Disagree. Libs love any opportunity to spread their odor.
Disagree. Libs love any opportunity to spread their odor.
why i love running wrote:
The comment was innocuous and relatively minor point of the story. The reaction here is overdone. This kind of nonsense is what makes me appreciate the solitude of my runs.
Given the general stupidity of the article, that one comment was a drop in the bucket.
why i love running wrote:
The comment was innocuous and relatively minor point of the story. The reaction here is overdone. This kind of nonsense is what makes me appreciate the solitude of my runs.
Agree. I clicked on the story thinking the main point of the whole piece was going to be about race in running based on the comments in this thread. I am not sure I would’ve even noticed the comment in the story had it not been for this thread.
White LRC males must be the most sensitive people on the planet.
yes, exactly. It's not a big deal. And what is the big deal is how some would make a minor comment into a political mountain in order to advance their single purpose in life.
How's your running going, by the way?
Also a white hobbyjogger wrote:
free reading comprehension tutorial for you wrote:
As for saying "what about x, y, z minority group," this is to show the NYT author's faulty thinking. It has nothing to do with claiming victim status. It is a way to take the authors premise (that hobby jogging is not perfect because too many white people do it) and inserting other variables into that premise to show that it is a faulty premise. This is abstract rhetorical thinking that maybe you are not capable of. So I'm trying to clearly explain it to you. If/when you respond to me and don't address this argument, it will confirm to everyone capable of this level of abstract thinking, that these rhetorical concepts are beyond you.
Oh, give me a break. You must be aware of the disagreement regarding the underlying assumptions made with your “abstract rhetorical thinking”. More specifically, Right wingers refuse to understand and accept the deep seated systemic racism in the USA that has excluded primarily black and Hispanic folks from having the same access to opportunity and capital that white folks have had. Thus, when those minority groups display what the right calls “victim mentality” they actually have a point based on historical, economic, and political facts. White folks—in gereral—do not have a valid point / argument in this regard.
Of course, most of us realize, that RWNJs and white nationalists reject these facts and thus use invalid comparisons via so-called “abstract rhetorical thinking”.
A more mainstream “light” version of your line of thinking is embodied in the Bush-ism “soft racism of low expectations “ which is just a more moderate way for the majority population to ignore the fact that the crimes and policies of the RECENT past are responsible for the vast majority of the inequities seen between white folks and non-white folks in the US.
In general, as stated above, conservatives reject these type of accurate historical fact based arguements / comparisons out of hand and instead try and argue that non-whites are simply “lazy”, “not taking responsibility for their actions”, or—most disgusting of all—that non-whites are somehow inferior to whites.
The only point I was making was a very narrow and simple challenge to the idea from the NYT author that it is a problem if one group of people disproportionately participate in a hobby. In challenging the NYT author's idea (that too many white people running is a problem) I'm making a very simple statement about logic. You failed to address that simple argument, just as I predicted. Instead, you ranted on about systemic racism and historical oppression. I was just making a simple point, and you were not able to grasp it. Plain and simple.
Here is where my thinking is maybe different from yours; I don't think disproportionate participation in a hobby is a problem, or evidence of discrimination. I don't assume that disparities = discrimination. For example, most people who wear kilts are Scottish. Is this a problem? Of course not. Also, 90% of tornadoes in the whole world happen in North America. Is this a result of discrimination? Of course not. The simple truth is that not every disparity is by default a bad thing, and not every disparity is due to discrimination.
I do not assume that all sociological disparities are both a problem, AND the result of discrimination. Correlation does not equal causation. It's absurd to assume hobby jogging participation is somehow related to system racism and historical oppression. Can you see how this oppression narrative paints everything it sees, rendering you unable to understand simple logical statement? But if you fall for this oppression narrative then of course you can't see it. To the jaundiced eye, everything is jaundiced.
btw, don't bother pointing out that the my tornado example is a non-sociological disparity and so does not apply. I used a natural disparity on purpose to help you see the logic of the argument because I know that your mind would automatically interpret any sociological disparity as evidence of discrimination. Others have pointed out the disparity of more Blacks in the NBA, and you were not able to grasp the argument. You only apply the disparity = discrimination concept when the minority group has less. When the situation is reversed, and the minority group seems to have more of the desired thing than the majority group, then it's not at all hard for you to see that there is no discrimination involved in that is causing the disparity.
And lastly, I know most of my arguments are completely beyond you, I'm just writing for other observers of this thread.
Bucz wrote:
Wow, I read this thread before reading the article. After reading the article I'm left wondering what the heck all of you read, because surely it couldn't have been the same thing. A lot of extremely overblown indignation here.
The argument is over one phrase in the article, not the article itself. To some people, that one phrase is obviously ridiculous, and to other people, the one phrase is true. The thread is about people arguing with each other about their reaction to that one phrase. The thread is not about the article. If you don't understand the context of the conversation, it's kind of lame to disparage the conversation as if you are above it all.
one phrase wrote:
Bucz wrote:
Wow, I read this thread before reading the article. After reading the article I'm left wondering what the heck all of you read, because surely it couldn't have been the same thing. A lot of extremely overblown indignation here.
The argument is over one phrase in the article, not the article itself. To some people, that one phrase is obviously ridiculous, and to other people, the one phrase is true. The thread is about people arguing with each other about their reaction to that one phrase. The thread is not about the article. If you don't understand the context of the conversation, it's kind of lame to disparage the conversation as if you are above it all.
We just want to keep things in perspective. I follow the author's articles and they are just sort of schmoozy blog post type of stuff. Not hard core journalism by any stretch, and the comment was an "aside". That's all it was, and maybe it was wrong. But keep it in perspective, can you?
Make no mistake about it, that's what they want AND expect.
F the Left wrote:
Let's hear it for the left. Now we can all quit running just to show how not racist we are.
Sums it up perfectly.
ghdfghdfhdfh wrote:
David Brooks' Son is in Israel Defense Forces, Should this be disclosed by NY Times?
https://www.imediaethics.org/wp-content/uploads/archive/B_Image_4838-350x224.jpghttps://www.imediaethics.org/david-brooks-son-is-in-israel-defense-forces-should-this-be-disclosed-by-ny-times/Brooks and the NY Times Jews are radical tribalists, preaching individualism for non-Jews, and preaching anti-white racism:
“We are all infected by a culture, a culture of hyper-individualism,” Brooks told a crowd Wednesday during a keynote address at the Knight Media Forum in Miami.
Brooks, who is a PBS NewsHour regular, said there are signs that more people are experiencing loneliness and that leads to divisions and “tribalism.”
But Brooks said if people will focus on joy—created by relationships—we will be “pointing in the right direction.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/watch-new-york-times-columnist-david-brooks-calls-on-americans-to-transcend-their-differences
My US Congressperson did not say Jew and did not say Israel. That does not matter, some Jews want to Crucify her for stating she questions the loyalty of some. She basically said she questions the loyalty of some who have dual loyalty. In MN, I met a MN US Jew who fights for Israeli's military 11 years ago. I met a southern CA resident about twelve years ago who fights for Israel's military. How is it legal? Israeli military, at times slaughter Arabs. Why are they not charged with war crimes when they return to US?
ignored my argument, just as expected wrote:
For example, most people who wear kilts are Scottish. Is this a problem? Of course not. Also, 90% of tornadoes in the whole world happen in North America. Is this a result of discrimination? Of course not. The simple truth is that not every disparity is by default a bad thing, and not every disparity is due to discrimination.
I do not assume that all sociological disparities are both a problem, AND the result of discrimination. Correlation does not equal causation. It's absurd to assume hobby jogging participation is somehow related to system racism and historical oppression.
This is the voice of reason in this thread. He wins the argument, and no Democrat has a response.
facts and reason wrote:
ignored my argument, just as expected wrote:
For example, most people who wear kilts are Scottish. Is this a problem? Of course not. Also, 90% of tornadoes in the whole world happen in North America. Is this a result of discrimination? Of course not. The simple truth is that not every disparity is by default a bad thing, and not every disparity is due to discrimination.
I do not assume that all sociological disparities are both a problem, AND the result of discrimination. Correlation does not equal causation. It's absurd to assume hobby jogging participation is somehow related to system racism and historical oppression.
This is the voice of reason in this thread. He wins the argument, and no Democrat has a response.
Congrats! You just got the stamp of approval from one of the biggest morans on the site.
This opinion/fluff piece has a whole host of problems aside from the one picked out by the OP. In a nutshell, the author accepts commodified diversity as a social good. For her, the growing number of non-elite sponsored runners and the commercialization of road racing is a positive trend because it has gone hand-in-hand with the diversification of road races. Previously, "skinny white dudes" got all of the money and glory; now, whoever successfully brands their running lifestyle can also get sponsorship. Nevermind the fact that running is a place where skinny dudes strive for athletic excellence and showcase the aweseomeness of the human body. Conveniently, she leaves out the many sponsored non-white men and women who excel in road racing, many of whom do not get paid very much for their hard work.
The commodified diversity mindset allows her to dismiss complaints about charity runners at Boston without considering how the corporatization of road racing has simultaneously attracted a more diverse running population (arguably a good thing) while turning what used to be cheap community events into bourgeois vacation attractions with exorbitant entry fees. As long as we have equal access to self-branding and consumption, we're on the right track.
A few caveats: I get that running fanship is good for the sport, financially, and I've always liked the participatory nature of road racing. In what other context can a hobbyist compete against an Olympian? I think we should consider why running is overwhelmingly white. Is it preference? Availability of role models? Access to safe streets on which to run? But I am offended at the suggstion that prioritizing athletic excellence, whether that's via sponsorship or road racing entries, should take a backseat to corporate diversity initiatives.
GD wrote:
This opinion/fluff piece has a whole host of problems aside from the one picked out by the OP. In a nutshell, the author accepts commodified diversity as a social good. For her, the growing number of non-elite sponsored runners and the commercialization of road racing is a positive trend because it has gone hand-in-hand with the diversification of road races. Previously, "skinny white dudes" got all of the money and glory; now, whoever successfully brands their running lifestyle can also get sponsorship. Nevermind the fact that running is a place where skinny dudes strive for athletic excellence and showcase the aweseomeness of the human body. Conveniently, she leaves out the many sponsored non-white men and women who excel in road racing, many of whom do not get paid very much for their hard work.
The commodified diversity mindset allows her to dismiss complaints about charity runners at Boston without considering how the corporatization of road racing has simultaneously attracted a more diverse running population (arguably a good thing) while turning what used to be cheap community events into bourgeois vacation attractions with exorbitant entry fees. As long as we have equal access to self-branding and consumption, we're on the right track.
A few caveats: I get that running fanship is good for the sport, financially, and I've always liked the participatory nature of road racing. In what other context can a hobbyist compete against an Olympian? I think we should consider why running is overwhelmingly white. Is it preference? Availability of role models? Access to safe streets on which to run? But I am offended at the suggstion that prioritizing athletic excellence, whether that's via sponsorship or road racing entries, should take a backseat to corporate diversity initiatives.
It's changed from a sporting competition to a mobile social event. It's annoying what many races have become.
I love Ilhan Omar wrote:
ghdfghdfhdfh wrote:
David Brooks' Son is in Israel Defense Forces, Should this be disclosed by NY Times?
https://www.imediaethics.org/wp-content/uploads/archive/B_Image_4838-350x224.jpghttps://www.imediaethics.org/david-brooks-son-is-in-israel-defense-forces-should-this-be-disclosed-by-ny-times/Brooks and the NY Times Jews are radical tribalists, preaching individualism for non-Jews, and preaching anti-white racism:
“We are all infected by a culture, a culture of hyper-individualism,” Brooks told a crowd Wednesday during a keynote address at the Knight Media Forum in Miami.
Brooks, who is a PBS NewsHour regular, said there are signs that more people are experiencing loneliness and that leads to divisions and “tribalism.”
But Brooks said if people will focus on joy—created by relationships—we will be “pointing in the right direction.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/watch-new-york-times-columnist-david-brooks-calls-on-americans-to-transcend-their-differencesMy US Congressperson did not say Jew and did not say Israel. That does not matter, some Jews want to Crucify her for stating she questions the loyalty of some. She basically said she questions the loyalty of some who have dual loyalty. In MN, I met a MN US Jew who fights for Israeli's military 11 years ago. I met a southern CA resident about twelve years ago who fights for Israel's military. How is it legal? Israeli military, at times slaughter Arabs. Why are they not charged with war crimes when they return to US?
Once learn about Israel and really look into it. You realize there is only one political party in America, the Israel party. And, don't you question it. Because, that is some how hateful? Can you think of another country, where you will be called hateful for questioning there policies? I can't. You can criticize Canada, Mexico, EU, China, Russia etc etc. But as soon as you start critizing Israel and how they treat the Palestinians. You'll get called antisemitic. Even though the Israeli government is persecuting and oppressing a Semitic population. But, what do they do? They create fake hate crimes and fake oppression here, to distract the population from what is really going down over there. They make up most of the people who run Hollywood, financial sector, academia, mainstream media and government. There is a reason most people don't know what is happening. Both supposed parties in America, are controlled by Israel. When you get into office as a Congress person. Not only do you pledge allegiance to America, but to Israel too. If that doesn't raise a red flag, I don't know what will. And not only that, but they have attacked the US. In a false flag operation. USS Liberty, they attacked the US(only confirmed one I know of, how many more attacks have they done to us, in which we blamed the "evil" Muslims for? My guess is most of them). And what do we do in return? Give them billions and billions of dollars to them. As the saying goes, to figure out who rules over you, figure out who you can't criticize.
I know FBI Special Agents read post here. I would love FBI to ask Letsrun my IP address. I would love for an FBI Special Agent to knock on my door and ask me about the MN/US/Israeli soldier. I would love for an FBI Special Agent to knock on my door and ask me about the CA/US/Israeli soldier. That is doubtful. US Justice Department know who are the dual loyalty/dual citizen soldiers. US Justice and US State Department know of war crimes committed by said dual loyalty soldiers. I think it a stretch that these types are really dual loyal citizens. They would never join US Army or US Navy.
That's antisemitism wrote:
I love Ilhan Omar wrote:
My US Congressperson did not say Jew and did not say Israel. That does not matter, some Jews want to Crucify her for stating she questions the loyalty of some. She basically said she questions the loyalty of some who have dual loyalty. In MN, I met a MN US Jew who fights for Israeli's military 11 years ago. I met a southern CA resident about twelve years ago who fights for Israel's military. How is it legal? Israeli military, at times slaughter Arabs. Why are they not charged with war crimes when they return to US?
Once learn about Israel and really look into it. You realize there is only one political party in America, the Israel party. And, don't you question it. Because, that is some how hateful? Can you think of another country, where you will be called hateful for questioning there policies? I can't. You can criticize Canada, Mexico, EU, China, Russia etc etc. But as soon as you start critizing Israel and how they treat the Palestinians. You'll get called antisemitic. Even though the Israeli government is persecuting and oppressing a Semitic population. But, what do they do? They create fake hate crimes and fake oppression here, to distract the population from what is really going down over there. They make up most of the people who run Hollywood, financial sector, academia, mainstream media and government. There is a reason most people don't know what is happening. Both supposed parties in America, are controlled by Israel. When you get into office as a Congress person. Not only do you pledge allegiance to America, but to Israel too. If that doesn't raise a red flag, I don't know what will. And not only that, but they have attacked the US. In a false flag operation. USS Liberty, they attacked the US(only confirmed one I know of, how many more attacks have they done to us, in which we blamed the "evil" Muslims for? My guess is most of them). And what do we do in return? Give them billions and billions of dollars to them. As the saying goes, to figure out who rules over you, figure out who you can't criticize.
Let me first say that the smear campaign from both the right and left of Ilhan Omar was pretty lame. She said a few things that maybe hinted at anti-Semitism, but instead of everyone asking her to clarify what her opinion is, they just pilled on with the whole "how dare you use anti-Semitic tropes?! You must apologize immediately!" It was a whole lame song and dance of fake outrage, and as someone who leans to the right, I was really disappointed in all the conservative pundits who couldn't see they were acting exactly like PC totalitarian Leftists.
Now, as for all of the stuff you are worked up about; that Jews control Hollywood, and banks, etc. Even if we go with your premise that some Jews in powerful positions are influencing our culture and society in a bad way, it doesn't change the fact that the larger society is going along with whatever bad direction you think the Jews are taking us. If Jews put a bunch of subversive and immoral stuff in movies, it's all of us that went to go see that movie. We put down our $20 for overpriced tickets so we could watch the garbage. If Marxist Jews are teaching in colleges, it's all of us that send our kids there and never teach them about right and wrong before we send them off to be brain washed by Marxist or post-modern nonsense. Instead of teaching our kids about truth and morality and the values that allow a free society to remain free, we waste our time watching TV and because we don't want to be bothered by our kids we send them to their room so they can jerk off to porn on the computer you let them have in their room.
The bottom line is even if everything you say about the Jews is true, we as a populace are still responsible for the lies we choose to believe and participate in. Don't see yourself as a victim of the Jews. Don't blame others. Take responsibility for yourself. If you want to say that many secular Jews are atheistic and promote philosophies that you think are destructive, fine, talk about those ideas. If you want to argue against the Federal Reserve banking system, fine. If you want to argue against foreign wars, fine. But don't scapegoat a group of people. That's a path of intellectual and moral bankruptcy. Argue the ideas.
Thinking that some small group of Jews is somehow pulling the string of the whole society, is just as lame as thinking a few Russian Facebook adds was able to "hack" the 2016 election.
The author of this article needs to buy season tickets to the Diamond League and report back to us after watching the distance events over and over for a few months.
I wonder what kind of backlash there would be if an article was published saying the NBA or NFL are “overwhelmingly black”
Typical liberal who doesn't know history and misrepresents the other side:
Statistically, a higher percentage of black people are criminals than white people and many more blacks are on welfare. This is because a**hole liberals like you push to keep giving them government benefits so that they don't prosper and rely on the government and encourage them to murder their babies in order to diminish their population. The Nazi party was specifically called the National SOCIALIST Workers Party. In other words, modern socialist liberals want to push for socialism exactly as the Nazi's did. Typical letsrun users are the ones who don't like bull**** and are offended by hypocrisy, thank the LORD. The DEMOCRATIC party is the one that stood for slavery historically. Don't believe that? Then find me a single Republican who owned a slave in the 1860s. In all of America, there was not a single Republican who owned a slave. I'm not saying that you necessarily hate black people, I am just saying that you are brainwashed by liberal hogwash.
