The coolest thing by far watching these Olympics is seeing the diversity up on that podium. Black, white, hispanic, asian, muslim, jewish...

US is kicking ass but that to me is where we really crush it. Pretty damn cool!

I was thinking of what's probably called second wave, or what I think was being called 'the modern feminist movement' back then, but I'm pretty sure even that started in the early/mid 60's, well before I was involved, or even breathing....so yes, it was tongue in cheek.
I was a kid in the 70's, not a political organizer, but I did see Joan Baez twice before I was 10 at two of the dozens of woman's rights events I attended as a kid/teenager, so I say I get credit for being 'part of the movement'...especially since I continued to support, and sometimes actively work towards their goals, and consider them when voting to this day.

I understand I often fail at communication, please let me try again. My point was that when the name of a movement is so focused on one small (or in the case of feminism, large) segment of humanity, it can turn off many that agree completely with the motive.

EDIT: I do take your point, though, about end goals/primary targets. It may be an impossibility, but it would be nice to find names that can invoke both without being exclusionary. It would help people like me that get hung up on minutia and detail not be distracted by imperfect labels, and keep ammunition out of their opponent's guns.

Yes, I understand the reason the movement is 'black lives matter', and agree that they are the MOST oppressed, so deserving of the most attention. I don't claim to have a perfect solution that would both be all inclusive AND focus on the most oppressed.
With "you matter", I was thinking that is a way to say that the issues that matter to 'you' also matter, that your being oppressed and receiving unfair treatment matter, that your opinion matters, and that your life matters, no matter who 'you' are, black, white, woman, man, and all people in-between. Yes, even the Koch Bro's matter, just not more than anyone else.

Of course, you and others are free to focus on any issue, or any specific part of any issue you please, or not. I usually prefer a big picture approach for me, because it's all too easy for me to get myopic and dwell on (often meaningless) detail if I over focus, one of many character flaws. I think both mindsets have their merits and their drawbacks, and I think it's a good thing to have people in both camps.

That's just plain wrong. Black people can ABSOLUTELY be racist, they can even be racist against black people.
http://videosift.com/video/Chappelle-Black-white-supremacist
Black people can even perpetrate institutional racism...just see 'blackpeoplemeet.com' who's policy is to exclude non-black people as proof they can do it.

Please note the actual definition of the word below, and that your limited definition is the secondary one, not primary. The primary definition describes the most common usage, the secondary one describes institutional racism, which is a side effect of the those in power holding to the primary.

Racism: noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

1) Bullshit. Sorry, but it had to be said - when a criminal shoots a citizen, people do fucking care. Stop saying they don't, because it's disgusting and it's bullshit.

2) It's not a question of justice, it's a question of accountability. The next time a (black/white/whatever) criminal shoots a citizen, that's a tragedy that we need to address, but it's not blood on my hands - it's the fault of the criminal. Whenever a police officer gets away with unjustified use of force against a citizen, that's on the police and it's on us. Because we gave the police that power, we paid for their training, we bought their equipment - we have to be the ones to hold them accountable. They're our employees.

To put it in terms a conservative can understand, anger and responsibility - I'm angry whenever I hear of a criminal murdering citizens. I'm responsible whenever the police murder citizens.

Black, white, whatever. That cop is way, way out of line. On what planet is this the way a grown adult acts, let alone one they give a fucking gun to and power of arrest?

This is bullshit. That cop needs fucking sacking. He's not able to control his temper when faced with a little schoolboy, he's a liability if he's ever needed for proper police work.

In any of those is the guy who's caring for the baby the whole film get killed at the end of the movie?

I don't think he was ever pushing the baby around in a pram in the movie I saw.

Not Shogun Assassin because my movie was black & white.

Wonderful. *doublepromote

I wonder if anyone can help me find an old Japanese film I saw just once and really liked. It was black & white and had a samurai with a baby he was trying to save. In the end [spoiler alert!] he came up against an enemy samurai he had to fight. He is killed by that enemy, but he promised to take over the task of getting the baby to safety. It was really poignant.

It's been over a decade now and I've wanted to know what it was forever. If you have any ideas what it might be or how I might figure it out, please let me know.

@lantern53 See I'm not really an atheist, but I tend to side with them in 90% of arguments like this because of the terrible reasoning people like yourself make.

There is room to manoeuvre but it has to have rational and/or empirical rigour. Straw man arguments and black & white thinking will do little but embarrass oneself.

@Jinx nailed it with this line:
"So you're saying that, like love, God is all in your head?"

^That is about the only line of argument you could have made stick. Idea's like God's and love etc. exist in our minds and one could reasonably argue that this constitutes a kind of "existence" insofar as they affect the "reality" we experience, "reality" as we experience it is necessarily at least in part a product of the mind. (to be clear such things can ONLY be said to exist in our minds and collective imagination in lieu of material evidence)

The above at the very least moves the argument to one of materialism vs idealism. "Scientific Materialists" will still disagree as they refute the existence of mind as anything other than an illusion created by the interactions of matter and energy, but philosophically speaking that argument will at least go somewhere (hopefully phenomenology and existentialism if you think it through enough!).

If you'd gone that way I could have jumped in to try and help. But instead you used cheap shot logical fallacies even a 1st year theology student would balk at.

Sad Panda!

@chingalera
/chuckles
oh i know man.

my comment was with tongue firmly planted in cheek but my basic point remains the same.

some people have to make concessions in order to survive in this fucked up system.
maybe they have children.
maybe they are married with an asston of debt hanging over their heads.

i am an anarchist.
so i have arranged my life in a way where my participation in this zombie system is shaved to a bare minimum but i also have to recognize that some people do not have that luxury.since i am not living their lives i refuse to judge them.

just look at the comments here.
your assertion of an imagined polemic plays out in this thread,quite conveniently making your point.

we have @bobknight33 posting the heritage foundations position almost verbatim (thanks for responding bob,i like when you participate.sincerely),in regards to capitalism.

then we have @Sagemind posting a more "left" leaning comment.

and then we have the always ironic @lantern53 bemoaning the ills of government.yet his salary is provided by taxpayers,and hence the very government he is deriding.he is such a closet socialist.(loooove you lantern../hugs).

yet all these positions have validity.

the governments role should be criticized and examined.
corporations should be exposed for their undue influence.

this is not a simple issue and it is where i think you and i totally agree.
i too get frustrated when people talk about this subject in a binary way.
it is NOT just a black/white,good/evil,right/left matter.

and when people engage in this form of perception they also tend to demonize the "other" side.
so if someone posits an opinion that happens to be contrarian to ones views,they are automatically dismissed as "wrong" and anything they have to say is discarded as being stupid,ill-thought or just plain downright wrong.

this is the fundamental flaw in this binary thinking.
and it is not by accident but rather by design.

divide and conquer.

in the developed western world we have 30 choices for toilet paper but when it comes to things that TRULY matter?
we get two.

so the true elite and powerful of this country pick their prized horse and offer up to us,the american public,a choice of TWO rich fuckers.
would you like democrat?
or republican?

doesnt really matter who you choose because either one is going to serve their masters.
who of course are wall street and corporate america.
not you or i.

we are fed a constant stream of populist bullshit that gives the appearance of solidarity and nationalism but in reality serves only the corporate masters in fleecing the american people of more and more of their own hard earned:money,rights,liberties and ultimately our independence.

the problems with un-fettered capitalism are well known and well understood.
just as the problems with socialism are well known.

it is the SYSTEM that needs to be challenged and questioned,examined and ultimately discarded if we find it lacking.

and i find it lacking.
morally,socially and financially.

it is time we kill the beast.
because it is feeding on itself and putting us ALL at risk.

bah..you fucker.got me ranting.

let me conclude with this:
i find all structures of power and authority to be illegitimate until proven otherwise.
i find the system of plutocracy currently in place to be illegitimate.
it serves only the upper eschelon and commodifies the poor.
the poor have become fodder for the military industrial complex as well as the private prison system.
the working poor have become cogs in a machine that is slowly crushing them under the weight of the hubris of those who feel entitled to their fortunes and that somehow they are more deserving then their fellow man.

the beast is sick with its own arrogance and needs to be put down.
the only recourse us normal folk have is to stop feeding the beast.

if only 5% stopped going to work and took to the streets you will see a very frightened beast begging us all to the negotiating table.

thats my 2 cents anyways.

It's not too complicated as enoch explained, I'm not too hard to figure out-If I'm as damaged as some accuse me of may I remind those who feel I have singled them out for destruction: I often offer the mirror and admit my own inability or unwillingness to process information beyond my own filters-I try to imagine what it would be like to be on the receiving-end of the same 'vitriol', newtboy, and it's not long before I find myself there when I engage in these projects of using the same derogatory sentiments and language used to present these types of editorials.

It's simple. Someone starts from a position of disgust and outrage at some christian-type, some rightist political type, and I shit on that very exercise using what I understand to be the same devices, with a view to exposing the hypocrisy. It gets taken personally by a few of the more angry campers, then the mob.

I will always detest the titles and tone of atheists pointing-out the obvious to a room full of choir members, as well as people's political views when they come from a position of ,'my-side-of the-two-sided-fence is-better-than-another.' Both sides of any polar opposite appear exactly the same to me. God=Satan, Black=white, republican=democrat, etc.

'Newt, I'm ashamed to admit that beyond our recent exchange, I can't recall any discourse we've had in private beyond my calling-you out on your overall tone and timbre with your public comments that may have rubbed me raw now and again, perhaps I could do better to remember instances that may have affected you in some profound way-I know I've taken care to recant past actions or unsolicited frustration with some here offended by myself, extended olive branches, etc., some have been accepted as sincere (which it most assuredly is when I am truly penitent) some has been ignored or remains forever unforgiven. I have no regrets nor am I responsible for anyone's emotional state at any given time.

Admit my own egocentricity at times and I have had my fair share of battles with some real pieces of work here on this site, but I always return, more patient and forgiving and that much more of an asshole when asshole is dealt me.

...and then there's the resident beat-cop chicchorea, *quality
Thanks enoch, thanks newt, radx and VoodooV and Chaos Engine, for making the place fun...Never a dull moment.

Obamas' a fucking tool, Atheists have their heads up the same ass as Christians, television is poison, life is fair and ultimately painful, enjoy the ride.

Your video, White supremacist discovers he's part black, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 2 Badge!

While he has an important message that he is trying to get across. This "culture" they are arguing about goes far deeper than anyone realizes. Vocabulary should be the least of anyone's concern. For a side note about the vocabulary used, the word in question has lost its meaning as he is stating. Can it be a powerful word when used in a demeaning and demoralizing context? Absolutely. However, the blatant use and misuse of the word by everyone, blacks, whites and everything in between, has changed the meaning of the word. It is similar to the word fag. It has been years since I have heard the word actually used as a vicious attack towards a homosexual. Can it be? Absolutely. It is commonly used as that? Not even close. Words change meanings over time and especially over generations.

This is not the case here. The "culture" they talk about starts with teenage boys. Walk into a high school locker room. The threatening messages these two dolphins players sent each other are the same ones kids use. Martin even sent a text message to Incognito apologizing for the situation and that he doesn't blame him or they interactions. They are still friends. That says more about the whole situation than anything. They are still friends.

This "culture," yes I'm using quotes for a reason, is being founded in these men from the time they are boys. I was in locker rooms through high school and college. Have I used all the words they refer to? Yes I have. Do I hate anyone I was talking to? Not in the slightest, but it still happened because boys are boys. They don't know any better. That is the real issue. Coaches at the high school and college level are failing their players, not in a sport sense, but in a "how not to be a condescending piece of shit asshole" way. The morals I learned from my parents and family were not taught by many of my coaches. I had one coach who would bench you for this type of behavior. He did not care if you were the star or a third stringer. He did no care if we lost. He said he was more interested in teaching the kids how to be real men than to be football players. This was a great college coach and a great mentor.

This falls to them and to parents to try and teach at a young age this is not socially acceptable behavior. If they don't, they grow into men like we have on the dolphins, and then we have news stories like this. If these announcers think this isn't what EVERY single NFL or NBA locker room is like then they are even more delusional than I first thought.

@Yogi-my_design is talking about the "immediate trauma care" emergency room scenario, of which the United States is top-notch at handing-out for free-no insurance...all fucking day long 24/7 365, black, white, red, etc. , regardless of government fucking shutdown, yer "OBVIOOUSLY" full of shit in that regard.

Taking the side of the police because you assume they obey reasonable or legitimate rules of engagement, is also a fool's fucking errand, moreso every minute that passes.

Police will eventually, regardless of what ever morality or ethics they began their career in law enforcement with, WITNESS A FELONY AND COVER FOR ANOTHER SHIT HEAL COP.

PERIOD

Systemic Institutional Putrefaction=law enforcement in the United States

I can understand that Deano. My argument is that this guy is making waves daily, pissing people off by taking the most valuable thing in America (Money;) and people are, for the last 30 years, just saying fuck it, it's okay we still love you.

But what does piss me off, in no way related to you Deano, is how "skillful" came into question in the first place. Basically, "Fuck this Uncle Tom Pig, little black ass kissing ass in a white person's world by not making waves. Got the cock sucking skills to survive!"

This has nothing to do with him being black. All command presence coupled with a sense of humanity. I am also sure that he didn't just have dealings with "white" people in 30 years. I am sure he has had a few poor, disenchanted black, white, Hispanic, etc. They do live around "white" people, despite the fact that certain Americans don't believe it.

I say that line of thinking belongs 30 years ago. And yes, it was presented exactly like that. Seems more appropriate for Bill O' Riley than a Sifter.

So thank you Deano, for being civil. I respect your choice