Ariana fired dancer because of using the n-word

[Regina George 59,387]

[StrawberryBlond 13,285]

18 hours ago, Matangi said:

do you ever read carefully? I literally stated that even though she is a latina, that changes no part of the offense of using the N word and yet your response is the opposite. jesus.

I went back and looked at precisely what you'd written and I now see how I misinterpreted it. Because of the start of the sentence, it affected the second part. Sorry about that. But there's no need to respond so rudely. Whatever happened to calmly pointing out someone's mistake without resorting to rudeness?

13 hours ago, Morphine Prince said:

 

You can want order and justice. Much as I loved his message, he didn't seem to realise that people can be multiple things at once, as opposed to just one or the other. I don't want a negative peace either, I do strive to educate, just with respect and understanding to all. @Creativek thinks the same way. Not everyone fits into neat categories, we're complex people. But then, it's not easy to talk about complex people, is it? Simple categorisation is how most of us want to function because then it's easier to define and control people. Labelling is what causes all the problems.

[Morphine Prince 96,157]

7 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

You can want order and justice. Much as I loved his message, he didn't seem to realise that people can be multiple things at once, as opposed to just one or the other. I don't want a negative peace either, I do strive to educate, just with respect and understanding to all. @Creativek thinks the same way. Not everyone fits into neat categories, we're complex people. But then, it's not easy to talk about complex people, is it? Simple categorisation is how most of us want to function because then it's easier to define and control people. Labelling is what causes all the problems.

If you had read the quote properly you would have realized it reads "MORE devoted to order than to justice," thus implying the person holds both to be important. MLK strived for people at that time in history to lean towards justice more than order. Because order sometimes halts progress. MLK frequently participated in civil disobedience practices. If you knew anything about him you would know this. So no, he didn't fail to realize people could deem both important. 

[StrawberryBlond 13,285]

2 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

If you had read the quote properly you would have realized it reads "MORE devoted to order than to justice," thus implying the person holds both to be important. MLK strived for people at that time in history to lean towards justice more than order. Because order sometimes halts progress. MLK frequently participated in civil disobedience practices. If you knew anything about him you would know this. So, no he didn't fail to realize people could deem both important. 

I did read it properly. I realised it said "more," hence, I said it's possible think both order and justice are equally important. Remember that "order" can mean many thing and I interpreted it as such. "Order" can mean "maintaining the status quo, even if that means staying silent when you are mistreated" or it can mean "behaving in a civilised, respected manner, under the letter of the law." The latter definition is the one I am in support of. Under this definition, people are allowed to voice their outrage, as long as they do it without being disrespectful, destructive and doing illegal things. I don't think I have to explain why getting your point across, by say, burning down a neighbourhood, smashing windows, jumping on cars and assaulting police officers trying to protect the people in the vicinity is not a good way to voice your outrage. You can get it across by doing respectful, peaceful protests and putting your point across Obviously, things were different in MLK's time because there was enforced racist laws that really stopped minorities voicing their outrage without punishment. In that time, I could understand the drive behind a violent protest, but that is no longer required in the age where blacks have more freedom and rights than they ever have before. MLK was anti-violence, he believed self defence was only ok if absolutely necessary. In his time, being a bit radical was ideal as something major needed to be done to shake things up and bring about change. But today is a very different story. There is no need for radicalism but there is a morbid joy in disorder in certain communities - any excuse for a riot, any excuse to raise hell. They don't want change, they want mindless anarchy for no reason at all. And when you act like this, no one takes you seriously, they either think you're terrifying, pathetic or both. MLK was civil, dignified and respectful with his teachings. The radical regression from some modern black civil rights activists is giving their movement and by extension, their people, a bad name and making racial tensions even worse. I don't know how basically saying to someone: "Respect me or I'll burn your house down!" is going to make them decide you should be listened to.

[Morphine Prince 96,157]

5 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I did read it properly. I realised it said "more," hence, I said it's possible think both order and justice are equally important. Remember that "order" can mean many thing and I interpreted it as such. "Order" can mean "maintaining the status quo, even if that means staying silent when you are mistreated" or it can mean "behaving in a civilised, respected manner, under the letter of the law." The latter definition is the one I am in support of. Under this definition, people are allowed to voice their outrage, as long as they do it without being disrespectful, destructive and doing illegal things. I don't think I have to explain why getting your point across, by say, burning down a neighbourhood, smashing windows, jumping on cars and assaulting police officers trying to protect the people in the vicinity is not a good way to voice your outrage. You can get it across by doing respectful, peaceful protests and putting your point across Obviously, things were different in MLK's time because there was enforced racist laws that really stopped minorities voicing their outrage without punishment. In that time, I could understand the drive behind a violent protest, but that is no longer required in the age where blacks have more freedom and rights than they ever have before. MLK was anti-violence, he believed self defence was only ok if absolutely necessary. In his time, being a bit radical was ideal as something major needed to be done to shake things up and bring about change. But today is a very different story. There is no need for radicalism but there is a morbid joy in disorder in certain communities - any excuse for a riot, any excuse to raise hell. They don't want change, they want mindless anarchy for no reason at all. And when you act like this, no one takes you seriously, they either think you're terrifying, pathetic or both. MLK was civil, dignified and respectful with his teachings. The radical regression from some modern black civil rights activists is giving their movement and by extension, their people, a bad name and making racial tensions even worse. I don't know how basically saying to someone: "Respect me or I'll burn your house down!" is going to make them decide you should be listened to.

Your analysis is irrelevant because we were discussing MLK's quote. AT THAT TIME, treating both order and justice equally was something he was not in favor of. 

Wether radical measures that go against order are necessary today and how they are handled is another discussion. 

[StrawberryBlond 13,285]

34 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Your analysis is irrelevant because we were discussing MLK's quote. AT THAT TIME, treating both order and justice equally was something he was not in favor of. 

Wether radical measures that go against order are necessary today and how they are handled is another discussion. 

In that case, why are you using this quote as if all its words hold the same meaning, weight and relevance today? If the way outrage is handled today is "another discussion," then why are you using a quote that bears no relevance to the situation today?

[Morphine Prince 96,157]

2 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

In that case, why are you using this quote as if all its words hold the same meaning, weight and relevance today? If the way outrage is handled today is "another discussion," then why are using a quote that bears to relevance to the situation today?

Because I believe it does. I believe justice should be above order even today. Therefore to me that quote still holds in almost its exact meaning. 

If you look at it from the point of view you're taking it may be a thing of the past. Changing what "order" and "justice" means today may change the perception of the quote. 

However, racism is still a thing in the US. Institutions are still held together by white supremacy and in my view justice is more important than order, by any definition always. Because imo order always molds to what's deemed right at the time, but justice prevails and continues to push the boundaries of society and makes us better in the end. 

[StrawberryBlond 13,285]

1 minute ago, Morphine Prince said:

Because I believe it does. I believe justice should be above order even today. Therefore to me that quote still holds in almost its exact meaning. 

If you look at it from the point of view you're taking it may be a thing of the past. Changing what "order" and "justice" means today may change the perception of the quote. 

However, racism is still a thing in the US. Institutions are still held together by white supremacy and in my view justice is more important than order, by any definition always. Because imo order always molds to what's deemed right at the time, but justice prevails and continues to push the boundaries of society and makes us better in the end. 

You believe justice should be above order? You can bring about justice while still maintaining order. To refuse order is to incite anarchy and that is dreadful for society. There's ways to handle racism without resorting to generalisations, disrespect, violence. The same way that we handle other unfair things in society. I'm a feminist - you won't find me in a protest yelling that I want men dead, smashing car windows, punching any man who walks by. Why? Because I'm not a hooligan who thinks I can act however I want. Because I want women to get their rights without disrespecting the many amazing men out there. Because I want equal rights, not special treatment. Because I want to get my rights without lowering my dignity and treatment of others, thus, making certain men only disrespect me further. I respond to unfairness with intelligence, calmness, dignity.

Ask me this - would you feel safe in a neighbourhood on fire? Wouldn't you feel worried for your car, your house, your family inside? Would you want the police to protect you and other innocent people around you? If your answer to all these questions is yes, then you do want order. Anarchy only sounds fun until you're actually the victim of it.

[Morphine Prince 96,157]

25 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

You believe justice should be above order? You can bring about justice while still maintaining order. To refuse order is to incite anarchy and that is dreadful for society. There's ways to handle racism without resorting to generalisations, disrespect, violence. The same way that we handle other unfair things in society. I'm a feminist - you won't find me in a protest yelling that I want men dead, smashing car windows, punching any man who walks by. Why? Because I'm not a hooligan who thinks I can act however I want. Because I want women to get their rights without disrespecting the many amazing men out there. Because I want equal rights, not special treatment. Because I want to get my rights without lowering my dignity and treatment of others, thus, making certain men only disrespect me further. I respond to unfairness with intelligence, calmness, dignity.

Ask me this - would you feel safe in a neighbourhood on fire? Wouldn't you feel worried for your car, your house, your family inside? Would you want the police to protect you and other innocent people around you? If your answer to all these questions is yes, then you do want order. Anarchy only sounds fun until you're actually the victim of it.

Jesus Christ. I said I value justice over order. Not that I believe in anarchy  

You can still value both A LOT but still value one over the other, believe it or not. 

[StrawberryBlond 13,285]

1 hour ago, Morphine Prince said:

Jesus Christ. I said I value justice over order. Not that I believe in anarchy  

You can still value both A LOT but still value one over the other, believe it or not. 

No order in society = anarchy. The police are there to uphold order. You sound as if you don't want the police to do their jobs, therefore, supporting the concept of a lawless society. Justice and order work side by side. If there is no justice, there can be no order. And without order, there can be no justice. You can't have one without the other. If one fails, the other one fails too. I don't know how you can't see that.

[Morphine Prince 96,157]

59 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

No order in society = anarchy. The police are there to uphold order. You sound as if you don't want the police to do their jobs, therefore, supporting the concept of a lawless society. Justice and order work side by side. If there is no justice, there can be no order. And without order, there can be no justice. You can't have one without the other. If one fails, the other one fails too. I don't know how you can't see that.

I'm leaving the discussion because you seem to not be reading what I post. I never said "no order," go back and re-read what you just quoted. 

And please don't quote me again in this thread because I won't respond. 

[FREEPALESTINE 285]

ariana is so f stupid i cant believe

[GeeYewWhai 2,382]

 

me scrolling through this thread and seeing a bunch of problematic comments