Oprah Joins Plot To Convince Americans Their Country Is Racist

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Much of the 1619 Project is repackaged critical race theory, which argues that America and its laws, systems, and institutions are innately racist. This effort to extend The New York Times’s reeducation program into popular culture is particularly dangerous because stories have the power to change minds through emotion instead of reason.

Oprah Winfrey is partnering with Lionsgate to turn The New York Times’s 1619 Project into feature films and television programs.

[clip]

The campaign to legalize gay marriage is a perfect case study in how entertainment can change the minds of a generation on a particular topic more quickly than any legislation or social protest movement. According to the Pew Research Center, in 2004 polls showed that 60 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage privileges, but by 2019 that number shrank to 31 percent.

Many social scientists agree it was the growing visibility of gay people in popular culture that was responsible for the shift, reports the Washington Post. Once people began to relate to and feel compassion for either fictional gay characters on shows like “Will and Grace” or actual gay people like Ellen DeGeneres, it wasn’t long before their minds swayed on related policies.

This is the power of pop culture. As is often said, it is more important to write the songs of a nation than its laws. As historian Wilfred McClay writes in “Land of Hope: An Invitation to the Great American Story,” “We need stories to speak to the fullness of our humanity and help us orient ourselves in the world. The impulse to write history and organize our world around stories is intrinsic to us as human beings. We are at our core, remembering and story-making creatures, and stories are one of the chief ways we find meaning in the flow of events.”



https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/14/oprah-joins-plot-to-convince-americans-their-country-is-racist/
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
When I "opposed" gay marriage, it was purely in a practical sense - had nothing to do so much with prejudice or morality. Only for the fact that it posed a hurdle for religions who will NEVER relent on the issue, even if their adherents disagree. I thought that civil unions were a reasonable compromise, so that churches like the Baptist church or Catholic church wouldn't be facing frivolous lawsuits because - should marriage become legal - they would be sued because some couple decided that marriage wasn't enough, it had to be officiated by a Catholic priest.

So far - that hasn't happened. Yet. If a baker can be put out of business because he refuses to make a gay wedding cake - a church can be sued because they won't agree to a same-sex wedding.

My opinion in 2004 would have been counted as "oppose". But it wasn't. Not really.

BTW - I have never liked the fact that even when I married my wife - I still had to make it legal in the eyes of the state. I remember dealing with the paperwork on my wedding day and wondering - I haven't walked down the aisle yet - but - am I already married? I think - legally - I wasn't until the pastor signed, and he did that after the ceremony. But then when he pronounces us married - it's still not true in the eyes of the state.

Screw that. Until formal organized religion, people got married because they said so. Why does the state have to sanction it at all?
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
Screw that. Until formal organized religion, people got married because they said so. Why does the state have to sanction it at all?
Lawyers make the laws, Lawyers write the laws.. Lawyers get rich when you need to get divorced..
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
Lawyers make the laws, Lawyers write the laws.. Lawyers get rich when you need to get divorced..
Kind of like why DUI laws keep getting more and more stringent.. there is no data to support one life would be saved lowering BAC by ,01, but there is definite correlation of how much more money lawyers will make, for every .01 they lower it.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Kind of like why DUI laws keep getting more and more stringent.. there is no data to support one life would be saved lowering BAC by ,01, but there is definite correlation of how much more money lawyers will make, for every .01 they lower it.
(shrug)

I have a friend - a good friend of many years and whom I admire much - but on the subject of drunk driving, he gets irate. He's beyond convincing that a drunk driver is a danger to anyone other than himself. And because he's driven - and gotten away with - driving long distances utterly hammered - he poses no danger to anyone. 30 years going, I've never convinced him otherwise.

I suspect, like a lot of issues people take PERSONALLY - it's because he's had a DUI. Never asked - I just assume it.
 

Monello

Yeah, whatever
PREMO Member
1 of the wealthiest black women in America is gonna preach to us about white privilege and how the man be keeping them down.I can just hear her now, "You get a victimhood, you get a victimhood and you get a victimhood".
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
a church can be sued because they won't agree to a same-sex wedding.
Churches opposed can fix that by stating that they will only marry congregants. You don't go to their church, they won't marry you. I think that's reasonable and there are plenty of churches that are fine with same-sex marriage that can perform them.

There's always a reasonable solution, it's just that people don't want to be reasonable.
 
Top