(07-11-2023, 10:36 AM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(07-11-2023, 12:22 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: I know what hyperbolic means, broseph. Lynchings weren't common in the 60's for anybody. There wasn't a huge disparity between blacks and whites of the lynchings that did occur. Every statement has implications, so you can't just throw out a line like, "Were Irish Americans being strung up in trees for being Irish in the mid-sixties," then pivot to make it seem like you're just asking an honest question about the Irish. You weren't. You were making an implication about black struggles in the 60's, and, more importantly, casually throwing out an idea that they were being hung from trees. Which they weren't.

I guess would be a good time to point out that 3 of them were shot, one was severely burned and died after identifying the people who set fire to his shop, and the other one was actually lynched in the 30's and survived... he died naturally in his 60's after becoming a successful artist. So, the scores' 2-2 in favor of racial harmony. Turns out, people are just haters. If you can't see how it's hyperbolic to suggest that blacks were being strung up from trees in the 60's, then that's on you, man.

It seems odd we're even having this conversation since I mostly agreed with you. All you had to do is admit to yourself you were probably being hyperbolic and just ignore my comment.

As to the OP talking about it, sure. Guess you could have been talking to him. Seemed like you were talking to me. I have adjusted my previous statement magically to make sense within this newfound context. *poof*

The comment was pointing out a disparity between asking for Irish reparations vs African American reparations.

Sorry you're "hung-up" on which decade the lynchings were most frequent. 
*rimshot* I'll be here all week - Cue the accusations of racism and tastelessness 

If I'd said "in the past century" instead of "the 60's" it would have made the point more accurately, but since Black people were still being killed for being Black in the 1960's and Irish Americans were not being killed for being Irish in 1960's America - my point was and is perfectly valid and completely void of hyperbole.

Well, sure. I guess if you changed your statement to be more factual, it would be less hyperbolic. I guess I never thought of it like that. All future hyperbolic statements have now been rendered moot, thanks to sound logic.  

Seriously, though, I understood what point you were trying to make and threw out a comment about not needing hyperbole because the facts are sufficient. I don't like this particular type of hyperbole because, while you are certainly smart enough to know what you said isn't factual, there are a lot of people who say that very same thing who genuinely believe that people were being strung up in the 60's. Factual history and context are not often present in modern day discourse, mostly because we have an ignorant society. Additionally, you, being a very smart guy, shouldn't assume that the stupid among us won't repeat your hyperbole as fact, without the background or capability of verifying or challenging that information. That's why I called it out. 

Again, I get your point. I didn't disagree with it. I just said we shouldn't resort to hyperbole, which is a fair critique of your statement. It's not needed, and there is a narrative associated with race that runs rampant in this country by people who, intentionally or unintentionally, exaggerate the truth. The truth is sufficient, which is the whole of my point.

---