Safe Space thread
- Thread starter Bunraku
- Start date
Not my barracuda brethren, but cousins and second cousins are fair game.
So that's how it is? Well now, you've just triggered most of the ocean life. I hope you're happy.
david starling
Well-known member
So that's how it is? Well now, you've just triggered most of the ocean life. I hope you're happy.
Well, at least I'm not a shark. If I were, I'd have to be a lawyer or a politician!
Well, at least I'm not a shark. If I were, I'd have to be a lawyer or a politician!
I imagine sharks would be...disliked among the fishy world.
"Have you heard about that Tuna, Bumble bee?"
"Oh my Poseidon, what?"
"She's friends with a SHARK, can you believe it!?"
"Oh, lets avoid her form now on. Oh look, a net of some kind"
sibylline
Well-known member
Well, I hate many quotes in one post, but it's unavoidable:
I honestly have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
Your statement:
Yes, the world "only" was not used but the implication when you make such a statement is that outside discrimination is essentially irrelevant.
However, if not claiming that the oppression blacks face is from themselves, I'm curious to know what discrimination, specifically, you see as coming from outside of black communities.
Legally sanctioned segregation, no. De facto segregation, on the other hand, has always existed in the United States, BLM or no BLM.
Yes, they are. And civil rights activists have addressed this in the past. Community activism is still a large part of their daily lives, even as senior citizens.
You have to know your history.
The answer is "Yes, absolutely". Watts riots. Newark riots. New York City riot. Not to mention the numerous riots which took place after the murder of Dr. King. Death toll in the hundreds, many more injured. These are just some of the most well-known and well-documented.
Don't be shocked. Riots are a regular fixture of past and current social movements. It's also important to understand that Civil Rights is not Martin Luther King Jr. He did not control civil riots protesters, just as Black Lives Matter leaders don't control BLM protesters.
Not that any of this was at all the point. The point was not that the activists themselves are alike but that the criticisms directed at BLM are much like those aimed at Civil Rights activists. Actually, current support for BLM is greater than the support for the Civil Rights Movement in the '60s. Or MLK at the height of Civil Rights. Funny how dying can cause people to forget all of their gripes about you.
Those are their demands, not their cause. I would tell you what their cause is, but I think it's obvious and if not, can be found on their website. On the other hand, I might be able to do one better...
I was looking at BLM articles a short while ago and one name and face I saw I thought looked familiar. Then I realized: I've met one of the Black Lives Matter leaders, DeRay Mckesson, on several occasions. He is a part of my ex's friend group from college. As soon as I realized who he was, it made me LOL. He is so far from violent, hateful, chaotic, or any other of the terms applied. Really, he is so soft-spoken, intelligent, and well mannered, even with strongly held beliefs. Anyway, I'll try to see what he's told my friends about BLM. The real story, not the media story.
No, and I don't know you.
It was referring to a few friends, acquaintances, etc. On that note, none of this is about you, or me.
I honestly have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
Your statement:
Yes, the world "only" was not used but the implication when you make such a statement is that outside discrimination is essentially irrelevant.
However, if not claiming that the oppression blacks face is from themselves, I'm curious to know what discrimination, specifically, you see as coming from outside of black communities.
Legally sanctioned segregation, no. De facto segregation, on the other hand, has always existed in the United States, BLM or no BLM.
Yes, they are. And civil rights activists have addressed this in the past. Community activism is still a large part of their daily lives, even as senior citizens.
You have to know your history.
The answer is "Yes, absolutely". Watts riots. Newark riots. New York City riot. Not to mention the numerous riots which took place after the murder of Dr. King. Death toll in the hundreds, many more injured. These are just some of the most well-known and well-documented.
Don't be shocked. Riots are a regular fixture of past and current social movements. It's also important to understand that Civil Rights is not Martin Luther King Jr. He did not control civil riots protesters, just as Black Lives Matter leaders don't control BLM protesters.
Not that any of this was at all the point. The point was not that the activists themselves are alike but that the criticisms directed at BLM are much like those aimed at Civil Rights activists. Actually, current support for BLM is greater than the support for the Civil Rights Movement in the '60s. Or MLK at the height of Civil Rights. Funny how dying can cause people to forget all of their gripes about you.
Those are their demands, not their cause. I would tell you what their cause is, but I think it's obvious and if not, can be found on their website. On the other hand, I might be able to do one better...
I was looking at BLM articles a short while ago and one name and face I saw I thought looked familiar. Then I realized: I've met one of the Black Lives Matter leaders, DeRay Mckesson, on several occasions. He is a part of my ex's friend group from college. As soon as I realized who he was, it made me LOL. He is so far from violent, hateful, chaotic, or any other of the terms applied. Really, he is so soft-spoken, intelligent, and well mannered, even with strongly held beliefs. Anyway, I'll try to see what he's told my friends about BLM. The real story, not the media story.
No, and I don't know you.
It was referring to a few friends, acquaintances, etc. On that note, none of this is about you, or me.
It was used as a general statement. I always get names thrown at me, so I posted that little remark. Nothing toward you.
See the highlighted? You interpreted my post the way you wanted to vs how it was written. Nowhere have I said discrimination is "essentially irrelevant." Read what I write as it's written.
This question warrants a "you first", since I've already written down some examples of non-discrimination. Both the NFL and NBA have some of the wealthiest people in the world and most players are black men. We have black doctors, lawyers, Judges and, again, a black President.
Now if you're talking about police violence toward blacks, then you almost would have a point. There are cases where police have treated others poorly and unfairly and those should be protested. The correct way - non-violently. And then there are cases like this. A thug with a stolen gun was killed and people riot because "Discrimination" and "Racism".
Now if you're talking about lack of education, last I checked, public schools were free and lots of them (blacks) drop out in High school. None are forced, mind you, and there are even less blacks dropping out of school then Hispanics. I wonder where SLM is and why they aren't destroying their homes and attacking people..huh...
Now if you're talking about unemployment, how many blacks, let alone Hispanics, sign up for work and have the proper credentials to work? (HSD, GED, TASC etc). Because, all my friends didn't have trouble getting jobs and neither did I.
Now if you want to talk about income differences, well, simply put, one doesn't get paid as much as the next guy simply because he's black. And, NFL/NBA players make millions more than loads of white people.
So yea, show me discrimination.
So....communities all like to keep to themselves? How interesting. Living in Harlem AKA blood territory was nice. What are you trying to prove with this?
Lol, no. Firstly, that's an article from 2011. Here is a modern view on Chicago's gangs
So much for peace.
And now I'll ask you this: Did those riots change anything? If not, and all they did was to serve to worsen black lives, then it seems none have learned from history.
The "No true Scotsman" ? Really? So if I hold a rally and the people at that rally start rioting, looting and beating up people, it's not my fault?
Greater support? Wrong - Here, some modern proof. Again, BLM has shot itself in the foot by acting like a pack of wild animals. No one will really listen to them and even the Democratic party is simply waiting for them to go away.
The real story is plain for all to see. It doesn't even matter if one or one hundred of them are sensible. Bad apples have spoiled that bunch, greatly and now, as that article tells, no one will listen to them.
Let me be clear: I never once said BLM is stupid or should go away or anything like that. I've never stated my personal beliefs on BLM to begin with, just the black community as a whole (which I'm apart of). Some of changes they want are sensible to me and I do not like injustice of any kind. But if BLM isn't going to start addressing the pile of dead black men that could rival a blue whale in the room, then what are we left with? Blaming the white man for Chicago? The ghettos? We, the members of the black community need to turn inward and condemn these shootings in our neighborhood, in our cities. The same passion BLM activist have toward white-black shootings, we should see over black-black shootings. It's unfair to call out the rest of the world without taking a long hard look at ourselves.
david starling
Well-known member
It doesn't HAVE to be baby rabbits. Nearly all baby animals are cute, even homosapien babies, but the furry ones are cutest!
It doesn't HAVE to be baby rabbits. Nearly all baby animals are cute, even homosapien babies, but the furry ones are cutest!
David is the balance in the storm. He is the fish who keeps the boat steady. Let us give him rabbits.
I love rabbits. They poop a little too much for me though.
david starling
Well-known member
Rabbit raisins!
Today I learned how to spot an Android: They don't poop. Fish have taught me the truth, I am free.
sibylline
Well-known member
Bambi, this will go on forever. What it comes down to is that you have your views and I have mine, although they're more in the middle than I present. I could present more counterpoints, you will respond, and around and around we go. It becomes less about the issue and more about pride. I don't even think people care about the issues after a certain point, it's simply about not ever conceding.
I mostly want someone to learn or take another viewpoint into consideration. If someone is not open to learning, if they think they've got it, then there is nothing to be said. So while I would like to respond to your points, I'll just cut it off here because I definitely don't have the time to keep returning to this thread, in any case.
It's funny though, this interaction between you and I reminds me of the astrologer Charles Carters' writing on the Leo-Aquarius axis, which we both have highlighted in our charts: "[This produces] leaders of men". I think it certainly can, but inherent in the Leo-Aquarius axis is the precarious balance between dedication to self and ego vs commitment to principles and to mankind. And what can happen if someone lacks awareness, in general or at that moment, is that the ego's need to be respected and accommodated takes center stage over the desire to be helpful and care for humanity. I try to remain aware of this, so the last word is yours.
I mostly want someone to learn or take another viewpoint into consideration. If someone is not open to learning, if they think they've got it, then there is nothing to be said. So while I would like to respond to your points, I'll just cut it off here because I definitely don't have the time to keep returning to this thread, in any case.
It's funny though, this interaction between you and I reminds me of the astrologer Charles Carters' writing on the Leo-Aquarius axis, which we both have highlighted in our charts: "[This produces] leaders of men". I think it certainly can, but inherent in the Leo-Aquarius axis is the precarious balance between dedication to self and ego vs commitment to principles and to mankind. And what can happen if someone lacks awareness, in general or at that moment, is that the ego's need to be respected and accommodated takes center stage over the desire to be helpful and care for humanity. I try to remain aware of this, so the last word is yours.
Bambi, this will go on forever. What it comes down to is that you have your views and I have mine, although they're more in the middle than I present. I could present more counterpoints, you will respond, and around and around we go. It becomes less about the issue and more about pride. I don't even think people care about the issues after a certain point, it's simply about not ever conceding.
I mostly want someone to learn or take another viewpoint into consideration. If someone is not open to learning, if they think they've got it, then there is nothing to be said. So while I would like to respond to your points, I'll just cut it off here because I definitely don't have the time to keep returning to this thread, in any case.
It's funny though, this interaction between you and I reminds me of the astrologer Charles Carters' writing on the Leo-Aquarius axis, which we both have highlighted in our charts: "[This produces] leaders of men". I think it certainly can, but inherent in the Leo-Aquarius axis is the precarious balance between dedication to self and ego vs commitment to principles and to mankind. And what can happen if someone lacks awareness, in general or at that moment, is that the ego's need to be respected and accommodated takes center stage over the desire to be helpful and care for humanity. I try to remain aware of this, so the last word is yours.
Siby, Firstly, I'm sorry. I come off as very...passionate - perhaps overtly so at times and I get lost in the debate. It's apart of constantly defending myself from offline attacks from both leftist and right-wing pushers and or violent "activist". My main goal is to show all sides of a story instead of just one. That's really it, though, I'm probably coming off as argumentative again. Darn Mars in the third, lol. So yea, no personal feelings here.
That last bit is so true though. I've got Sun/Venus/Ascendant and Moon opposition and you've got Mercury - Ascendant opposition, right? We're so badas's. xD
Last edited:
craft94
Well-known member
I have Mars in the 3rd too! In a fire sign - do you think this placement makes us come off as more argumentative and aggressive than we intend to? I feel like it does
Omg, yes. I can't count how many times people tell me to "chill out, stop being rude" or something. Meanwhile I'm like "I'm being ******* nice!" with a semi-good smile on, only for them to tell me "See, you're mad"...which then gets me mad. It's a vicious cycle. xD
Do you get the chill out comments as well? I would think that Mars in the house of communication, especially in a fire sign, would be intense!
david starling
Well-known member
Probably won't help, but if we connect the 5th and 11th Houses with the characteristics of Leo and Aquarius, I've labeled them as House of Energy and House of Transcendence. I think it's up to Aquarius to transcend the differences, and Leo to energize this combination of opposites. It's a powerful matchup with many possible results. It's a matter of intent.
So in so many words: Leo and Aquarius are freaking awesome?
I needed that ego stroke, David.
I'm joking