National Anthem Atrocity

I noticed that those in the least racist, least unfair to black people, most helped, allowed to do the most criminal behaviour without repercussions, one of the countries who got first rid of slavery etc are the most outspoken against that country.
I can't even think of any African countries where you are allowed to loot and destroy, and then shhit on said country's anthem and still get free money.

The fact she can dwell in the victim role and totally disrespect the majority's cultural base shows that oppression is almost non existent.

I'd like anyone else to try this in truly oppressive countries.
They'd be in jail or worse.

Also there comes a point where it's all too long ago to still use it as an excuse for misbehaving, free money, being in gangs and killing each other.

Slavery and oppression do exist today, but it's not black people.

Why are the Japanese not doing any of this?
They were hit by two nuclear bombs, still suffering with cancers etc.
Yet they pulled themselves together, rebuild, have dignity and still visit the USA as tourists or immigrants.

How long do American black people want the victim status to go on for?
Forever?

ETA: Even Africans think that black Americans are pathetic.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Imbackbaby

To be fair, ACTUAL freedom of speech and ACTUAL freedom of expression ended some time ago although both are supposed to be protected by International Human Rights law.

If somebody calls me an idiot it's all good, but if I call somebody from the LBGTQ + (insert the other 4000 letters) an idiot I get called something something phobic.

If somebody burns the American flag it's ok, If somebody burns the pride or trans flag it's hate.

That's sounds exactly like ACTUAL free speech in action. Everyone saying what they want to say. Or saying nothing at all.

No one has to agree. No one has to disagree.

Free speech baby!

If that were true and applies to everybody I would agree with you. So when a school teacher gets suspended for saying only 2 genders, you're ok with that? They were exercising their free speech. When a school kid gets vilified for saying the same? Isn't freedom of speech supposed to apply for all?

I guess and I quote "we're coming for your children" is ok with you? I'd appreciate you address all not just the last bit.

a reply to: PorkChop96

11 years ago, Jill Scott had me dazed with her talent. This song was one of my favorites.


Sigh..smh. Doesn't surprise me anymore how easily people will sell out. Her rendition of our National Anthem is probably a glimpse of the BLM Anthem that was discussed years back.

Despicable, but par for the course these days.

originally posted by: seagull
There is, despite pretty words to the contrary, no such thing as "Freedom of Speech, or Expression". Never has been.

Consequences are very much in play where that is concerned. Whether governmental, or we as private citizens getting worked up...

Ignore this into oblivion, while working to fix the very real problems that exist.

Fight the fights that need fighting. Not the ones that are of superficial importance.

I just woke up, so it's a bit disjointed...

Free expression is the cornerstone of individual freedom, in my humble.

a reply to: Imbackbaby

If that were true and applies to everybody I would agree with you.

Okay...

So when a school teacher gets suspended for saying only 2 genders, you're ok with that?

No, I'm not "ok" with that. What I am okay with is an employer establishing standards for employment. I am okay with schools establishing curriculum and standards of behavior for teachers. If the teacher is violating either the standards of employment, behavior or curriculum, then the school has the option of suspending that teacher.

For example, a teacher should not be using their free speech to call their students derogatory names and slurs. Teachers should not be telling their students, "F you" or "shove it up your ass." A teacher should not be arbitrarily changing established curriculum.

On the other hand, if those standards are not acceptable to the public, then it's up to the public to demand better and different standards. If it is not acceptable to teach that there are more than two genders, then use free speech to change hearts and minds and have the curriculum changed. Use free speech to express grievances and demand redress of those grievances.

I don't think it's an accident or a coincidence that both are covered under the same Amendment. There is a rhyme and a reason there.

They were exercising their free speech.

On whose time? And at whose expense? If the teacher cannot in good conscience fulfill the terms of their contract, and cannot/will not use her free speech to make the necessary and proper changes, then perhaps that teacher needs to find a new employer.... or a new career.

When a school kid gets vilified for saying the same?

Just vilified? Not suspended? So they got to say what they wanted, and just had to listen to others say what they wanted? Including those who disagreed?

That's free speech.

Isn't freedom of speech supposed to apply for all?

Sure. And others can use their free speech to disagree. Others can use their free speech to say nothing. Others can walk away and not even listen to anyone else's speech.

I guess and I quote "we're coming for your children" is ok with you?

Of course not! Would I have them arrested for it? Nope. But it's definitely good to know. Forewarned is forearmed, right?

I'd appreciate you address all not just the last bit.

Hmmm... why would you think that I would only address the last bit? Because that's when/where you decided to make it personal and guess that I'm okay with child abuse? I bet those words were fun for you to write. The joys of free speech... LOL!

That's where YOU wanted to go. And you did. And both your words and mine will stand on their own merit.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
Why are people going to read this article and think it's okay?

Butchered Anthem

Death by a million cuts words. No matter if it's legal or not, it's destructive.

What I'm about to write may seem weird coming from me...

I started to write something completely different and angry here, but realized I needed to look into the event where this incident took place. After researching a little bit, I'm not sure how to feel about this, honestly.

The Essence Fest is a cultural and music event aimed African-American women which has historically been held in NOLA.

Essence magazine has defined their audience, their message and the theme of the event pretty clearly for over 5 decades. Much as I would probably not feel welcome at a White Supremacist convention, equally I'd likely feel unwelcome at the Essence Fest. I suspect there are numerous 'creative licenses' taken with all manner of songs and statements at...both.

As E.B. Hall said in 1906..."I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

It’s a sad attempt at keeping racial division alive.
It’s morally corrupt and dangerous.
It creates more divide.
It makes people angry.

This was their intention.

Gotta laugh now, all these people richer than I can ever dream of being claiming they are oppressed and constantly battling racisim and the entire nation is against them... yet they are coming up on scrooge mcduck level wealth.

I feel gipped... where can I exchange my "privilege".

That said, freedom of speech she can certainly do that and people that are offended can feel free to never do a thing to support her again.

Freedom to choose is a wonderful thing as well.

a reply to: PorkChop96

All part of the agenda. Heard she's worth 12 million $. Must be tough the racial discrimination. As a white 'priviliged' woman my net worth is off course a tiny percentage of that

My guess she's paid by Soros etc , much like he funded BLM to further the divide .Divide and conquer when they see us as a threat.

Honestly this woman should just leave the country if she hates it here so much

a reply to: Boadicea

You win!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

As E.B. Hall said in 1906..."I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Indeed.

Inflammatory words meant to divide us, and create conflict where none need exist. Ignore them into oblivion until such time as the adults in the room are ready to talk, and work, together to solve the issues...

Nothing else will work, history proves that.

a reply to: PorkChop96

Jimi Hendrix did it first.

That was one of those hippie protest things. "The Man" and such.

Some renditions of the national anthem are like Whitney Houston vs. Dolly Parton, but that's just soul, so it's intolerant to say, "Oh would you just get through the f----- song!"