|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 19 2016 06:59 ticklishmusic wrote:
I know/knew (because I've forgotten a lot from college) plenty about the civil rights era. Without going into detail, it wasn't pretty. But you look at MLK and the other leaders and what they were able to do and the means they used to accomplish what they did, it really makes BLM look like unworthy successors. In all fairness the jury is still out on whether or not BLM will succeed, but honestly I don't think they will have the sort of impact their predecessors did. I'm aware of what MLK did. I wish protesters today could be more like him.
EDIT: but to my original point, it's still sad irony that some of these protesters don't recognize King's Dream speech when it comes from the mouth of an Asian girl...
They've already succeeded in many ways. There is still plenty to do, but to act like BLM hasn't already dramatically shifted the conversation and perception of infallible police is to deny reality.
Your original point... Did it dawn on you that the reaction wasn't from not knowing it, but from not appreciating how and by whom it was being used?
That one would ponder whether they are "worthy successors" over being disgusted and outraged at the behavior that prompts them to action is what disturbs me the most. MLK was no saint either, should there be a modern MLK it's of no doubt that what would garner headlines and media time would not be some praise of his "proper protesting", but sorted details of his personal life and accusations of incitement.
For all the distance folks seem to see between MLK and BLM they seem blind to the parallels between themselves and MLK's opposition.
If the members of the movement actually condemned said rogue actions, then people would be dumb to discredit the entire movement. The issue is when the movement tries to conceal, justify or not outright criticize said actions. If you're gonna protest, do it right, otherwise you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.
Like Plansix said just because they didn't do it for you to see doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Not to mention the absurd double-standard.
|
On January 19 2016 07:00 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 06:40 Plansix wrote:On January 19 2016 06:36 Souma wrote:On January 19 2016 06:17 Plansix wrote:On January 19 2016 06:12 Souma wrote:
Exactly.
On a more serious note though, and I know I'm speaking anecdotally, it often seems to me like liberal white Americans always try a little too hard to appease minorities. I remember when I was doing some canvassing for CALPIRG and almost everyone around me was a super liberal caucasian, and I'd make snarky comments about apathetic Asians which always led to interesting reactions.
But really, c'mon, some of the shit that the students on college campuses have done should absolutely be called out. The moment you start to allow people who are out of line to carry on without reprimanding them is the exact moment your protest becomes a joke. No, they are not always in the right, and they should absolutely be criticized when they aren't. Sure, but are you the one who decides what is out of line? But I am 100% sure that isn't my job. Not really yours either. Maybe leave it to them to police themselves. Also, I'm not liberal. You can ask my friends from Boston, who identify as liberal. Yes, other people can judge if they're out of line or not. That's how societal values work. People may disagree, but all the same. Surely if one of them took a bat to someone's face, you'd be able to deem that out of line. So we as a society must individually assess and pass judgment on each protest if someone feels they made a mistake? Based on evidence provided by the person who was offended by the protest? And then collectively we will make a judgment and call them “wrong” or “justified” in their actions? Like reddit for civil rights protests, one sided posting and all? Unless you are talking about just you. Because if its just you, why would they care? Of course you have the ability to pass judgment, just like every other random person on the street. But protesting is really about pleasing randos on the sidewalk. Because the internet is the peanut gallery of the modern era. It's really not as complex as you're trying so desperately to make it out to be. Someone or some group does a no no, people within the group criticize no no instead of saying no no is okay. That helps make a protest more valid and solidified than if people continued to pretend that no no is fine, which would in turn undermine the protest. Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 19 2016 06:36 Souma wrote:On January 19 2016 06:17 Plansix wrote:On January 19 2016 06:12 Souma wrote:
Exactly.
On a more serious note though, and I know I'm speaking anecdotally, it often seems to me like liberal white Americans always try a little too hard to appease minorities. I remember when I was doing some canvassing for CALPIRG and almost everyone around me was a super liberal caucasian, and I'd make snarky comments about apathetic Asians which always led to interesting reactions.
But really, c'mon, some of the shit that the students on college campuses have done should absolutely be called out. The moment you start to allow people who are out of line to carry on without reprimanding them is the exact moment your protest becomes a joke. No, they are not always in the right, and they should absolutely be criticized when they aren't. Sure, but are you the one who decides what is out of line? But I am 100% sure that isn't my job. Not really yours either. Maybe leave it to them to police themselves. Also, I'm not liberal. You can ask my friends from Boston, who identify as liberal. Yes, other people can judge if they're out of line or not. That's how societal values work. People may disagree, but all the same. Surely if one of them took a bat to someone's face, you'd be able to deem that out of line. There's a difference between an individual acting as such and using such an incident to discredit an entire movement. Several people here and elsewhere have said "BLM has inconvenienced my life or so they have lost my respect/support" or some variation. The irony being that if they took the government systematically denying people of their constitutional rights and putting self preservation above justice as seriously as they took citizens shouting at other citizens we wouldn't even be having this conversation because years ago they would of said that the police have lost credibility and they can no longer respect them. If the members of the movement actually condemned said rogue actions, then people would be dumb to discredit the entire movement. The issue is when the movement tries to conceal, justify or not outright criticize said actions. If you're gonna protest, do it right, otherwise you're just setting yourself up for disappointment. What you're saying is Protest 101. The great danger should in-group criticism be silenced or clamped-down is the most wild members characterizing the whole thing (if everything is concealed or justified, that's fuel on the fire) or individuals making their voice & ideas that of the movement (by not tolerating criticism and being in the forefront). When some looney pressured to try to remove the ESPN journalist from Mizzou, the next day BLM had papers up reminding members of free speech. That was the good. I have to think the full list of demands concerned student 1-9-5-0 presented silenced a great number of reasonable voices considering the quality that made it to the actual posting.
|
The main problem with the perception of BLM is that the focus is always on some “offense” they committed, but never if there was a response. It’s just on to the next random youtube video or people keep citing the same “offense”. To this day people bring up those two girls who interrupted Bernie Sanders like it was never addressed or responded to. Its easier to think of them as some discredited movement that just shouts at the rain.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
In response to Plansix and GreenHorizons:
People have to condemn it everywhere. When Plansix or anyone tries to justify a protester's unacceptable action on this forum, that's adding to the problem. The internet is a powerful forum, so you definitely should not callously disregard places like Reddit.
We're talking about common sense here. If someone purports violence, condemn them. If they're spreading a message contrary to what the movement is about, stamp them out. This is the job of the protesters and their supporters. If they can't manage that, then they shouldn't be surprised when people outside the movement don't empathize with their cause.
Can the media be unfair and only depict the bad aspects of a protest? Of course. We've witnessed it time and time again. But that's just another obstacle people are going to have to try and overcome in this day and age, and believe it or not one of the best ways to do that is to just stay on message and true to the movement, and not let the idiots string you along.
Vote Bernie Sanders, 2016.
|
They already do everything you are requesting, so I don't see a problem then.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
The issue that started this whole thing was you not doing that. :>
|
For the last X pages you've been defending what I consider to be a shitty and unintentionally ironic moment on the part of some protesters though. And as a result I've been told that I basically can't make that sort of criticism.
|
On January 19 2016 07:02 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 06:29 Introvert wrote:On January 19 2016 06:16 Yoav wrote:
So, in the interest of defending people I strongly disagree with on nearly everything...
Did I miss a memo that Christians are supposed to care really strongly about whether you say "two Corinthians" or "second Corinthians?" Apparently Trump is getting shit for doing this at Liberty University (because we've all decided to treat Jerry Falwell like the Protestant Pope for some reason). My Bible says PROS KORINTHIOUS B (in the original Greek) so maybe I missed that we were supposed to care. Don't we all google this shit now 2 cor 3 or whatever? So done with sanctimonious pharisees pretending to represent "true" Christianity.
Of course, Trump and his claims to religiosity are obviously fraudulent, but the issue is more his likening of the Bible of "The Art of the Deal," and the fact that he says he's never asked for forgiveness... never mind the xenophobia and objectification of women. Can confirm, no one cares. I've heard it both ways. That being said, the use of "second" is far more common, in my experience. I guess it's just very obvious that Trump isn't actually religious. Two Corinthians also sounds like the beginning of a "...walk into a bar" joke instead of a bible quote. I also find it weird that he's trying to combine his "politically incorrect" rants with a deeply Evangelical audience. Isn't decency and politeness a pretty big deal among American conservatives, especially the Evangelicals?
Oh, it's very obvious. But I have heard people use "two" before, I assume they grew up learning it that way.
As for Trump, most of his speeches are the same so it's not a surprise.
|
This is ridiculous. If the people the protesters were protesting were doing what you all are expecting of the protesters, they wouldn't be protesting in the first place.
But instead of focusing on the offenders, people want to point at the victims and say they are victiming wrong. Condemnations of violence and other mislead actions are out there, that some people here are oblivious to them is their own issue.
|
On January 19 2016 07:02 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 06:29 Introvert wrote:On January 19 2016 06:16 Yoav wrote:
So, in the interest of defending people I strongly disagree with on nearly everything...
Did I miss a memo that Christians are supposed to care really strongly about whether you say "two Corinthians" or "second Corinthians?" Apparently Trump is getting shit for doing this at Liberty University (because we've all decided to treat Jerry Falwell like the Protestant Pope for some reason). My Bible says PROS KORINTHIOUS B (in the original Greek) so maybe I missed that we were supposed to care. Don't we all google this shit now 2 cor 3 or whatever? So done with sanctimonious pharisees pretending to represent "true" Christianity.
Of course, Trump and his claims to religiosity are obviously fraudulent, but the issue is more his likening of the Bible of "The Art of the Deal," and the fact that he says he's never asked for forgiveness... never mind the xenophobia and objectification of women. Can confirm, no one cares. I've heard it both ways. That being said, the use of "second" is far more common, in my experience. I guess it's just very obvious that Trump isn't actually religious. Two Corinthians also sounds like the beginning of a "...walk into a bar" joke instead of a bible quote. I also find it weird that he's trying to combine his "politically incorrect" rants with a deeply Evangelical audience. Isn't decency and politeness a pretty big deal among American conservatives, especially the Evangelicals?
You would be surprised (or perhaps not) by the number of evangelicals who aren't so decent nor polite. That isn't to say that many are, but your more 'moderate' or 'liberal' Christians are not who Trump has in mind when he spouts off, he is pandering to the ultra conservative base.
|
On January 19 2016 07:51 Souma wrote:
The issue that started this whole thing was you not doing that. :>
Why would I do that? It's not my problem. Im not so easily offended.
|
On January 19 2016 06:29 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 06:16 Yoav wrote:
So, in the interest of defending people I strongly disagree with on nearly everything...
Did I miss a memo that Christians are supposed to care really strongly about whether you say "two Corinthians" or "second Corinthians?" Apparently Trump is getting shit for doing this at Liberty University (because we've all decided to treat Jerry Falwell like the Protestant Pope for some reason). My Bible says PROS KORINTHIOUS B (in the original Greek) so maybe I missed that we were supposed to care. Don't we all google this shit now 2 cor 3 or whatever? So done with sanctimonious pharisees pretending to represent "true" Christianity.
Of course, Trump and his claims to religiosity are obviously fraudulent, but the issue is more his likening of the Bible of "The Art of the Deal," and the fact that he says he's never asked for forgiveness... never mind the xenophobia and objectification of women. Can confirm, no one cares. I've heard it both ways. That being said, the use of "second" is far more common, in my experience.
"Second" is considered proper/correct, and is what most evangelical/religious right church-goers would expect to hear from someone who is enmeshed in their culture. "Two" is what you expect the inexperienced or complete outsiders to say.
So Trump caused a hubbub because his blatant pandering was a little too blatant.
|
This month, Republicans in Congress achieved what they declared to be a major victory: they sent an Obamacare repeal to the president’s desk as test-run for next year, when they say there will be a Republican president in office to sign it.
But there’s just one problem with that plan. The details have been scant as to what the GOP presidential candidates -- who have uniformly railed against the Affordable Care Act -- intend to enact in its place.
After five years of promises to deliver an Obamacare replacement plan -- more than 20 such promises by one count --the GOP Congress still hasn't produced. And the same mix of political perils and policy paralysis that has hamstrung the Republicans on the Hill has left the party's presidential contenders with paltry real health care proposals that are short on details and long on vague assurances. The party that has spent years avoiding grappling with the economic, political, and policy complexities of health care reform seems no closer now that it was when Obamacare first became law.
“There have been a few proposals put up, but most of them have been pretty general and most of them have pretty much recycled, old Republican proposals that have been out there for a long time,” Timothy Jost, a health law specialist at the Washington and Lee University School of Law who supports Obamacare, told TPM. “No one seems terribly committed to coming up with an innovative proposal that could replace the Affordable Care Act and I think, in part, that’s because the Republicans really don’t know what they want. ”
There was not a single question about Obamacare alternatives at the GOP debate Thursday, nor has much time been spent on the issue in previous debates. And Hillary Clinton has signaled she plans on hitting Republicans on their lack of plan.
“Their talk of repeal is never followed by any detail about what we do to keep people having access to affordable quality health care,” Clinton said on MSNBC's Morning Joe Friday. In contrast, the Democratic primary for the last week has been focused on health care, with Clinton attacking of Sen. Bernie Sanders' single payer plan. Under pressure from Clinton, Sanders released Sunday the outline for how he would pay for his proposal to move to single payer. As for Clinton, she's released multiple health care policy proposals and is deeply engaged on the subject.
The GOP candidates’ reticence on the topic may be in part due to the general dynamics of a primary race -- where candidates have more to lose by going into too much policy detail -- as well to the dynamics of this specific primary, where frontrunner Donald Trump has determined an agenda focused on immigration and terrorism.
But it also reflects the complexities of reforming health care with all the conditions the GOP has self-imposed. The fact of the matter is the Republicans running for the White House face the same challenges that their colleagues in Congress do in crafting a plan that achieves the same coverage goals as Obamacare without defying conservative dogma.
Source
|
Trump actually is a favourite with the bookies according to oddschecker?
|
On January 19 2016 07:46 Souma wrote:
In response to Plansix and GreenHorizons:
People have to condemn it everywhere. When Plansix or anyone tries to justify a protester's unacceptable action on this forum, that's adding to the problem. The internet is a powerful forum, so you definitely should not callously disregard places like Reddit.
We're talking about common sense here. If someone purports violence, condemn them. If they're spreading a message contrary to what the movement is about, stamp them out. This is the job of the protesters and their supporters. If they can't manage that, then they shouldn't be surprised when people outside the movement don't empathize with their cause.
Can the media be unfair and only depict the bad aspects of a protest? Of course. We've witnessed it time and time again. But that's just another obstacle people are going to have to try and overcome in this day and age, and believe it or not one of the best ways to do that is to just stay on message and true to the movement, and not let the idiots string you along.
Vote Bernie Sanders, 2016.
If only the problems with BLM were so simple. Let's keep in mind that we're talking about a "movement" that is so eager to find meaning for its existence that it is more than happy to plant its retarded flag on the most ludicrous of causes. BLM literally invents racism out of thin air to justify itself. Of course, the great irony here is that, by doing so, BLM completely undercuts its ability to credibly address legitimate racial problems.
|
On January 19 2016 07:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
For the last X pages you've been defending what I consider to be a shitty and unintentionally ironic moment on the part of some protesters though. And as a result I've been told that I basically can't make that sort of criticism.
And that's what's wrong with racial dialogue in this country. There is a small family of correct views, then the rest are victim-blaming, unacknowledged white privilege, and what have you. Simply being that guy who points out the double-standard marks you for insensitivity.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On January 19 2016 09:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 07:51 Souma wrote:
The issue that started this whole thing was you not doing that. :> Why would I do that? It's not my problem. Im not so easily offended.
Re: ticklishmusic.
On January 19 2016 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
This is ridiculous. If the people the protesters were protesting were doing what you all are expecting of the protesters, they wouldn't be protesting in the first place.
But instead of focusing on the offenders, people want to point at the victims and say they are victiming wrong. Condemnations of violence and other mislead actions are out there, that some people here are oblivious to them is their own issue.
If you're asking if it's fair then no, it isn't. When disenfranchised groups try to push for justice it is always an uphill battle. Does it suck? Yes. But you have no choice but to push forward with the mindset that it's going to require a lot more than merely citing injustices to enact real change, and that any blemish in any campaign will be under a magnifying glass and fully taken advantage of to discredit your message. It's rough work, especially in this day and age where social media and the internet actually help make inconsistent messaging more prevalent (ex. one group of students in CA read about another group's protest in NY, and so decide to protest as well but about something inherently different because they only know the general idea behind the latter group's protesting).
Let's be clear: It's great to fight against injustices, but if you aren't conducting yourself properly or with a clear message then people will not respect your protest, as much as that sucks. And as much as I would like to take my fist to Donald Trump's face, it would only help him in the end if I did. If this was an anime I could probably blow him up and be done with it though.
Vote for Bernie Sanders 2016.
|
On January 19 2016 09:37 LemOn wrote:
Trump actually is a favourite with the bookies according to oddschecker?
If he was a favorite to win, his odds would be <1, and not a single site on oddschecker has him there for the nomination. Right now he's being assigned between 38% (the low end) and 44% (the high end). You still stand to gain more than your money if you place a bet on him to win the nomination. But he is closing in.
In fact, the only candidate with odds <1 for the nomination (and winning overall) is Clinton.
|
On January 19 2016 10:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 09:37 LemOn wrote:
Trump actually is a favourite with the bookies according to oddschecker? If he was a favorite to win, his odds would be <1, and not a single site on oddschecker has him there for the nomination. Right now he's being assigned between 38% (the low end) and 44% (the high end). You still stand to gain more than your money if you place a bet on him to win the nomination. But he is closing in. In fact, the only candidate with odds <1 for the nomination (and winning overall) is Clinton.
I think he meant favorite to be the Republican candidate. At least, that's the only credible interpretation.
|
On January 19 2016 07:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
For the last X pages you've been defending what I consider to be a shitty and unintentionally ironic moment on the part of some protesters though. And as a result I've been told that I basically can't make that sort of criticism.
That's kind of the point of the girl being shouted down. She wasn't welcome to make that sort of criticism there because the people conducting the protest didn't want the protest to lose its force by delving into nuance and explanation. The girl clearly has a conceptual hole in her understanding that led her to make those statements. It's the same conceptual hole that leads Daunt into his more moderate rants, and a smaller version of the massive conceptual hole that leads Danglars to spout off about nonsense. The girl's comments weren't made in a vacuum, and they weren't shouted down in light of their best possible interpretation among reasoned company, but on the pretext of diluting the protest. I'm not in a position to say whether the people who shut her down would be any better in a small group reasonably discussing the problem, but protests don't handle nuance very well. You are free to criticize the protest on that basis but it's missing the point in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
