San Francisco school official deems acronyms ‘racist’ in axing arts department moniker

[seekingthetruth 1,249]

4 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Have you told her she is a racist?

I'm working up to that.  Baby steps!

[Steeleballz 7,550]

57 minutes ago, seekingthetruth said:

Everyone else is joking around because the actual topic is ridiculous.  The topic was, calling acronyms racist.  The topic was not the supposed source of the school, a 1999 paper called "White Supremacy Culture".  You were triggered by that.  I just did a quick review of it (I did not bother the first time) and it is also ridiculous, and there is no mention of acronyms.

 

Now I read that paper and I have a problem.  How can I tell my PERFECTIONIST wife, who wants everything done NOW, WITH A SENSE OF URGENCY, that she is demonstrating the characteristics of a WHITE SUPREMIST, without her getting DEFENSIVE?

 

Woe is me.  First Covid, now this.  😢

 

     Well I'm glad you admitted you didn't actually read it in the first place because it was kind of obvious. 

 

     What makes you think I'm triggered? Very rare something on an internet forum would do that. We have the ignore function for that. I'm pretty calm actually. You might want to try that approach out. 

 

     

[seekingthetruth 1,249]

19 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

     Well I'm glad you admitted you didn't actually read it in the first place because it was kind of obvious. 

 

     What makes you think I'm triggered? Very rare something on an internet forum would do that. We have the ignore function for that. I'm pretty calm actually. You might want to try that approach out. 

 

     

I initially read the article, but not the white supremacist paper that you are so keen to focus on.

 

What makes you think I am not calm?  Laughter is the best medicine.

[TBoneTX 46,354]

3 hours ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

They will say things like [...] "were telephones around back in your day". 

Hand them a rotary phone and offer them $5 if they can figure out how to make a call on it.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

6 hours ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Oh forgot you need to seriously have kids because they will let you know that you are REALLY OLD... They will say things like "did you have a tv when you were young", "that song is so old", "were telephones around back in your day". 

 

    Those are also some of the things you get real nostalgic about once they get a little older. 

[Dashinka 24,941]

8 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

     Well I'm glad you admitted you didn't actually read it in the first place because it was kind of obvious. 

 

     What makes you think I'm triggered? Very rare something on an internet forum would do that. We have the ignore function for that. I'm pretty calm actually. You might want to try that approach out. 

 

     

Interesting goal post move there considering in your earlier post "it" was the article.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

Interesting goal post move there considering in your earlier post "it" was the article.

  No goal post moved. He claimed to have read the article in an earlier post when I said it looked like he hadn’t. Then in a later post he admitted he had not actually read it prior to his first response. Which was all obvious to anyone who had read the article. 

[Dashinka 24,941]

4 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

  No goal post moved. He claimed to have read the article in an earlier post when I said it looked like he hadn’t. Then in a later post he admitted he had not actually read it prior to his first response. Which was all obvious to anyone who had read the article. 

They specifically said they read the article, the second comment was regarding the ludicrous white paper imbedded in the article.  So does "it" refer to the article or the whitepaper.

[seekingthetruth 1,249]

7 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

  No goal post moved. He claimed to have read the article in an earlier post when I said it looked like he hadn’t. Then in a later post he admitted he had not actually read it prior to his first response. Which was all obvious to anyone who had read the article. 

Excuse me?  What part of what I have clearly written did you not understand?

 

9 hours ago, seekingthetruth said:

I initially read the article, but not the white supremacist paper that you are so keen to focus on.

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, seekingthetruth said:

Excuse me?  What part of what I have clearly written did you not understand?

 

 

 

   I apologize. You said you "just did a quick review of it". I thought you meant the article itself. It was difficult to read through all the caps you posted, so not as clearly written as you may have intended, but I do see the second time you were referring to the white supremacy paper.