Lots of interesting news today

IMG_20200615_105234091.jpg
 
.
 
Last edited:
RatLabGuy said:
And "Quaker" isn't a problem in itself?
Click to expand...

A Quaker is a member of a particular religious order, Why would that be a problem? Unless you're implying that the company is co-opting someone else's culture/religion?
 
zuke said:
A Quaker is a member of a particular religious order, Why would that be a problem? Unless you're implying that the company is co-opting someone else's culture/religion?
Click to expand...
Research where the name "quaker" originated.
Hint - it wasnt a term of endearment.
 
.
 
Last edited:
So when is Colonel Sanders gonna get the axe?
 
I just can't for the life of me figure out what is wrong with a black guy, Uncle Ben, that is presumably the awesomest rice and beans cook out there.
Wouldn't that be something to be proud of?
This seems like the opposite of progress.
 
That’s shit is full of carbs and sugar so it’s a no no for me anyway. Nothing lost IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Ron said:
Research where the name "quaker" originated.
Hint - it wasnt a term of endearment.
Click to expand...

I did research it before I originally replied to @RatLabGuy to see if there was something I was missing.... There are multiple origin stories for the name, and yes, in most of those stories was usually used in derision. Over 350 years ago. On another Continent.

"The Society of Friends" embraced the name themselves literally hundreds of years ago, so I doubt they are offended by the name of the company, or the image on the packaging.

Still I don't know any Quakers myself, so I could be totally wrong about that. Just like I never would have thought anyone would be offended by a historically accurate, tasteful drawing of a Native American girl drawn by a Native American on a package of butter...
 
zuke said:
I did research it before I originally replied to @RatLabGuy to see if there was something I was missing.... There are multiple origin stories for the name, and yes, in most of those stories was usually used in derision. Over 350 years ago. On another Continent.

"The Society of Friends" embraced the name themselves literally hundreds of years ago, so I doubt they are offended by the name of the company, or the image on the packaging.

Still I don't know any Quakers myself, so I could be totally wrong about that. Just like I never would have thought anyone would be offended by a historically accurate, tasteful drawing of a Native American girl drawn by a Native American on a package of butter...
Click to expand...

FWIW I dont think Quaker is any more derisive than Aunt Jemimah or Uncle Ben...I think the whole thing is stupid.
But I think that was Rattys point...
 
Ron said:
But I think that was Rattys point...
Click to expand...

Ah, You're probably right! He probably just forgot the [sarcasm] tags :D
 
Ron said:
FWIW I dont think Quaker is any more derisive than Aunt Jemimah or Uncle Ben...I think the whole thing is stupid.
But I think that was Rattys point...
Click to expand...
Exactly.
It's all equally stupid. If you're gonna be stupid in the name of equality, well, then, carry that stupidity to everywhere and truly be equal with it.
 
So, this all means many old movies, that had Black mammy's & laborers, need to be burned. I recall 1 in a Roy Rogers movie, several in Little Rascals, & on we go! Hasn't been too long that Schools, had to Re-name their athletic teams. Can No longer have Native American names. Let's ask the Animals, if Their offended, with us using Their names? {Bears, Cubs, Monkey's} :lol:
 
Ron said:
FWIW I dont think Quaker is any more derisive than Aunt Jemimah or Uncle Ben...I think the whole thing is stupid.
But I think that was Rattys point...
Click to expand...
Suck it snowflake!

FB_IMG_1592442644670.jpg
 
Back
Top