EPTBlack skin is biological, it's nobody's fault. Black culture is a counterculture that was produced by generations of marginalization and oppression. Skin just is, culture is shaped by environment, the two aren't comparable.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2774
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
KwarK
United States43674 Posts
Black skin is biological, it's nobody's fault. Black culture is a counterculture that was produced by generations of marginalization and oppression. Skin just is, culture is shaped by environment, the two aren't comparable. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 22 2016 06:42 KwarK wrote: GH, I see a pretty huge difference between black culture made them do it and black skin made them do it. If we accept that, at the very least from a white middle class suburban perspective, the guns, drugs, misogyny, distrust of education and opposition to civic institutions are all negative, those things will have to change. Hell, it's black people who primarily kill black people. Black people have the largest interest in recognizing that shit isn't working and trying to fix it. Black skin is biological, it's nobody's fault. Black culture is a counterculture that was produced by generations of marginalization and oppression. Skin just is, culture is shaped by environment, the two aren't comparable. As someone who grew up in poor, rural, white, we don’t have cable-America, all of these traits apply to it too. Replace “drugs” with booze and maybe meth. But everything else applies, including a healthy dose of domestic abuse. Poverty is the issue, not culture. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
Yes, there's a valid reason to distrust the system because of historical and ongoing systemic discrimination. However, to shut it out so thoroughly is foolish and well, prejudiced. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11439 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
The first response any discussion of issues involving race is always “Race isn’t an issue here. And even if it was, it is impossible to address.” Every. Single. Time. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On January 22 2016 06:42 KwarK wrote: GH, I see a pretty huge difference between black culture made them do it and black skin made them do it. If we accept that, at the very least from a white middle class suburban perspective, the guns, drugs, misogyny, distrust of education and opposition to civic institutions are all negative, those things will have to change. Hell, it's black people who primarily kill black people. Black people have the largest interest in recognizing that shit isn't working and trying to fix it. Black skin is biological, it's nobody's fault. Black culture is a counterculture that was produced by generations of marginalization and oppression. Skin just is, culture is shaped by environment, the two aren't comparable. Yet you have regularly denied that people have a right to experience the "white urban middle class" and that the wallet should decide who gets to live in bumfuck Arkansas and who doesn't, obviously perpetuating the problem. Civic institutions and trust in the law don't come out of a vacuum, they need to be positively reinforced. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 22 2016 07:03 Falling wrote: I don't understand this talk about reparations are wanted, but nobody expects a cheque, just a discussion. Isn't reparations a matter of money, in which case if money is not expected and just a discussion, why does the discussion start with money? I'm confused. similar general issues came up in part with the occupy wall street movement: a lot of generalized anger and a demand that something be done (possibly using a few pithy words to describe some demand), but no clear idea of what to actually do. | ||
|
Doraemon
Australia14949 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43674 Posts
On January 22 2016 07:10 Nyxisto wrote: Yet you have regularly denied that people have a right to experience the "white urban middle class" and that the wallet should decide who gets to live in bumfuck Arkansas and who doesn't, obviously perpetuating the problem. Civic institutions and trust in the law don't come out of a vacuum, they need to be positively reinforced. Me? I'm no more responsible than you. I'm British, you're German. But you're absolutely right that the white middle class culture that dominates America has repeatedly fucked with and rejected African Americans. I said exactly that. You're repeating my argument and reinforcing it with my points and then pinning it on me. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22131 Posts
On January 22 2016 07:19 Doraemon wrote: so what's the point of a president if all the proposed policies are blocked in the house/senate? That would be 'checks and balances'. You know the difference between a Democracy and a Dictatorship. Sometimes it kinda gets gridlocked when you don't have the proper mechanisms in place to break a stalemate. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On January 22 2016 07:19 Doraemon wrote: so what's the point of a president if all the proposed policies are blocked in the house/senate? To carry out the laws as written and veto laws he doesn't want enacted. There is a reason the Presidency is Article 2, while the legislature is Article 1, he is supposed to be less important. In fact, the modern President exerts significantly more power through discretion over the administrative agencies and standing army than a reading of the Constitution would suggest he should. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11439 Posts
On January 22 2016 07:08 Plansix wrote: Because when you use the word reparation in response to slavery, the first thing people do it go to the idea of “what do we give all black people a check”. It’s the same with the discussions of race and the Oscars. People instantly say “No movies with black people were good enough,” when the Oscars have nothing to do with merit. The first response any discussion of issues involving race is always “Race isn’t an issue here. And even if it was, it is impossible to address.” Every. Single. Time. But then is it reconciliation that is actually meant when reparations is said? Because it seems to me, people could be rather forgiven for thinking in terms of cheques and just how many people will get it as money for damages is rather what reparations means. Or do you mean, in the end there will be money paid, but simply writing a cheque is simply trying to throw money at an underlying issue in order for it to go away, but not acknowledge what happened? Or do you mean, people immediately jump to the feasibility of reparations, rather than deal with the necessity of it? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On January 21 2016 23:07 oneofthem wrote: in the sense of some targeted development assistance of black communities and so on, reparation is absolutely justified. but for starters try not to actively siege and jail them This seems like the most reasonable position. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 22 2016 07:23 Falling wrote: But then is it reconciliation that is actually meant when reparations is said? Because it seems to me, people could be rather forgiven for thinking in terms of cheques and just how many people will get it as money for damages is rather what reparations means. Or do you mean, in the end there will be money paid, but simply writing a cheque is simply trying to throw money at an underlying issue in order for it to go away, but not acknowledge what happened? Or do you mean, people immediately jump to the feasibility of reparations, rather than deal with the necessity of it? As I have said several times, its about the discussion of the amount and how much it cost. The price of slavery, boiled down to economic data. Creating something tangible in relation to this abstract concept from 200 years ago. The discussion and understanding people get from having it is more valuable than whatever solution or number they come up with. But the opening line of "Do black people expect a check??? I wasn't involved with slavery, why do I have to pay?" is basically someone saying they don't want to have the discussion. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5936 Posts
On January 22 2016 07:19 Doraemon wrote: so what's the point of a president if all the proposed policies are blocked in the house/senate? Indeed, people need to be more politically aware in the current climate. You can't change the system very much at all by picking President A or President B, but if we paid more attention to who we put in Congress and below, and had a media that helped by engaging the people as adults, then we'd all be better off. | ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
Defendant: White people in America Plaintiff: Black people in America Is reparations considered a serious claim? That, after 200 years, the modern day descendants of slaves are entitled to tax payer paid compensation? What is the logic? | ||
|
Doraemon
Australia14949 Posts
On January 22 2016 07:23 cLutZ wrote: To carry out the laws as written and veto laws he doesn't want enacted. There is a reason the Presidency is Article 2, while the legislature is Article 1, he is supposed to be less important. In fact, the modern President exerts significantly more power through discretion over the administrative agencies and standing army than a reading of the Constitution would suggest he should. On January 22 2016 07:22 Gorsameth wrote: That would be 'checks and balances'. You know the difference between a Democracy and a Dictatorship. Sometimes it kinda gets gridlocked when you don't have the proper mechanisms in place to break a stalemate. sorry, i badly phrased the question what is the point of electing a president based on his proposed policies when effectively none can be implemented as his party has no control of the house and senate | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 22 2016 07:39 Deathstar wrote: I don't understand what the court case for this would even look like. Defendant: White people in America Plaintiff: Black people in America Is reparations considered a serious claim? That, after 200 years, the modern day descendants of slaves are entitled to tax payer paid compensation? What is the logic? http://www.newsweek.com/slavery-reparations-could-cost-14-trillion-according-new-calculation-364141 Its a talking point. If you take the number of slaves and the amount of unpaid labor caused by slavery, the prices is like 14 trillion. Which is a crazy number. But forget talking about it, just watch Season One, episode 18 of the West Wing, Six meetings before Lunch. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0745677/ You have a liberal white house staffer talking to black appointee for assistant attorney general for civil rights about reparations and not agreeing on the topic. It pretty much sums up how its not viable or realistic, but a good thing to talk about. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On January 22 2016 07:42 Doraemon wrote: sorry, i badly phrased the question what is the point of electing a president based on his proposed policies when effectively none can be implemented as his party has no control of the house and senate Theoretically you prefer the status quo over the changes desired by the other party. Thus your goal would be preserving the status quo until you could gain total control over the three main bodies. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23712 Posts
On January 22 2016 07:42 Doraemon wrote: sorry, i badly phrased the question what is the point of electing a president based on his proposed policies when effectively none can be implemented as his party has no control of the house and senate Well the house isn't static for one. People can replace the house during a presidency, a president appoints Supreme Court judges too (possibly 3-4 in the next 2 terms), also enough senate seats come up during the course of a presidency (especially 2 terms) to switch the balance of power. Among many other appointments and such that can linger long after the president is replaced. Hence Bernie Sanders is calling for a political revolution that would include such a replacing of the house and senate. Clutz also brings up one way that the system is used also. | ||
| ||
