Two year old forced to take part in Rosa Parks re-enactment

Debrah N. said:
I think the difference with little children is that too often, people who aren't parents may be unfamiliar with how little kids brains work and perceive things. You can't talk to a two year old and expect them to understand things like adults would understand those things. Especially abstract concepts. They are tiny, new people who have no basis, no foundation for discussions like racism.
Click to expand...
You got it, Debrah... I think anyone who's actually had experience with toddlers knows that a 2 year old is a 24 to 35 MONTH old "tiny new person" as you said, and if someone can't grasp that this was totally improper, no one is ever going to break through and inject common sense.
 

Debrah N. said:
I think the difference with little children is that too often, people who aren't parents may be unfamiliar with how little kids brains work and perceive things. You can't talk to a two year old and expect them to understand things like adults would understand those things. Especially abstract concepts. They are tiny, new people who have no basis, no foundation for discussions like racism. In some cases, they're not even good at sharing yet when there's treats for everyone. Parents are more likely to be familiar with how little kids learn and experience things.

And children are resilient to a degree, but fear and adrenalin affects their little brains a great deal more and for longer than those do to adults.

On the other hand, we adults have often moved to new locations, felt that sense of instability and uncertainty, or had problems of our own with the law or know someone who did, or thought through the ramifications of such difficulties .....so we all have some at least vague idea that we can base a discussion on.
Click to expand...

Well, yesterday was quite a day. :D

There was some strange compartmentalization that was going only yesterday. In this thread, there is suggestion that childless couples - for whatever reason - really shouldn't have a say, or should have their opinion demeaned, because you know, a full adult human couldn't possibly understand the brain of a two year old. And then, in an immigration thread, there was a suggestion that if you're not American, you shouldn't have an opinion on US policy regarding the issue. Sounds like a good way to shut out ideas, especially ones you may not like, to me. It's also a little odd when it comes to a seniors forum. All of us here have a lifetime that's been trundling on for some time. You never know, we might have learned things, even contrary things.

But it also talks to me of - can't attack the argument, so attack the messenger. If I don't like something someone has posted, I'll either pass it by, or reply. If I reply, I reply to the points made, not the person themself. Let's be honest, none of us truly know anyone on here, but we can assume the vast majority are only here to share things.
 
CallMeKate said:
Anyone who took a moment to research knows that it happened here in Florida. It doesn't matter which media outlet was chosen to bring here to discuss the story. Kind of upsetting that we feel the need to have to "prove" articles we post because of... what? Not sure what the definition of trolling is. As someone mentioned earlier, there's only been one person kicking against the pricks, (yes, that's a real term and it's Biblical although some translations use "goads") so wouldn't that point toward trolling? (No opinion, just asking.)

Anyhow, thank you for bringing this up for discussion. It's unsettling to discover that anyone (even just one person) condones such racism as having a white toddler handcuff a black toddler to fingerprint. @hollydolly
Click to expand...

No-one said the article had to be "proved". In fact, no-one suggested the article was untrue. I did mention the Daily Mail was a rag, and that's because it is. It has a long history of dragging stories from the gutter. Most Brits know this. The Daily Mail have been anti-immigrant for as long as I remember, they're pro-censorship of cinema, and well, the long list of disgraceful things just goes on and on. You can read both the good and the bad on Wiki:

Daily Mail - Wikipedia

The source matters, because sources like The Daily Mail are known for being sensational in their reporting. Which means, they color their stories for effect. Therefore, some of the stories they put up are a husk of a story dressed up in trigger word language (such as yesterday, where an inanimate object apparently "attacked" someone at a car factory.) Why is mentioning this problematic?

Still I've not said someone shouldn't be posting links to the Daily Mail. People can do whatever they want. No-one here, as far as I know, owns or works at the Daily Mail. Why take a criticism of it personally?

As for the trolling - wow, things have gotten pretty strange around here. From qualification on who can comment on which topics, to now calling a dissenting voice a "troll", says it all really, doesn't it. Is it not okay to disagree? Are you just not interested in an opposing view? So much so that you'd post about being a troll? Really? Wow, what a shame.

Still, having gained some insight into how the forum works, I'm 100% sure PM's have been flying back and forth. Seriously people, why does an opposing view bother you so much? Attack the topic, and if you don't like someones opinion, ignore it. Do you really want to ban everyone who is willing to give their opinion, even if it's not popular one?
 

VaughanJB said:
As for the trolling - wow, things have gotten pretty strange around here. From qualification on who can comment on which topics, to now calling a dissenting voice a "troll", says it all really, doesn't it. Is it not okay to disagree?
Click to expand...
Mornin' Scrappy... missed ya. As for the trolling... I didn't really come up with that idea myself... saw someone mention it yesterday on another thread you commented on and it got me wondering if maybe you take the devil's advocate side on any topic that arises just to cause controversy. Of course you can have your opinion... but then you also have to be "man enough" to accept the opinions of others when they differ. Please take a deep breath or three... none of this is worth having a coronary over.
 
CallMeKate said:
Mornin' Scrappy... missed ya. As for the trolling... I didn't really come up with that idea myself... saw someone mention it yesterday on another thread you commented on and it got me wondering if maybe you take the devil's advocate side on any topic that arises just to cause controversy. Of course you can have your opinion... but then you also have to be "man enough" to accept the opinions of others when they differ. Please take a deep breath or three... none of this is worth having a coronary over.
Click to expand...

Hey Kate! What you doing up so late?

Firstly, I'm not in the least upset, angry, or overwrought. If that's coming across in my comment then rest assured, nothing to see here. This is a forum, and it's here (I think) for the exchange of ideas and opinions. Be they in agreement (which I am often in) to disagreement. That's just life. Personally, given a specific topic, I'd say inevitable.

Do I post just to cause controversy? I can say, hand on heart, I have never ever done so. I won't start now either. I'm not five. :D

But seriously, I simply state my opinion, and sometimes get attacked for it. Tomorrow it'll be another topic, and I won't be thinking too much about older threads. If anything, it troubles me that there should even be an insinuation of trolling made. Just because something I've written isn't liked by a certain percentage of fellow members - none of which I mean any personal angst? I see it as an attempt to silence someone who doesn't think alike. Pretty sad, no?

No, I'm sincere. I do enjoy reading some posts, even if they disagree with me. Isn't that what the forum is for? At least THIS forum?

Still, as a relative newbie, I would say the following. I've seen this whole "trolling" accusation aimed at others in the past. There's a certain clique here that works under the covers to stop members (some now ex-members) from having a say if they are in any way dissenting from the group think. Do you think that's healthy? I mean, as old goats, aren't we above that?

Anyway - no reason to discuss this publicly. I'd be more than happy to discuss it in PM's if you wish. But no, it never, ever, occurs to me to post just for the drama. I'd consider such a thing juvenile, and silly. I'm also perfectly fine, and hopefully a country mile away from a coronary.

ps: I think "Scrappy" would be a great username!

:)
 
@VaughanJB
I am a believer
In You
Truthful, intelligent, insightful, funny
Carry on with your musings
I greatly appreciate it
No problems whatsoever when we disagree
 
VaughanJB said:
Anyway - no reason to discuss this publicly. I'd be more than happy to discuss it in PM's if you wish. But no, it never, ever, occurs to me to post just for the drama. I'd consider such a thing juvenile, and silly. I'm also perfectly fine, and hopefully a country mile away from a coronary.

ps: I think "Scrappy" would be a great username!
Click to expand...
Re: PM... I'll have to pass on that. Glad to hear you're not a troll... but they *do* exist. Feeding the trolls simply tends to empower them, but sometimes it's so difficult to not respond.

Re: Username... yeah, if the moccasin fits, go for it. I like it. (y)
 
Beezer said:
I haven't encountered this 'secret cliquey society' by forum members. I post and say whatever I feel like.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you generally agree with them? Perhaps you're less verbose? Perhaps you manage such "conflicts" better than I do?

Still, it's not something for general discussion as it's off-topic. But yes, I have a read on how the gossip travels here and the players involved. I know first hand. But let's let it end here, because honestly, it's good to aware, but it's not productive to the good will of the site.

Pepper said:
@VaughanJB
I am a believer
In You
Truthful, intelligent, insightful, funny
Carry on with your musings
I greatly appreciate it
No problems whatsoever when we disagree
Click to expand...

Kind words, but really I see it all as "just how things are in the Social Media age". Outrage, attacking people not ideas, and acting over-the-top when someone not only disagrees on a topic, but will defend their stance, is par for the course in today's world, I'm afraid. I can't quite get my head around why anyone would be personally offended by a another member disagreeing with them. Or what newspaper one chooses to read. I grew up in a world where there was an accepted difference between say, The Enquirer, and the Washington Post - you know? But hey, if someone likes the Enquirer, go at it!

ps: Assuming that it still covers the alien stories, they were my favorite. :D
 
CallMeKate said:
Re: PM... I'll have to pass on that. Glad to hear you're not a troll... but they *do* exist. Feeding the trolls simply tends to empower them, but sometimes it's so difficult to not respond.

Re: Username... yeah, if the moccasin fits, go for it. I like it. (y)
Click to expand...

I've added it to my profile (look at my avatar). :D

And yes, trolls exist. But they're usually attacking people, not ideas, and/or deliberately ignoring forum rules.
 
VaughanJB said:
Hey Kate! What you doing up so late?

Firstly, I'm not in the least upset, angry, or overwrought. If that's coming across in my comment then rest assured, nothing to see here. This is a forum, and it's here (I think) for the exchange of ideas and opinions. Be they in agreement (which I am often in) to disagreement. That's just life. Personally, given a specific topic, I'd say inevitable.

Do I post just to cause controversy? I can say, hand on heart, I have never ever done so. I won't start now either. I'm not five. :D

But seriously, I simply state my opinion, and sometimes get attacked for it. Tomorrow it'll be another topic, and I won't be thinking too much about older threads. If anything, it troubles me that there should even be an insinuation of trolling made. Just because something I've written isn't liked by a certain percentage of fellow members - none of which I mean any personal angst? I see it as an attempt to silence someone who doesn't think alike. Pretty sad, no?

No, I'm sincere. I do enjoy reading some posts, even if they disagree with me. Isn't that what the forum is for? At least THIS forum?

Still, as a relative newbie, I would say the following. I've seen this whole "trolling" accusation aimed at others in the past. There's a certain clique here that works under the covers to stop members (some now ex-members) from having a say if they are in any way dissenting from the group think. Do you think that's healthy? I mean, as old goats, aren't we above that?



:)
Click to expand...
So. as a new member to this forum, you not only KNOW that there's an underground clique but you also KNOW that the clique has prevented EX members from having a say... that will be as well as you KNOW 2 year olds need to learn about Racism...! Oh wait !


just how many EX members do you know... ?
 
VaughanJB said:
Having lived in the USA, I can tell you that British newspapers are sold at very select stores, and then out of date. They're not what you'd call "widely available". I mean, you can buy The Sun over there too, but you'd have to do a lot of looking to find it.

One way or the other, The Daily Mail has a reputation for publishing right-wing propaganda and nonsense, and is not an outlet to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
I can purchase British newspapers anywhere in my country, so you are totally wrong here, Vaughn. No matter what is said, you are looking for an argument, not an intelligent debate here whatsoever. Surprisingly, so many are reacting to your so-called expertise, which I find most amusing.
 
It used to be I could only purchase Brit and other foreign papers at a newstand near the Main Branch of the NYPublic Library, on 42 & Fifth. But I don't know about now.

We have many many "foreign" language publications, but I think they are US based, not imported.
 
VaughanJB said:
Hey Kate! What you doing up so late?

Firstly, I'm not in the least upset, angry, or overwrought. If that's coming across in my comment then rest assured, nothing to see here. This is a forum, and it's here (I think) for the exchange of ideas and opinions. Be they in agreement (which I am often in) to disagreement. That's just life. Personally, given a specific topic, I'd say inevitable.

Do I post just to cause controversy? I can say, hand on heart, I have never ever done so. I won't start now either. I'm not five. :D

But seriously, I simply state my opinion, and sometimes get attacked for it. Tomorrow it'll be another topic, and I won't be thinking too much about older threads. If anything, it troubles me that there should even be an insinuation of trolling made. Just because something I've written isn't liked by a certain percentage of fellow members - none of which I mean any personal angst? I see it as an attempt to silence someone who doesn't think alike. Pretty sad, no?

No, I'm sincere. I do enjoy reading some posts, even if they disagree with me. Isn't that what the forum is for? At least THIS forum?

Still, as a relative newbie, I would say the following. I've seen this whole "trolling" accusation aimed at others in the past. There's a certain clique here that works under the covers to stop members (some now ex-members) from having a say if they are in any way dissenting from the group think. Do you think that's healthy? I mean, as old goats, aren't we above that?

Anyway - no reason to discuss this publicly. I'd be more than happy to discuss it in PM's if you wish. But no, it never, ever, occurs to me to post just for the drama. I'd consider such a thing juvenile, and silly. I'm also perfectly fine, and hopefully a country mile away from a coronary.

ps: I think "Scrappy" would be a great username!

:)
Click to expand...

I've found your posts are pretty reasonable even if some people don't agree with them.
Even if I don't always agree with them.
 
hearlady said:
I've found your posts are pretty reasonable even if some people don't agree with them.
Even if I don't always agree with them.
Click to expand...

I try to be reasonable, and to back up my words with data. I try. But this is how internet drama happens. You'll not find anywhere in this thread that is pro what happened here. I've not said I'm for this kind of treatment, or that it's a good thing. I simply have written about calming things down, and not letting sensationalist media stories accelerate a rush to hyper-maniacal cackling. Life is shades of grey, not black and white. It's not a binary world, and as far as I can figure out, no lasting damage has been done. Heck, did the teacher themselves take that picture used in the story, or was it someone else?

Still, some people seem ti like to jump over any hurdle (question) and rush to the finishing line which is outrage and yet more drama. Good old fashioned discussions are dead, it seems.

Anyway, I've had a nice nap. Yippee!
 
Lewkat said:
I can purchase British newspapers anywhere in my country, so you are totally wrong here, Vaughn. No matter what is said, you are looking for an argument, not an intelligent debate here whatsoever. Surprisingly, so many are reacting to your so-called expertise, which I find most amusing.
Click to expand...

What makes you say that I'm looking for an argument and not a discussion? What indicates or suggests this to you? What "expertise" are you talking about?

I'm not in the US now, but when I was (18 years) you could buy foreign newspapers at certain outlets, as I mentioned. So for example, places like say, New York, San Francisco, Seattle, had a bit of a Brit population, so you could get the papers there (albeit usually out of date). But Kentucky? Never saw Brit papers there. Houston? Didn't see them.

I'd like to see some evidence you can buy them "anywhere in my country". What do you mean by "anywhere"? You mean they're in newspaper vending boxes outside the grocery store? In every 7-11? Every gas station? That you can get them daily? In 2023? With the net? Are you claiming you can get it alongside the Wall Street Journal every day?

And no, I'm not trolling, I'm serious. You've made a claim and I'd find it astonishing if, in this day and age, they're readily available. The rag only has 2m readers in the UK! But if I'm wrong and you can buy it everywhere, I'd be happy to know the reality (which indeed, may have changed).
 
The Daily Mail is a British daily newspaper that is not widely available in the United States. However, you can purchase the Daily Mail online and have it delivered to your home in the US. You can also find the Daily Mail at some local newsstands, bookstores, and grocery stores. To find a local store that carries the Daily Mail, you can use the USPS website to search for a location near you 12. Alternatively, you can purchase the Daily Mail online from websites such as Britsuperstore 3. I hope this information helps!
 
Paco Dennis said:
The Daily Mail is a British daily newspaper that is not widely available in the United States. However, you can purchase the Daily Mail online and have it delivered to your home in the US. You can also find the Daily Mail at some local newsstands, bookstores, and grocery stores. To find a local store that carries the Daily Mail, you can use the USPS website to search for a location near you 12. Alternatively, you can purchase the Daily Mail online from websites such as Britsuperstore 3. I hope this information helps!
Click to expand...

Hey Paco. No doubt there are subscription services, but we're talking readily available. Let's ask this - does anyone in the US, in the forum, buy The Daily Mail?

I don't consider a subscription to represent "readily available". After all, if we go down that road then everything is readily available to everyone all the time. I'm not sure what madness would cause an American to subscribe to the Daily Mail when it has a web site online (we're talking about the paper version here), but each to their own. I'll even go one step farther - the only people I ever saw buy such a newspaper were Brits abroad feeling nostalgic. It's not like the US is short of newspapers.

I can hardly believe The Daily Mail has become a topic of conversation. It's awful. 2m Brits disagree with me - and so let them read what they enjoy. I just don't happen to be one of them (interestingly, from what I read earlier, their circulation is geared toward oldsters (average age 58 ) and around 55% of readers are women. That data was a little old though.)

EDIT: Just checked more data. The Daily Mail only prints a million copies a day, so the figures are much changed (like most paper newspapers, I'd imagine). It has less than 11 thousand subscribers.
 
CallMeKate said:
You rascal! Actually I don't want to. I don't buy the Enquirer either. But all that said, it was kind of stinky the way you (in post #73) said "No, we can discuss it. The linked news story was from the Daily Mail, which US members may not know, is a thoroughly discredited rag in the UK." We already knew it happened. We knew the NAACP was involved. Did it really matter if the link that introduced the story for discussion was from DailyMail, CNN, Fox, or Al Jazeera??? We knew it happened... so didn't saying it was from a "discredited rag" indicate you thought it wasn't a real story?
Click to expand...

Hey Kate. I have given two recent examples where the Daily Mail amped up a story beyond the simple facts in order to create drama. That was the only point I made. The reputation of the Daily Mail in the UK just is what it is, and my issues with it go back to the 1970's. It was a champion of Mary Whitehouse, a puritanical little woman with her head stuck deep in the past as the country moved on. She's long gone now.

Does it matter? Well, the language used in both the stories I cited mattered to me because I think it sets the story off on a trajectory of outrage and drama. However, I've not said people shouldn't read it, post links to it, or whatever pleases them. I can't imagine being offended by someone not liking the newspaper I read. :D

In the US there is lots of talk about "Fake Media" these days. Does it matter? Yeah, I think so. Others might not, but the Daily Mail is certainly qualified, imo.

Oh, and just because you don't want to is no excuse. Just go get it and tell us the date on the front. :D
 
VaughanJB said:
Oh, and just because you don't want to is no excuse. Just go get it and tell us the date on the front. :D
Click to expand...
This is ridiculous. I'm finished playing... I started pitying you a little bit because ... well, never mind why... and tried to show kindness in the last few posts, but I'm tired of it now. You have a counter point for everything that's said and sparring with someone who won't listen and who'd argue if I'd say the sky is blue is tiring. So.... carry on with anyone who'll put up with such BS. Ain't gonna be me.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top