One of the hallmarks of leftism is to obfuscate self-evident reality. What is a woman really? What is drag really? Their point is not to discover and debate a newly discovered nuance. Rather, it is to muddy the waters. So, I thought I'd take a crack at their obfuscation game, and ask, "What exactly is blackface?" Why is blackface a bad thing? People paint their faces for different reasons. Some do it seasonally: Some do it culturally: Even the Prime Minister of Canada has done it! So, what exactly is blackface anyway?
Blackface is just another thing for libs to set their hair on fire over. Governor Northam did it and the left didn’t lose it. Ted Dansen did it and his squeeze at the time, Whoopi Goldberg, laughed and thought it was funny. Here is a list of celebs in blackface. Did the left cancel any of them? https://www.bet.com/photo-gallery/d0w4rl/smh-10-celebrities-who-were-in-blackface/s76ygl
Exactly! One might argue that blackface is but a logical extension of body painting and therefore is not inherently bad. This leftist framework of obfuscation is fun in its absurdity, I must admit.
Instead of getting all triggered about face make up, just go ahead and skewer the one doing it over their racism and lets get onto really important stuff. Like beautiful women. Or, OK, fine, or men. Jeez!
Thank you for your input, big fella. Big fella. So, big fella, let me ask you this. As a leftist, how would you rate my attempt to obfuscate basic reality, such as with the definition of women, racism, drag, etc.? I need some constructive criticisms.
I want an argument on how this is different from blackface. I mean, after all, how do we define drag, according to this poster: Obfuscation. The name of the game in the leftist framework.
One of the seals who was on the Osama Bin Laden raid was asked what's wrong with America and he replied, whats wrong with America is that not enough is wrong with America. He means we don't appreciate how good we've got it. That the clothing someone wears (or doesn't wear) gets more than a passing note, or perhaps a chuckle, says it all in my opinion.
No Simply pointing out that there is no “black and white”. Just shades of grey nd those who cannot encompass such a worldview do themselves a disfavour and doom themselves always to disappointment
Simple - the funding the GOP wants to cut I.e. child poverty programs https://equitablegrowth.org/eight-graphs-that-tell-the-story-of-u-s-economic-inequality/
I thought the GOP wanted spending levels at pre covid levels. Is that what you call "cuts"? Economic inequality? Who, exactly, is keeping anyone from earning as much as they want? You understand, the "economic pie" has no limit, so when the rich get richer it isn't taking anything away from any other group, right?
They seem unconcerned about anything except foetuses, trolling Democrats & acting like victims. Everything else is just tactics and angry outbursts. They can't even fund the military or promote officers.
There is a difference between pointing out nuance and obfuscating. Pointing out nuance is illustrating a complexity between one or more things, such as the difference between amiableness and graciousness. What you are doing is trying to obfuscate self-evident reality. This: Is not this: By you trying to make that comparison, you are simply attempting to muddy the waters, to place fundamentally different things into the same category. We all know what drag is. Drag is the transmogrification of femininity.
Ok Tell me the exact difference? I mean the guy in the make up? What is the disservice between him and say this bloke? Or better yet old Georgie yep! He wore make up!
This thread crystalizes just why I joined PF in the first place. The sheer quality of intellectual debate on offer.
Yes, I've noticed that. A few pop up on TV & its all the ycan see. Show a black man with a white woman and they go full snowflake. Put a single black woman in the Senate and they have fits of hysterics. And al lthe while they somehow imagine themselves victims. A very unhealthy mental state.