Keep in mind, they're very fine people on both sides.
Yes, very ironic along with several other adjectives, like laughable, amusing, silly, foolish, mindless, absurd
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Tim Cook Commemorate Rep. John Lewis
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Keep in mind, they're very fine people on both sides.
Yes, very ironic along with several other adjectives, like laughable, amusing, silly, foolish, mindless, absurd
True words right there!!! These kind of leeches politicians make a fortune from hard working American's tax money by complaining about "inequality" and "oppression" while doing nothing actually to change things on their decades of career in politics. Truly disgusting.
You left out Goya accidentally, right? Unless it's just politics you happen to agree with.
Last edited:
Diversity is acceptance of others different from you that may not be or hold the same values yet remain positive. You seem quite negative with your earlier post. Stating Tim Cook should stay out of politics for commenting John Lewis is not being diverse, politics affect everyone in any country whether you like it or not. This conversation of commemoration in no way is forcing you to agree with Tim Cook nor even his personal orientation (which is not of this discussion).
Back on topic I honestly think there are some that just will hate on John Lewis because he may not have their ideals or best interests in mind - even if he's not represented their home state. regardless in death as in life he does deserve respect for his efforts in/out of office and with half-mast flags in nations capital along with peers outside of human rights they've mentioned their respects to him to honour him. More than ok if you dislike the man.
you really need a source to evidence Democrat support of abortion?
more black people have been killed by planned parenthood than any police shooting or klan lynching.
What a farce — in three parts, no less — you have zero sources to any of your claims in this thread (including all the Marxist garbage), abortion isn't killing (ironically those who are against abortion don't care at all for funding support services for these women who find themselves pregnant and unable to care for these children you would demand they keep), and finally, comparing the violence of a police shooting or klan lynching to aborting a collection of cells is reprehensible and shows you lack perspective. What an insane dog-whistle. I can appreciate being pro-life — I'd not knock you for that as a personal choice — but comparing the two is both completely non-analogous and vulgar.
As is the fact you got to this point from a memorial that had nothing to do with this. This is the reason there is so much division currently. Dog-whistles exactly like this.
Facts aren’t “dog whistles” - Google the name Margaret Sanger - she was an actual white supremacist who was very vocal about her intentions behind planned parenthood.
Instead of helping black families stay together, Lewis aided in the proliferation of an organization that systemically targets black communities for the placement of abortion clinics.
it’s beyond laughable that you think you can claim the moral high ground while referring to children being killed as “cells”
The dog whistle was not abortion (we know what it is), it was comparing abortion to police killings of innocent people and racially motivated lynchings. You knew very well what I was talking about and it is the definition of a dog whistle.
And no one is defending Margaret Sanger — you are moving to goalposts so as not to actually finish any of the random points you throw out. It doesn't matter how Planned Parenthood started, what matters is what it does now with others directing it. And Lewis' involvement in it only highlights the turn in focus and support from the program's past to help those in under-served and underprivileged communities, providing health options for either keeping the baby, putting it up for adoption or termination. The point is choice with knowledge behind it and non of that has to do with race. It is just unfortunate that many black women (and others from underprivileged communities) don't have the resources to care for them if they carry them to term. Abortion is the only way not to fall further into economic turmoil and ruin both of their lives.
First off a baby doesn't make a family — there are tons of families with no children (by choice or inability) that are no less of a family, and keeping the baby doesn't mean the families stay together so I don't know what superpower you think Lewis has but that ain't it.
They aren't people — they have no consciousness during the window that abortion is legal. You can choose not to accept that for yourself but you cannot make that decision for someone else. You do not have that right. Comparing it to the violent murder of a member of society should be morally and cognitively embarrassing for you.
Last edited:
They "can" but should they? What is the need here? A company being political activist? Why? There are thousands of employees and thousands of stakeholders in Apple that may or may not agree with a specific political position.
If people have an issue or problem with the concept of equality and civl rights, well, that's sad and something they'll just have to live with.
I have no problem at all with Apple honoring John Lewis. I do understand there are people with hate in their heart that feel differently.
Last edited:
yes, when someone goes as far to discredit a senator of 30yrs(!) I figure some support for a claim (libel) should at least back it up with facts. Especially in a reply to me where I took15mins to dig up the facts to support my claims. I think it would only be fair at the very least, and show ones own honour at the most. If not it just sounds bigoted in nature at the very least. We’ve seen this before on the boards with lil to no reprimand.
It is not about honoring X or Y. There are tons of example of apparently decen persons with good cause that we ended up finding out that they are sexual predators, child abusers or criminals in general. Im not saying that John Lewis is one of those persons, but it is not Apple's business to show endorsment for any public figure dead or alive whose life and work has nothing to do with what Apple does. At best, it is just absurd marketing trick.
If Apple wants to honor a civil rights giant, that's great, and I tip my hat. That it might inspire others to think a bit more deeply about equality and inspirer some to speak out against injustices is beautiful.
I'm totally on-board as both an Apple customer and stockholder. If you don't like that, simply vote with your wallet and give your dollars to an Apple competitor. Courage be with you.
"There are tons of example of apparently decen persons with good cause that we ended up finding out that they are sexual predators, child abusers or criminals in general. Im not saying that John Lewis is one of those persons,"
Right... Of course you're not. But you hinted nevertheless. Despicable.
Apple has been doing this in some form or another since before Steve Jobs died. I see this as a legacy to him and if others do not like it they can take their money elsewhere. That's their right. Apple — especially Steve Jobs' Apple — would never be concerned if their actions rubbed people the wrong way if they themselves felt it was right.
Expecting them to behave differently betrays the culture the company was founded on. You don't have to like it but it's going to continue.
That is the most chickensh!t way I have ever seen anyone cast aspersions on someone without being willing to actually come out and say what they want to say. Absolutely everyone — even you (I would absolutely put money down) — has something they have either said, done, or supported that could cast a shadow on the good they may have done in their life. MLK cheated on his wife, Gandhi hated black people, Mother Terresa believed the suffering of children brought them closer to God rather than relieving it. I don't support any of those thoughts or actions and yet they all did great things that moved the needle socially for all of us. And here is a guy who had none of those things and yet people are finding a way to rain on a day-long digital memorial that with one click is out of your sight and mind.
People are always looking for a reason to be angry and will manufacture one if one doesn't present its self.
So is it okay for Goya?
Is it okay for Ivanka to promote Goya?
Just want to know if your views on politics and corporations are consistent?
[automerge]1595451569[/automerge]
An anti-abortion stance is perfectly acceptable for anyone to have.
Realize that abortion is legal and has been deemed as legal through various attempts on Roe vs. Wade in numerous court cases.
But when that stance is taken; is a system that will take care of the unwanted child and educate them through college okay? If the life is as valuable as anti-abortion people say; concerns cannot stop when the abortion is prevented. Concern for the life must continue until that person is a productive member of society.
Also, with an anti-abortion stance, one must be ready to support contraception as free for all that want it; to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist and supported white supremacy. That is no secret.
But Planned Parenthood's original intent and the current mission statement are different.
Just like the Republican Party of Lincoln is no longer that party.
We now have a Republican party that is okay with gerrymandering of the vote and was on the wrong side of the Civil Rights movement in the 50's and 60's.
We have a Democratic Party that flipped platforms and supported Civil Rights legislation and had southern democrats flee to the Republican Party.
Things do change.
Last edited:
What I truly find amazing is that people will attack his memory or works.
But the same people that attack him for his quote "views", think that the Civil Rights movement somehow didn't exist.
That Apartheid in America called Jim Crow, Segregation or the Black Codes somehow were not as bad as they were.
That somehow abortion is bad but Apartheid in America and the horrors of 100 years of denial to good housing, education, jobs, banking and the other norms that white America had was an okay situation.
That somehow Apartheid and the re-enslavement of Black men in the south in the form of forced work camps didn't harm the black family?
That somehow abortion is the equivalent of lynching?
We know from history that Apartheid in America was a horror.
We know that for more than a century that Black Lives in America didn't matter. That IS a FACT!
If they did, why did the federal and local governments not investigate nor prosecute lynchings?
Why did the government have laws on the books that allowed Black people in America to be discriminated against?
Why did the the federal government not only allow, but conduct the Tuskegee Bad Blood experiment?
Where hundreds of Black men were infected or left untreated when they came in for a syphlis infection.
This to see the long term effects although we already had an antibiotic treatment.
Why didn't the federal government prosecute people after the "Tulsa Massacre" where white residents and the police leveled a Black area of Tulsa over the accusations of a rape that never occurred. 35 City blocks in the Greenwood District were burned in 24 hours.
We can go on and on with examples of lynchings that went unprotected, misconduct of prosecutors, etc., etc. etc....
How is it that some people can justify or ignore the Apartheid in America, but not support Civil Rights and defame the memory of a man to end those horrors?
How?
There are some that will find this post distasteful, not because it's a lie but because it disrupts what they want to believe.
Read a history book. I'm not making anything up.
But the same people that attack him for his quote "views", think that the Civil Rights movement somehow didn't exist.
That Apartheid in America called Jim Crow, Segregation or the Black Codes somehow were not as bad as they were.
That somehow abortion is bad but Apartheid in America and the horrors of 100 years of denial to good housing, education, jobs, banking and the other norms that white America had was an okay situation.
That somehow Apartheid and the re-enslavement of Black men in the south in the form of forced work camps didn't harm the black family?
That somehow abortion is the equivalent of lynching?
We know from history that Apartheid in America was a horror.
We know that for more than a century that Black Lives in America didn't matter. That IS a FACT!
If they did, why did the federal and local governments not investigate nor prosecute lynchings?
Why did the government have laws on the books that allowed Black people in America to be discriminated against?
Why did the the federal government not only allow, but conduct the Tuskegee Bad Blood experiment?
Where hundreds of Black men were infected or left untreated when they came in for a syphlis infection.
This to see the long term effects although we already had an antibiotic treatment.
Why didn't the federal government prosecute people after the "Tulsa Massacre" where white residents and the police leveled a Black area of Tulsa over the accusations of a rape that never occurred. 35 City blocks in the Greenwood District were burned in 24 hours.
We can go on and on with examples of lynchings that went unprotected, misconduct of prosecutors, etc., etc. etc....
How is it that some people can justify or ignore the Apartheid in America, but not support Civil Rights and defame the memory of a man to end those horrors?
How?
There are some that will find this post distasteful, not because it's a lie but because it disrupts what they want to believe.
Read a history book. I'm not making anything up.
The Apartheid is long gone from Africa. Who is oppressing and killing other africans right now? Is it white supremacists or their own people? Who is responsible for the low quality of life for African people after The Apartheid ended up to the present time? Abortions and black on black crime in the US kill more black people than any incident of racism by white cops or enslavement of blacks in the past.
14 People SHOT At Chicago Funeral; Mayor Rejects Federal Help!
Are Black People ‘Literally Hunted’ Every Time They Leave Their Homes? | Larry Elder
Black americans were NOT the only group of people that faced oppression in this country. Even europeans faced incidents of racism or discrimination and were denied some rights. Even blacks owned other black slaves in the US and Africa of course. Black americans don't own exclusively the concept of slavery and racism. They always existed everywhere in the world, in some form or another. And they still exist.
I was talking about Apartheid in the US called Jim Crow, Segregation and The Black Codes.
First you want to go after the specious argument of abortion and black on black crime but fail to address the inequity that existed for more than 100 years after the civil war.
No equal access in education, banking, housing , jobs etc.
The legal, institutionalized racism that existed and still has remnants today.
Unequal access for generations after gerrymanders voting districts.
The gerrymandering alone prevents laws from being passed to address inequities.
Thus perpetuation of the status quo.
You are 100% incorrect about oppression in the US.
The Japanese were shipped off to concentration camps.
We had the genocide of the indigenous people in the US.
Show me where there were wide spread laws like the Black Codes, Segregation and Jim Crow laws that affected any other group for 100 years?
Show me widespread policies in banking and education that denied others access.
Show me where neighborhoods like in Tulsa were 35 bocks were burned and bombed in a 24 hour period.
I can give you more examples.
Show me where there was widespread lynching of any other race.
Show me where there were laws that required other groups to ask their employees to release them to another job before they could go to the next.
Show me where states enslaved other races and leased them to mining, railroad and road construction companies.
Show me where the US government targeted for generations Civil Rights groups of other races.
I never brought up slavery. You use that as a red herring to claim that other black sold or keep slaves, to deflect.
My discussion is explicitly the 100+ years AFTER the end of slavery, where Apartheid in this country was the norm.
I'm talking about the US not any other country.
Please stay on topic.
I go after the specious argument of abortion and black on black crime because the numbers say that those kill more black people than 100 years of inequality and slavery...at least back then these people had a chance to live until they grow old and pass away, not be killed in a brutal way by other gang members when they’re teens.
But ok you win. I don’t have any kind of evidence that you are asking me not I have the time to look for it.
Can you just tell me what is the point of complaining about 100 years of inequality for black Americans, when that is something that happened in the past and it doesn’t exist in the present? Are we the white Americans to pay for something that happened in the past? What is your point exactly?
Should I take a look in the past and find cases of discrimination against other Greek immigrants like myself who were denied work or housing in the 60’s and were being called “rats” by US citizens cause they weren’t always welcomed in this country?
Should I demand an apology for the unfair treatment of my ancestors and go out and protest? Sure they weren’t treated so bad as the black Americans were, but still.
First and foremost the past isn't distant past.
And this country never had the discussion of Apratheid after the supposed end of Jim Crow, The Black Codes, etc.
You talk about the discrimination of Greek Immigrants. in the 1960's and yes it was wrong, but there were no systemic laws passed in this country that existed for 100 years that prevented housing, jobs, etc.
In the 1960s; and through the 1970's when Civil Rights laws were passed they applied to everyone including Greeks.
But, Black people were the ones beat, bloodied, tear gassed.
Human experimentation that went on until the 1970's with unknowing Black people.
Gerrymandering to limit the voting ability a large areas in the south that happen to be Black.
If you limit the vote, you limit change.
You claim it's over and that's the problem.
I'm not asking for an apology. I'm asking to be treated no different than anyone else.
I'm asking for equal access and not to be treated differently because I'm Black.
I want schools in Black neighborhoods funded like schools in white neighborhoods.
I want the streets repaired in Black neighborhoods like they are in white neighborhoods.
I want equal treatment under the law.
I get pulled over for nothing and have been since I was a kid.
I have never been in trouble.
Never been to jail.
Have multiple advanced degrees.
Etc.
Etc.
But I still get pulled over for being Black in a nice neighborhood that I own a house in.
Why? No real reason.
They can run my plate and see the car belongs in the neighborhood before they stop me.
They don't.
Because I'm black I look like a criminal?
Because I'm black I'm 8x more likely to be shot by a cop.
You don't seem to get it and no amount of me discussing it will convince you.
Have a nice day.
You have equal treatment under the law today and all those other rights in bold that you mentioned.
I get your point but I also don't agree with all the riots and burning and taking down statues in the name of "we should have a discussion about inequality in the past". The reason you get pulled over so many times, may be simply that black americans although representing only 13% of the US population commit around 58% of crime nationally. It is not about discrimination, it is about statistics and numbers.
I absolutely do not have equal treatment under the law.
DO you want to talk about all the Black men in prison because the solution to jail a Black man was expedient to solve the case? Just because it says, it doesn't mean it's true. There are plenty of documented cases of inequity. That is why we still watch the behavior of banks and financial institutions. But whatever.
You want to lump all demonstrations into riots when what you have is individuals that were not able to do the deeds before because when they show up to demonstrations with a mask, legitimate demonstrators distance themselves.
Now the anarchists hide in plain sight because everyone wears a mask.
Not sure where you got your statistics from but directly from the FBI database for the latest year reported 2018.
Table 43
ucr.fbi.gov
68% White
27% Black or African American
The rest is other.
So your figures are doubled somehow? Also take into account that a Black man is more likely to be false arrested for a crime. But Charged does not equal guilty. But Black people are found guilty at a disproportionate rate in terms of arrests and get harsher sentences for the same crime.
And the taking down of statues.
In what society can you name where the losers of a war get memorialized?
The statues were put into place as an indication that although the south lost the civil war they still were in control.
There were never treated as traitors.
The civil war was absolutely about slavery and those statues honoring traitors don't belong.
They belong like a Nazi symbol belongs.
Those symbols to Black Americans are no less offensive than a swastika is to a person of Jewish Heritage and I have yet to hear anyone telling people of Jewish Ancestry to "get over it".
Here is a quote from Alexander Stephens Cornerstone Speech
There can be no doubt that the symbols of the confederacy are racists at their core.
"The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. [...] Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell.
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science."
But you can continue to spout erroneous statistics that are easy to prove wrong by looking at the FBI numbers.
You want to dismiss that 100 years of Apartheid had/has no effect.
Denial of access to housing, libraries, education, employment, financial instruments, etc. won't have an effect on crime?
How can you think that if you deny all access that people would not resort to crime in some, but not all cases?
The institutionalized racism in this country that even our government participated in. That the government normalized until less than a generation ago. A Black person born less that 60 years ago was not guaranteed the right to vote.
even today gerrymandering to suppress the Black vote is still a thing.
Black soldiers could not serve with white.
Experimentation on Black citizens.
Forced sterilization.
Beaten and bloodied just for demanding to be treated like humans.
A justice system that doesn't protect us because it was never meant to.
This is my last post on the subject because you have your mind made up.
You post erroneous information and state it as fact.
I know the history.
I lived it.
I've read about it.
The problem is that was not always the case as recently as 40 years ago — that's less than someone's lifetime — so you can't say a foot race is fair when the other racers had a head start.
That is borne out of frustration — it isn't right to damage property — and escalation from the police. Most of these protests started peacefully, then the cops escalated things. Some of those statues deserve to come down. As Dave Chapelle once said he was proud of our nation when defeated Saddam and took down the statue in Iraq of their oppressor, and it made him think if we could do it there why can't we do it here? Now we are doing it here. The statues being taken down (for the most part, I can't speak for all) are celebrating traitors and slave owners. You want to talk about equal treatment, why cannot the descendants of slaves tear down symbols of their oppressors like Washington and his troops, along with hundreds of citizens did with the King George III statue on Bowling Green in 1776? or is that an American tradition we are not allowed to partake in?
That is the textbook definition of prejudice and discrimination. So you are aware. If all men are created equal and everyone is innocent until proven guilty, how is stopping one group more often than another — without cause, mind you — equal treatment?