those privileged negroes!
African Americans make up 49% of wrongful convictions since 1989 [go.com]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 11 2020, @04:53PM (1 child)
Well, there's this thing, see? Opportunities still aren't equal. Maybe, if you were only 10-15% of the population with a totally dissimilar phenotype, you might understand. But since you aren't, you can't.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday June 11 2020, @05:06PM
Never will be equal - right now they're "equitable" meaning: the supposedly disadvantaged groups have lower barriers to entry. We see this at my work when we call for resumes from HR. 90% of applicants are non-minority, but each group of candidates we're given to consider are >50% minority. That's a distinct opportunity disadvantage to the race/sex majority applicants.
Maybe. I, and my children, are a 2% dissimilar phenotype, and it sucks in ways you can't imagine unless you live it.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 12 2020, @01:08PM (3 children)
Simple question for you, Joe: would you be happy if you were suddenly treated the way black people in general are treated in this country? Absolutely the same, with all the assumptions people make about you and everything. If your answer isn't a resounding "yes, in every single aspect," then guess what: THESE THINGS HAVE NOT FIXED THE UNDERLYING ISSUE.
No one sane is pushing for equal outcome as opposed to equal opportunity and that's a bullshit strawman. You're better than that, so knock it off. Opportunity is manifestly *not* equal yet, not even close, and some token scholarships are not going to make up for things like Flint's lead-laden water supply or the vast disparities in infant and neonatal mortality, for example. Much too little, much too late, and mostly just an insulting bunch of white-guilt milquetoast claptrap. They're aspirins for a tumor, and while the aspirin is better than nothing, to declare the cancer cured and refuse to help the patient further is itself harmful.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 12 2020, @05:06PM (2 children)
As a mid-50s engineer, looking at other black mid-50s engineers - I'd probably migrate from Florida up to the NorthEast, because conditions are definitely better for blacks up there, and the federal equity programs still apply giving minorities that little advantage. My current job placement happened by acquisition of the company I was working for, I had applied to the same job 3 times over the previous 10 years and never even got a callback - probably because I'm white-male. Maybe it's a case of "the grass is always greener" maybe it's the round of companies I interviewed with in Melbourne where every-single-one was minority owned because of the financial and contract award advantages they get, but, yes, in that respect I do think I'd rather be a minority and treated as such.
If you're talking about dealing with asshole rednecks on the street, you know they are abusive to cultured whites almost as much as they are blacks and other minorities, right?
If you're talking about being stopped for "driving while black," I've been stopped for "driving while poor" many times - it pretty much stopped happening when I stopped driving my piece-of-shit college car.
Our circle of friends is "overrepresentative" with black people, we probably run 25-30% black friends and acquaintances. Recent stories of "it happened because I was black" are rare, really rare, but easily repeated and amplified. Now, go back 35-40 years to Muscle Shoals Alabama and my wife will tell you how she was working in a Pizza Hut and the manager told her "we don't serve their kind here, go get those menus back." Yeah, it existed, and still does exist in small pockets - there are definitely places where being black is more of a disadvantage than being white in Puna, Hawaii is. Taken as the aggregate whole, over the parts of the U.S. that I know enough about to have any sort of opinion (East Coast, Gulf Coast, Cali Coast, Denver) I'd rate being black as a tiny overall advantage over being white white. Being other minorities even better.
If you start the discussion with "all else being equal" then, yes, I'll take the black skin - or any other minority status you would grant me, at any age.
If you get into the would you rather be "a poor black child born in the projects" vs "a typical white kid from the suburbs"... I'd call that a different sort of straw-man, take race out of the statements and it's still a no-brainer. Put a white kid in the projects with no dad and a crackhead mom, and it will be worse for them than a black kid. I've known the outlier black kids in the suburbs, including one girl who got herself adopted away from her crackhead mom and into a nice white suburban family, black was an advantage for her.
Is it time for the asshole abusive racist and otherwise regressive police to be purged? Long past time, and if you magically made them colorblind they would still need purging - a pig on a power trip is a pig on a power trip, doesn't matter what color you are, they're gonna ruin your whole life if they can - it's what they live for.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday June 13 2020, @09:01PM (1 child)
And you're actually touching on something important but often-overlooked in these discussions: there is no separating racial issues from class/poverty issues, because the two so very often both proxy for and feed into one another. I think, sometimes, that fixing economic injustice would fix some of the underlying racial trouble automatically, and wonder if the converse is true.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday June 13 2020, @11:18PM
At this point in my life, I understand all too well that I'm not going to "fix the world" - but maybe I can make a positive difference in some small areas.
Between race and economics, I would choose to fight for better economic equality of opportunity. Race is a problem, but as you say: fix the economics and a lot (not all) of the race problems vanish automatically.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 11 2020, @03:59PM
These are the same folks constantly going on about how the Democrats used to be the party of slavery.
Ok then, I'm fine with removing MY flag from NASCAR!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @03:37PM
Ummm... noted where?
Let me rephrase: [Citation needed] in regards with "a fair amount of the fan-base likes confederate flags", which is asserted a true without evidence.
(whoever links to the parent post as a citation will prove her/himself as an idiot with an execrable upbringing)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @05:01PM (1 child)
NASCAR, like the NFL, is especially corporate brand sensitive. They embrace corporate sponsorship overtly and every decision they make is with an eye to that. If their sponsors are comfortable with the confederate redneck image, then they'll keep the flags, but my guess here is that the sponsors are gauging the wind direction and, like the NFL, are changing course. These corporations are followers, not leaders.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @05:58AM
Just like Leaders, then?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @05:04PM
While there's a lot of initial anger about this decision, I doubt it will actually make that much of a difference. A lot of NASCAR's increase in popularity was linked to very competitive racing, support for individual drivers, and rivalries between some drivers. Most of the drivers who were around during NASCAR's increase in popularity are no longer involved with the sport. A lot of the tracks that were built during the 1990s and 2000s don't produce competitive races very often, and particularly not right after they get repaved. Hotel prices have increased around many of the more rural tracks like Martinsville and Bristol, making it more expensive for blue collar fans, which is most of the fan base, to attend those races. Banning Confederate flags probably isn't going to drive away a lot more fans. I suspect that many of the people posting that they're outraged about this either weren't going to watch at all, or will continue to watch races on TV, anyway.
I don't think this will hurt NASCAR financially, especially considering that a lot of NASCAR's revenue is tied to TV contracts and sponsorships. Had NASCAR not made this move, it might have driven away more sponsors in the near future. It might have driven away TV networks who would bid on TV rights when the current contracts with FOX and NBC expire. Networks might have encountered more difficulty finding businesses willing to pay for advertisements during races, driving down the value of the TV contracts.
I watched last night's race at Martinsville. While Martin Truex Jr. won by a few seconds, there was a lot of close and competitive racing all night. Overall, it was an entertaining race, and one that wasn't interrupted by a lot of cautions. The racing actually is getting better. They're adding a race next year at Nashville Superspeedway. While it would probably be better to race at Nashville Fairgrounds, it still makes a lot of sense to add a race in Nashville, where there is a significant amount of fan interest. There are new rivalries forming between popular drivers like Kyle Busch and Chase Elliott, which in particular has been compared to the rivalry between Dale Earnhardt and Jeff Gordon in the 1990s.
I don't think NASCAR is going back to the peak of its popularity anytime soon, but I think the decision to ban Confederate flags will help more than it hurts. They're making headlines for doing the right thing at the same time MLB and MLBPA are potentially shutting down the 2020 season over a small fraction of that sport's annual budget. It's worth noting that TV ratings were up a lot for last night's Martinsville race [jayski.com]. I don't know if the ratings increase will extend beyond Martinsville, but NASCAR certainly wasn't hurt last night by the decision they announced a couple of hours before the race.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by MostCynical on Friday June 12 2020, @01:12AM (1 child)
Except that the 'fans' who go to the actual races are really such a tiny part of the revenue [thedrive.com] that they are almost irrelevant (they help provide 'atmosphere' and background for the tv audience, but even the local food vendors (if there are any) are paying rent to be there)
Since the money is being made by billionaires, and the money is coming from international tv rights, advertising (the banners are made to visible to the cameras as a priority, not the people in the stands) and sponsorships, the local perspective can become problematic - so here, profit and revenue must have been under threat from some of those sponsors and advertisers, so "tradition" can go in the trash - anything is only good/allowed while it helped (or didn't hinder) revenue and profit.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @06:06AM
That same formula applies in the UK everytime some newspaper brings up the fact that only 10% of players in the the English soccer league are from England.
The "people" get angry and the next day some club buys a foreign star and the newspaper goes nuts over-hyping him. Almost as if they thrive on the outrage...