US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1892

On April 28 2015 15:08 travis wrote:



If you think it's not dangerous for a white guy to walk to Lexington Market, ride the metro from Lexington Market to Mondawmin, and then walk from Mondawmin to Baltimore City Community College right now, then you don't know much about Baltimore and probably shouldn't be commenting on what I said.

I've been riding the metro here for a year. There is rarely another white person on the metro. It's been cool, I don't feel unsafe, even though I know people are often thinking "look, a white guy". And that's fine. But right now there are a lot of angry people, and a lot of thugs out looking to cause trouble and to pick fights. I know a lone white guy would make a great target. Actually I would put odds at me getting stabbed today if I got caught at Mondawmin at the wrong time. Thankfully I didn't have class so I didn't go out.

A white student at my Fiance's school 2 blocks from here actually was attacked just outside the school. And that's a much safer area. White people have been targeted by some angry black people. You don't want to go to the wrong places right now. This is reality.

If you don't know about it, rather than acting like I am making up wild fantasies, maybe you should ask me for more information.

"[I]t is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met."

On April 29 2015 00:04 Mercy13 wrote:


The reason statements like this are problematic is because it completely ignores the experiences of other people, mostly of color, who aren't just experiencing violence "right now," but who have been suffering abuse and oppression from the police and other authority figures pretty much since forever.

It's easy enough to call for non-violence when there seems to be rioting everywhere and people are having their property destroyed, but did you also call for non-violence when the police were beating up and killing people in their custody? Or when black people were singled out for disproportionate enforcement of minor offences? Or when you learned that black people are far more likely to be killed by police than white people are?

It is understandable that you only took to social media to complain about violence when it affected you, but you seem to be discounting the far greater violence that black people in Baltimore, and elsewhere, have suffered at the hands of local authorities.

farv posted this quote from MLK during the unrest in Ferguson, and it's still relevant now:

On April 29 2015 00:39 Millitron wrote:

And what have random white people done to deserve violence? I'm pretty sure Travis hasn't killed any black people.

On April 29 2015 00:04 Mercy13 wrote:


The reason statements like this are problematic is because it completely ignores the experiences of other people, mostly of color, who aren't just experiencing violence "right now," but who have been suffering abuse and oppression from the police and other authority figures pretty much since forever.

It's easy enough to call for non-violence when there seems to be rioting everywhere and people are having their property destroyed, but did you also call for non-violence when the police were beating up and killing people in their custody? Or when black people were singled out for disproportionate enforcement of minor offences? Or when you learned that black people are far more likely to be killed by police than white people are?

It is understandable that you only took to social media to complain about violence when it affected you, but you seem to be discounting the far greater violence that black people in Baltimore, and elsewhere, have suffered at the hands of local authorities.

farv posted this quote from MLK during the unrest in Ferguson, and it's still relevant now:

On April 29 2015 00:48 Plansix wrote:
Rioting due to being disenfranchised has nothing to do with race. Every culture does it, from the French revolution to the Great Famine in Ireland. I don’t endorse the violence or destruction, but its clear that the local governments give zero fucks about how poorly people are being treated. Baltimore has been a powder keg for years and the local governments have done nothing to diffuse that, despite endless warnings signs.

On April 29 2015 00:55 Ghostcom wrote:


Are you seriously arguing that the validity of a statement is not dependent on what is being said but rather on who said it?

EDIT: Also, do you have any statistics to back up the bolded? Preferably some where they control for social status.

The 1,217 deadly police shootings from 2010 to 2012 captured in the federal data show that blacks, age 15 to 19, were killed at a rate of 31.17 per million, while just 1.47 per million white males in that age range died at the hands of police.

Relatively more black drivers (13%) than white (10%) and
Hispanic (10%) drivers were pulled over in a traffic stop
during their most recent contact with police. There were
no statistical differences in the race or Hispanic origin of
persons involved in street stops.
...
White drivers were both ticketed and searched at lower
rates than black and Hispanic drivers

On April 29 2015 00:58 xDaunt wrote:

Correct, what's happening in Baltimore is a consequence of pro-longed, systemic local government failure there for decades. Take a wild guess at which party has been in control of Baltimore since 1967.

On April 29 2015 01:00 Mercy13 wrote:


My argument is essentially that it's morally irresponsible for people/the media to freak out about rioting and call for non-violence, when they more or less ignore violence perpetrated by police and local authorities.

On April 29 2015 01:09 travis wrote:
Well, Mercy, I actually don't ignore violence perpetrated toward any individuals. I vehemently oppose it and tend to voice my opinions as such.

That said, I think it is a pretty weak stance to say that someone can't oppose violence against them because they aren't socially or politically active. That's actually extremely judgmental.

On April 29 2015 01:15 Ghostcom wrote:


Following this line of thought it is incredibly easy to argue that the black community is morally irresponsible for freaking out over e.g. the Trayvon Martin case as they ignore the massively disproportionate black-on-white violence and crime.

EDIT: It should be obvious that I do not actually hold this position, but just to make it clear: I DO NOT HOLD THIS POSITION.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed deeply divided about one of the great civil rights issues of the age: whether the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry.

The justices appeared to clash over not only what is the right answer but also over how to reach it. The questioning illuminated their conflicting views on history, tradition, biology, constitutional interpretation, the democratic process and the role of the courts in prodding social change.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said he was concerned about changing a conception of marriage that has persisted for millennia. Later, though, he expressed qualms about excluding gay families from what he called a noble and sacred institution. Chief Justice John C. Roberts Jr. worried about shutting down a fast-moving societal debate.

In the initial questioning, which lasted about 90 minutes, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked whether groups of four people must be allowed to marry, while Justice Antonin Scalia said a ruling for same-sex marriage might require some members of the clergy to perform the ceremonies, even if they violate their religious teaching.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer described marriage as a fundamental liberty. And Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan said that allowing same-sex marriage would do no harm to the marriages of opposite-sex couples.

Until recently, the court has been cautious and halting in addressing same-sex marriage, signaling that it did not want to outpace public support and developments in the states. Now, though, a definitive decision will probably be handed down in about two months.

At the start of Tuesday’s arguments, Chief Justice Roberts said that he had looked up definitions of marriage and had been unable to find one written before a dozen years ago that did not define it as between a man and a woman. “If you succeed, that definition will not be operable,” the Chief Justice said. “You are not seeking to join the institution. You are seeking to change the institution.”

Justice Kennedy, who many consider the likely swing vote on the case, weighed in with skepticism as the advocates for gay marriage made their case. He said the definition of marriage “has been with us for millennia.”

“It’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh, we know better,’ ” he said.

On April 27 2015 13:30 IgnE wrote:


Lol jonny. "Communism" and "socialism" are belief systems but "capitalism" is basically a science that "changes and evolves." How are you taken seriously?

So back in the 17th century you would have said that liberal democracy was untested and unproven, with only failure to blot its record, and that the bourgeoisie merchants were upstart leeches who were immoral, while the landed gentry system had evolved throughout the centuries to keep the peace and bring prosperity to every nation under god. Zzzz. Talk about fundamentalism while trotting out uncritical and ignorant arguments about the supposed "failures" of socialism as if Stalin and Mao voided any critique of capital, and that anyone attempting to argue otherwise needs to put forward a 500 point alternative rather than laying out reasonable and reasonably apparent principles upon which to build one.

On April 29 2015 01:24 oneofthem wrote:
but you think it's incredibly easy to argue for? is it a reasonable position?

"Now, tonight, I turn on the news and I see politicians calling for young people in Baltimore to remain peaceful and 'nonviolent.' These well-intended pleas strike me as the right answer to the wrong question. To understand the question, it's worth remembering what, specifically, happened to Freddie Gray. An officer made eye contact with Gray. Gray, for unknown reasons, ran. The officer and his colleagues then detained Gray. They found him in possession of a switchblade. They arrested him while he yelled in pain. And then, within an hour, his spine was mostly severed. A week later, he was dead. What specifically was the crime here? What particular threat did Freddie Gray pose? Why is mere eye contact and then running worthy of detention at the hands of the state? Why is Freddie Gray dead?

The people now calling for nonviolence are not prepared to answer these questions. Many of them are charged with enforcing the very policies that led to Gray's death, and yet they can offer no rational justification for Gray's death and so they appeal for calm. But there was no official appeal for calm when Gray was being arrested. There was no appeal for calm when Jerriel Lyles was assaulted. ('The blow was so heavy. My eyes swelled up. Blood was dripping down my nose and out my eye.') There was no claim for nonviolence on behalf of Venus Green. ('B*tch you ain’t no better than any of the other old black b*tch*s I have locked up.') There was no plea for peace on behalf of Starr Brown. ('They slammed me down on my face,' Brown added, her voice cracking. 'The skin was gone on my face.')

When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is 'correct' or 'wise,' any more than a forest fire can be 'correct' or 'wise.' Wisdom isn't the point tonight. Disrespect is. In this case, disrespect for the hollow law and failed order that so regularly disrespects the rioters themselves."

On April 29 2015 00:39 Millitron wrote:

And what have random white people done to deserve violence? I'm pretty sure Travis hasn't killed any black people.