|
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 May 18 2016 05:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 05:12 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 18 2016 04:52 SolaR- wrote:On May 18 2016 03:11 Plansix wrote:On May 18 2016 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 02:49 Plansix wrote:On May 18 2016 02:39 OtherWorld wrote:On May 18 2016 02:09 Nyxisto wrote:On May 17 2016 18:46 OtherWorld wrote:
[quote]
But what does that have to do with race? Shit is being dumped there because they're poor and disinfranchised, not because they're of race X. We didn't wait mass immigration to consider that poor people's health was worth less than the rich's. Reminds me of the Atwater quote: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” This is the actual dangerous form of racism. Racism isn't actually a crazy guy in a Klansmen costume, it's these kind of systemic inequalities that are concentrated around sticking it to groups through economic and social means etc.. I'm not saying that things like dumping shit on poor populations don't affect minorities more, because that's true. I'm saying that the reason we're dumping shit on poor populations is not the fact that they're minorities, it's the fact that they're poor. You seem to define racism as "racism by result", which is basically saying that any policy or discourse which as a byproduct seems to discriminate a race more than another is racist ; I'd argue that racism should be defined by its intent. For example, Clinton's crime bill was (I assume) not meant to heighten incarceration rates for Black people, yet as a result it did. Was Clinton's bill racist? I think we can agree that the answer is obviously no. Did it have a discriminatory effect? Sure. Systematic racism is not defined by intent. If we remove intent from the equation, how do you assign guilt? If someone tries to help black communities, but makes them worse, what then? People criticize Clinton for the bill and its impact. But is there not also a certain amount of assumed failure? Is it really fair for some people to call the Clinton's racist for the (unintended) effect of the crime bill? It feels like people take guilt and then assume intent. Clearly if it was a Clinton bill and they are responsible for the effect. But that doesn't mean they intended for the effect to happen, so it feels inappropriate for people to call the Clinton's racist. They created a bill which had a racist impact, but that doesn't make them racists. You don't assign guilt, you fix the problem with the system in the best way possible. You assign guilt to the people who dig their heels in the instant they hear that there might be a problem. Or doubles down on defending their actions and claim that they didn't have a negative impact on a specific race. People get way to bent out of shape about the word "racist". I'm a white guy from from an all white section of my state. There were literally zero minorities students in my school until my junior year. Then we had one minority. I said a bunch of racist shit in my life simply because of where I grew up and lack of information. And I did this into my late 20s, despite having black co workers and thinking I was fine. My life got way easier when I just accepted that I am likely to be unintentionally racist in the future and I need to just admit it. We are all human and we fuck up. Just own up to it and move on. I disagree. I thought that racism was wrong since 9th grade of high school when i realized the ignorance of the people that i regularly associated with. I distanced myself from those types of people for that reason and many other reasons( most importantly I realized i was an atheist at a very young age and didn't want to be associated with people who didnt believe in evolution and people who thought that black people were less, etc) I also grew up in a predominately upper class white area with very few minorities. It seems troubling that you didn't come to terms with your racism until your late 20s. In today's age with the internet and everything you have the opportuntiy to gain exposure to other opinions, so it doesn't seem like a valid excuse. While i agree that humans are inherently racist, it is easily combated or stifled from self awareness, intelligence, and knowledge. It is similiar to wrongs such as rape, murder, and incest. Most people view this as wrong and are certainly capable of being civilized and not succumbing to their carnal needs. I would say the difference between us is that I grew up without religion, but religion seemed like a big part of your life( you're christian i believe?). Without religion i was able to grow and develop my own opinions and i wasn't circumvented by religious dogma. I was able to look at life freely without constraint of an authoritative religion. Religion is a great supresser which propably had an impact on other areas of your life. It indirectly limited your frame of thought which is probably the reason you held racist mindsets for so long. Your brain was stuck on that rigid outlook of life. Now that you have become aware of your inherent racism, you actively become a huge proponent against racism. This reinvigorates a feeling of self-worth as you can feel proud that you are less racist than your white counterparts and it helps to deal with the guilt of your racist history. Now this is all fine and dandy, but i noticed a bit of a problem with people that i have known who are similiar to you. White people, like you, begin to pity minorities instead of seeing them as one and the same. They see minorities as helpless victims instead of peers. They can only get there with the aid of the white man mentality. These people predominately associate with other white people, and rarely have any experience with other cultures or races. They have not integrated with any other culture but their own. I hope i don't sound like an asshole. This is just my general perspective on some people. I think i associate you with those peope so correct me if i am wrong. but you have to keep in mind the discussion right now is how can we talk about racism without offending white people. No, the conversation is about how to get more people on your side. My point is that people may share your same goals while still being really sensitive to the word "racism". Take the issue of socialized medicine as an example. Call it socialized medicine and you'll get a hefty emotional response. Call it "expanding medicaid" and people look at it. Obviously not a perfect example, but there are numerous cases where just using a different word really brings people together and gets rid of a lot of divisiveness. The problem is, as many people have pointed out, at some point it becomes the people you are trying to convince avoiding the topic. Which is evident by this thread having this discussion for the 5 time in as many months. Mostly with the same people. You can only lead a horse to water so many times, as the saying goes. Edit: If white people were not sensitive, we would not be having this protracted discussion about racism and words that would be less offensive. I’ve been on the other side of this, we are sort of big babies about the R-word.
I agree with every single thing you said. However, after how long do you try to adjust your message. The conversation goes like this:
Black people: White people are racist
White people: No we are not
Repeat 10 x
End conversation.
So what benefit is really gained by "calling it like it is" and that sorta thing? If the end result is to make life better for black people, does it really matter how that happens? Do we need people to "admit" to what they've done, or do we just need black people to feel like equals? I'm not making an argument based on ethics or what is appropriate, just what would actually make the situation different. Here on TL, we see time and time again where as soon as the word "racism" is used, it's like the entire conversation dies. What if that conversation could continue without using the word "racism"? And it's not so much that I am advocating for totally dropping the word, I am just saying that I do believe more agreement could be reached with new terminology.
|
On May 18 2016 04:57 Plansix wrote:
Yes, but at some point it crosses the line where every single person you meet has to have their “learning experience” through you. That 80% of your time is spend attempting address peoples personal hang ups on the words, rather than discussing the problem. And people are shitty learners.
I only deal with this a little and its tiresome. Especially since I have done several in this thread alone and the same people are still getting super offended over the use of term racism.
SolaR: You came off like an asshole. But don't worry, I don't think any less of you than I did previously.
Please elaborate on your opinion of me. No offense will be taken.
|
On May 18 2016 05:22 SK.Testie wrote:
Because rioting and burning down buildings solves nothing. It will always hurt your own movement. The cameras made most people make up their mind about what happened there.
So the systemic violations of constitutional and civil rights get ignored because people got footage of people raging against the machine... lol
It's this ease with which people turn a violent reaction into the reason why progress isn't made that is at the source of so much of this problem. Had their rights not been systematically taken from them, they wouldn't have reacted in the first place. Anyone who dismisses those events without being outraged at what they were about isn't sincerely trying to address the problems at all, full stop. On May 18 2016 05:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 05:18 Plansix wrote:On May 18 2016 05:12 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 18 2016 04:52 SolaR- wrote:On May 18 2016 03:11 Plansix wrote:On May 18 2016 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 02:49 Plansix wrote:On May 18 2016 02:39 OtherWorld wrote:On May 18 2016 02:09 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
Reminds me of the Atwater quote:
[quote]
This is the actual dangerous form of racism. Racism isn't actually a crazy guy in a Klansmen costume, it's these kind of systemic inequalities that are concentrated around sticking it to groups through economic and social means etc.. I'm not saying that things like dumping shit on poor populations don't affect minorities more, because that's true. I'm saying that the reason we're dumping shit on poor populations is not the fact that they're minorities, it's the fact that they're poor. You seem to define racism as "racism by result", which is basically saying that any policy or discourse which as a byproduct seems to discriminate a race more than another is racist ; I'd argue that racism should be defined by its intent. For example, Clinton's crime bill was (I assume) not meant to heighten incarceration rates for Black people, yet as a result it did. Was Clinton's bill racist? I think we can agree that the answer is obviously no. Did it have a discriminatory effect? Sure. Systematic racism is not defined by intent. If we remove intent from the equation, how do you assign guilt? If someone tries to help black communities, but makes them worse, what then? People criticize Clinton for the bill and its impact. But is there not also a certain amount of assumed failure? Is it really fair for some people to call the Clinton's racist for the (unintended) effect of the crime bill? It feels like people take guilt and then assume intent. Clearly if it was a Clinton bill and they are responsible for the effect. But that doesn't mean they intended for the effect to happen, so it feels inappropriate for people to call the Clinton's racist. They created a bill which had a racist impact, but that doesn't make them racists. You don't assign guilt, you fix the problem with the system in the best way possible. You assign guilt to the people who dig their heels in the instant they hear that there might be a problem. Or doubles down on defending their actions and claim that they didn't have a negative impact on a specific race. People get way to bent out of shape about the word "racist". I'm a white guy from from an all white section of my state. There were literally zero minorities students in my school until my junior year. Then we had one minority. I said a bunch of racist shit in my life simply because of where I grew up and lack of information. And I did this into my late 20s, despite having black co workers and thinking I was fine. My life got way easier when I just accepted that I am likely to be unintentionally racist in the future and I need to just admit it. We are all human and we fuck up. Just own up to it and move on. I disagree. I thought that racism was wrong since 9th grade of high school when i realized the ignorance of the people that i regularly associated with. I distanced myself from those types of people for that reason and many other reasons( most importantly I realized i was an atheist at a very young age and didn't want to be associated with people who didnt believe in evolution and people who thought that black people were less, etc) I also grew up in a predominately upper class white area with very few minorities. It seems troubling that you didn't come to terms with your racism until your late 20s. In today's age with the internet and everything you have the opportuntiy to gain exposure to other opinions, so it doesn't seem like a valid excuse. While i agree that humans are inherently racist, it is easily combated or stifled from self awareness, intelligence, and knowledge. It is similiar to wrongs such as rape, murder, and incest. Most people view this as wrong and are certainly capable of being civilized and not succumbing to their carnal needs. I would say the difference between us is that I grew up without religion, but religion seemed like a big part of your life( you're christian i believe?). Without religion i was able to grow and develop my own opinions and i wasn't circumvented by religious dogma. I was able to look at life freely without constraint of an authoritative religion. Religion is a great supresser which propably had an impact on other areas of your life. It indirectly limited your frame of thought which is probably the reason you held racist mindsets for so long. Your brain was stuck on that rigid outlook of life. Now that you have become aware of your inherent racism, you actively become a huge proponent against racism. This reinvigorates a feeling of self-worth as you can feel proud that you are less racist than your white counterparts and it helps to deal with the guilt of your racist history. Now this is all fine and dandy, but i noticed a bit of a problem with people that i have known who are similiar to you. White people, like you, begin to pity minorities instead of seeing them as one and the same. They see minorities as helpless victims instead of peers. They can only get there with the aid of the white man mentality. These people predominately associate with other white people, and rarely have any experience with other cultures or races. They have not integrated with any other culture but their own. I hope i don't sound like an asshole. This is just my general perspective on some people. I think i associate you with those peope so correct me if i am wrong. but you have to keep in mind the discussion right now is how can we talk about racism without offending white people. No, the conversation is about how to get more people on your side. My point is that people may share your same goals while still being really sensitive to the word "racism". Take the issue of socialized medicine as an example. Call it socialized medicine and you'll get a hefty emotional response. Call it "expanding medicaid" and people look at it. Obviously not a perfect example, but there are numerous cases where just using a different word really brings people together and gets rid of a lot of divisiveness. The problem is, as many people have pointed out, at some point it becomes the people you are trying to convince avoiding the topic. Which is evident by this thread having this discussion for the 5 time in as many months. Mostly with the same people. You can only lead a horse to water so many times, as the saying goes. Edit: If white people were not sensitive, we would not be having this protracted discussion about racism and words that would be less offensive. I’ve been on the other side of this, we are sort of big babies about the R-word. I agree with every single thing you said. However, after how long do you try to adjust your message. The conversation goes like this: Black people: White people are racist White people: No we are not Repeat 10 x End conversation. So what benefit is really gained by "calling it like it is" and that sorta thing? If the end result is to make life better for black people, does it really matter how that happens? Do we need people to "admit" to what they've done, or do we just need black people to feel like equals? I'm not making an argument based on ethics or what is appropriate, just what would actually make the situation different. Here on TL, we see time and time again where as soon as the word "racism" is used, it's like the entire conversation dies. What if that conversation could continue without using the word "racism"? And it's not so much that I am advocating for totally dropping the word, I am just saying that I do believe more agreement could be reached with new terminology.
What you seem to be missing is that what your seeing now is the change. For decades Black folks tried it your way, now many schools are more segregated than they were in the 60's, in Colorado black teen arrests for cannabis possession has gone up while it's gone down for white teens, that's not because of some dramatic shift in consumption, that's because our laws are disproportionately applied, because since this nation started, till today, that's how it's been. Rather than deal with that, we end up talking about whether white people are okay with using the word racism. Rather than blame them for being absurd we turn to the abused and say "but can you ask them to stop abusing you more politely"?
Anyone saying we should stop using the word racism should redirect their energies to getting the people offended by it's legitimate use to stop being offended.
|
On May 18 2016 05:28 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 04:57 Plansix wrote:
Yes, but at some point it crosses the line where every single person you meet has to have their “learning experience” through you. That 80% of your time is spend attempting address peoples personal hang ups on the words, rather than discussing the problem. And people are shitty learners.
I only deal with this a little and its tiresome. Especially since I have done several in this thread alone and the same people are still getting super offended over the use of term racism.
SolaR: You came off like an asshole. But don't worry, I don't think any less of you than I did previously. Please elaborate on your opinion of me. No offense will be taken.
You seemed focused on arguing with a fictional version of me that fulfilled your impressions of a hyper liberal white person that sees themselves as the savior of minorities.
|
On May 18 2016 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 05:22 SK.Testie wrote:
Because rioting and burning down buildings solves nothing. It will always hurt your own movement. The cameras made most people make up their mind about what happened there. So the systemic violations of constitutional and civil rights get ignored because people got footage of people raging against the machine... lol It's this ease with which people turn a violent reaction into the reason why progress isn't made that is at the source of so much of this problem. Had their rights not been systematically taken from them, they wouldn't have reacted in the first place. Anyone who dismisses those events without being outraged at what they were about isn't sincerely trying to address the problems at all, full stop.
It also needs to be noted that not everyone who was burning down buildings and stealing are a part of the blm movement. It's just people seizing the opportunity for the sake of violence or personal gain. Blm has legit concerns. Like all groups there are bad apples that ruin the perception of the movement. For example, the racist trump supporters tarnish the view of the average trump person.
|
On May 18 2016 05:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 05:28 SolaR- wrote:On May 18 2016 04:57 Plansix wrote:
Yes, but at some point it crosses the line where every single person you meet has to have their “learning experience” through you. That 80% of your time is spend attempting address peoples personal hang ups on the words, rather than discussing the problem. And people are shitty learners.
I only deal with this a little and its tiresome. Especially since I have done several in this thread alone and the same people are still getting super offended over the use of term racism.
SolaR: You came off like an asshole. But don't worry, I don't think any less of you than I did previously. Please elaborate on your opinion of me. No offense will be taken. You seemed focused on arguing with a fictional version of me that fulfilled your impressions of a hyper liberal white person that sees themselves as the savior of minorities.
Lol my girlfriend says a very similiar thing about me when we argue. Perhaps i need to work on some shit  just lol
|
On May 18 2016 03:04 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 02:31 Sermokala wrote:On May 18 2016 01:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 17 2016 10:11 Sermokala wrote:On May 17 2016 08:58 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 17 2016 08:23 Sermokala wrote:On May 17 2016 06:57 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 17 2016 05:17 Sermokala wrote:On May 17 2016 04:59 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 17 2016 04:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
What separate higher bar? She and her supporters keep saying that, but can't point to what speeches others aren't releasing. The bar where Sanders doesn't need a plan, just a promise for change that will magically happen when the GOP majority magically leaves and manufacturing just magically comes back while 15 trillion in spending is okay while hilary's 10 trillion in spending makes her a corporate shill. The bar where Hilary uses normal nomenclature in a video for decades past is more anti-black than Bernie calling blacks violent psychopaths is simply "out of context." The bar where almost every single democratic ally in the house and senate already are supportive and wanting to help Hilary push forward her plans, but they are derided by you for not wanting to do what an old white guy says. The part where Hilary is 2-3 million votes ahead of Sanders but SHE is the one you accuse of being unlikable. The part where Bernie could not even tell people whether or not he could even break up big banks when asked directly, or (after hounding Hilary for it for months) eventually said he'd just do what hilary was saying she'd do and use Dodd Frank to make his big attack on the banks. The fact that he keeps not saying anything, only doing the things Hilary and Obama already are doing, all while telling people not to trust the DNC or Democrats in his attempt to ensure a republican house and senate. Bernie is dangerous to liberals--much more than Trump. Not because Trump has less dangerous goals--but Bernie is much more competent at actually following through with his dangerous plans than trump. 1. Politicians have always made promises without a concrete plan on how to do it. See Obama "hope and change" 2. "Super predator" isn't normal nomenclature at any point in history. People don't even use that for super sexual predators. 3. If it was just what an old white guys says the primary wouldn't be contested as it is. People wanting the progressive party to actually be progressive isn't just "wanting to do what an old white guy says" 4. She has terrible likability in polls of people. This isn't something that people are just accusing her of it has polling data to back it up. 5. See number 1. 6. This point of yours makes no sense and is a lie at the best of interpretation. 7. Bernie isn't dangerous to Liberals hes dangerous to conservative and moderate democrats that don't want to worry about their base and want them to just keep voteing them into office without moving the country anywhere. People said the same things about Obama being held to a different standard just because hes black.but instead its because shes a woman. The answer is no and yes. Sexists gets to disagree with her because shes sexist and hide behind shitty reasons and regular people get called sexist because they disagree with her on legitimate reasons. On May 17 2016 05:07 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Bernie Bonus: his supporters are thugs who try to use heckler's vetos to shut down delegate processes. Hillary won Nevada by 5% but they tried to bully their way into a Sanders "Win" in Nevada by shouting and yelling and refusing to abide by the voted results. We hear endless whining about how the system is Rigged and Corrupt, but these Berniebros certainly love trying to overturn Democratic processes via thuggery. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/15/chaos_at_nevada_democratic_convention_dnc_leaders_flee_building_as_sanders_supporters_demand_recount.html EDIT: the Nevada caucus results were 52.6% Hillary, 47.3% Bernie. No amount of yelling and intimidation should result in a Bernie "Win" when he lost at the voting level. what in the fuck is a "heckler's veto" its called people being dumb enough to use voice votes in a contested election. If you read anything about it you'd see how much of a farce Nevada was. The recount people motioned for was because they handed out petitions as people were coming in and in the lines to register which ment that delegates weren't voting on anything. You'd think a party calling itself the democratic party would have experience with holding a democratic process in their meetings. 1st Off When Obama said he would reach out to liberal republicans and conservative democrats because that's the middle ground that allows for compromises to made--that was a specific tool for change. When Obama said he would push healthcare reform--and then passed healthcare reform. That was a goal implemented using the plan he designed. When he said he was against the Iraq War but not against the Afghanistan War, that showed that he wasn't simply being anti-war or anti-foreign policy, but actually wanted to make decisions on a case by case basis. When he said he would cut taxes on the middle class, and did cut taxes on the middle class. Obama had a lot of big ideas. But he also had a lot of specific backend plans to help push those ideas. He had super delegate support, he had corporate money to fund both his and his allies, he had a goal of reaching out to specific voter bases that he actually followed through on. Hope and Change was just the meme. But his been spouting off the need for inclusive politics since the beginning with an emphasis not on saying the craziest things possible, but on looking for middle grounds between both sides and not just his. 2nd Off Non-Democrats telling democrats to stop being democrats is not "being progressive," ignoring global policies in an attempt to stop globailization is not "being progressive," being stuck with 60 year old policies instead of adapting policies to the current trends of the time is not "being progressive." And citing everyone that disagrees with you as being the enemy is simply the talents on non-liberals. When you have a group of people yelling at liberals for not doing it how they used to do it 60+ years ago, that's not being progressive that's being regressive. And telling me that polls dislike Hilary when 3million more people voted for her is just so out of touch it makes sense why you'd be a sandernista. Lol at half your post. The "2nd off" is purely devoid of sense. You show no understanding on how tent building or likability polls work. Healthcare was a power play to ensure democratic supremacy for a generation while they had a super majority to do it. Obama's campaign was based on change that turned to pragmatism once he finaly got into office. What progressive things has obama done in office or has campaigned for? It isn't controversial to say the party took a right turn with bill clinton and continued it with the moderates of Obama and hillary. And I'm not a sandernista. I'm a confirmed conservative. But good job generalizing anyone who doesn't agree with you with your enemy. Which by your standards makes you not a liberal so welcome to the republican party buddy. Before Obama was even a blip on the radar he showed up to my town and talked to us about reaching across the aisle for pragmatic middle ground solutions. Even when he got more and more popularity he continually cried out that it wasn't about red states or blue states. When he got into office he would present plans that were combinations of conservative and liberal ideals, much like the ACA using Romney's own state healthcare plan as its starting structure. He was very much for the pulling of troops out of Iraq as direct attack on the Bush directive, but was also for increasing presence in Afghanistan in direct accordance with the Bush directive. And while under his watch we have seen "Don't Ask Don't Tell", Gay Marriage, and almost two Supreme Court Nominees, and the Amnesty Act he decreed be executive order--all this and more has move the company left. We also have a more explicated Patriot Act policy that is an expansion from the Bush years. All things he promised since before the first debate, all things he followed through on. The stuff he promised to the crowd I was in in 2007 was exactly what he delivered in 2008 and 2012. He was pragmatic from day 1, he was moderate from day 1, and it was that moderation that allowed him to pull the country leftward in respect to how right it had become in the Bush years. And all of this proves my point. The fact that you state that he decided to increase troops in iraq and not increase troops in Afghanistan apparently didn't happen to you but that okay. but that you decide to point to two supreme court cases and an executive order (that you for some reason call an amnesty act despite not having anything to do with amnesty but a lack of enforcement of laws on the books) is the best you can come up with to go alongside his one great legislative victory in repealing DADT? And how did this get about Obama your suppose to be defending Hillary. What good things did she do during the obama administration? You're the one who accused Obama of going on back on his word, excuse me for pointing out that he didn't. These are not the best I can come up, these are literally just the surface level stuff of what he has done, things anyone with a pulse hears about even if the actively try to disengage from politics. His accomplishments run a lot deeper than that. The reason its brought up a lot, is because when someone like Sanders or Trump or the Tea Party start saying that the establishment is not working--that establishment is Obama. That establishment is the derivatives change he made in 08 that allowed my friend's mother to keep her house or be homeless that year. That establishment is the ACA finally allowing preexisting conditions to be ignored allowing a different friend's father to get healthcare for the first time in his life (he runs his own handyman business), that establishment is what has allowed gay marriage to become a reality, its the establishment that gave amnesty to immigrants, its the establishment that is beginning talks with Iran, its the establishment that has recovered us from the Bush administration, its the establishment that has given us one of the longest job growth streak in history. So when people like Bernie tell me that he's against the establishment--he's telling me he is against job growth, that he is against immigrants, that he is against protecting people about to lose their homes, people who finally got healthcare they would have never gotten without the establishment's help. And when he tells us that his plan will be 50% more expensive than Hilary's, that his plan attempts to ignore globalization, that his plan is to ignore dark skinned non-christians to suffer genocide, that his plan is to backstab our biggest ally in the middle east and tell Israel that after decades of being bombed that the right thing to do is tell their enemies that suicide bombings are an effective at negotiating with the west. When Bernie says those things--I cannot help but be more than a little peeved. And when someone else shows up, telling me that there were things we did in the past eight years that worked, and things that didn't, and that the best plan of action is to take the things that worked and expand it, and to take the things that didn't work, and to phase it out. You can't help but be enamored by the one person who wants to do something about genocide, who wants to learn from past mistakes, who is willing to negotiate their stance as new information arises, who is willing to change her platform if the people need more from her, but who still has a few things she's willing to fight for even without public support. You can't help but be enamored by the person who is both accused of being too good at politics, and at the same time too willing to match the will of the people. That you finally have a bulldog willing to fight for what *we* want instead of what she thinks we want who has the reputation to be very good at fighting for it. There are so many things wrong with your post I can't even begin literally. I can't even get a read on your politically. Obama is over now and everyones looking forward to and talking about the election to devide his replacement. + Show Spoiler +, that his plan is to ignore dark skinned non-christians to suffer genocide, that his plan is to backstab our biggest ally in the middle east and tell Israel that after decades of being bombed that the right thing to do is tell their enemies that suicide bombings are an effective at negotiating with the west. When Bernie says those things--I cannot help but be more than a little peeved. I don't even know where to begin with this. Do I start with how obama is pissing off the Saudis? Or the part with with isreal or ISIS? The Right in america is Isreals staunchest supporters for whatever and the left is the one trying to keep them on a leash. Do you not care about the human rights abuses in the gaza strip and west bank? What about Obama's handling of the syrian civil war leading to ISIS's invasion of western Iraq? How the ACA was a stripped down version of what it could have been beacuse the democrats couldn't work with even the conservative elements of its own party? Immigrants didn't get Amnesty I have no idea where you get this. Obama is hardly a guy to credit on gay marriage with his "evolution" on the issue. The Iran nuclear talks started back in 2006 with Bush. I don't even know who you are talking about with that last paragraph, I think you're trying to go for Hillary but just no at the very least no one says that Hillary is "too good at politics". When asked about Syria, Bernie would rather have muslims get involved than americans. You know, because what history tells us is that genocides naturally work themselves out by themselves. History also tells us that nothing shows that we care about an issue more than telling others who aren't helping to help in our stead. So stupid, so hateful. Does it matter what caused a problem? Mistakes happen, all politicians will make mistakes. Fixing mistakes is part of the job, we are way past middle school where "not it" is no longer an option when you're a leader of the free world. Walking around saying "I wouldn't have made that decision X decades ago" is absolutely meaningless since fixing the problems in front of you is the job of a world leader. When Bernie had a chance to write a statement about Israel, he publicly says that he knows that Israel's been hit hard by bombings, but too bad, Israel needs to give lands back because if a nation dislikes your ally and bombs the shit out of them, Bernie is willing to cede those lands. The Gaza strip is a complicated place, telling Israel to shut the fuck up and just take bombs up the ass or else even the US will hate on them is not how to fix it. Negotiations between Palestine and Israel is the only way to fix it and we as third parties do not get to make premade conclusions for how that is supposed to be solved. But Bernie would rather just tell Israel to cut back on its lands because what does Bernie care that Israel also cares about those lands, just another in Bernie's long standing selfishness of wanting to yell the craziest thing the loudest so people think he's cool, such a great move since we have SO many strong allies in the middle east that we can afford to shit on random ones we already have all willy nilly. When Bernie is asked about his plans for Big Banks he attacks Hilary for wanting to use Dodd Frank and then IMMEDIATELY says he'll use Dodd Frank, because, you know, he isn't just a hateful instigator who doesn't actually have a plan and mostly just wants to say things to incite hate amongst his followers. He couldn't even answer the question of "should he have the power to break up banks" when asked it directly by a liberal news organization. He literally has no idea what his options available to him and yet that's the part of his platform he yells about the loudest. We already know Hilary's plan on it, she not only told us what bills she already has in place, but specifically how to support those bills, how to get allies for those bills, and her plans to expand those bills to make a more long term security for the American finance system. Bernie just runs around yelling about imprisoning bankers for something that happened almost a decade ago. Its no wonder that its the Bernie supporters attacking Trump Rallies and Democratic Rallies, they have a leader whose main plan is lynch mobbing rich people. Oh, I'm sorry, "imprisoning" rich people. Do you really think its a surprise that recent polls shows that Bernie supporters are as likely to vote for Trump? Its because there isn't really much difference between Trump and Bernie.
1. Bernie would rather have muslum nations who are funding the genocide to get involved to stop the genocide. Beacuse the last every time we get involved with the muslum world it never works out beacuse the whole region is a thousands year war over religion that goes to the foundations of their religion.
2. Isreal has always been willing to give land back for peace, Palestine and Isreal don't want to talk and the surrounding arab nations have always said no to any kind of even negotiation for peace with Isreal. Yes gaza and the west bank is a mess but building a giant wall and not allowing any economic activity of any kind to happen with all the innocent people who just live there isn't an answer either. I think you went into double sarcasm at the end there because we have zero good allies in the middle east. The Saudis are an oppressive monarchy that founded and funded the rise of the brand of islam that causes so much trouble in the world today. Egypt is a literal Military dictatorship and lybia is basically Somalia at this point. Syria was a Russian or Chinese friend iraq is our great sin and Iran still chants death to america.
Your third paragraph is just straight up you hating on Bernie and showing just how truely out of touch you are with reality at this point.
|
On May 18 2016 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 05:22 SK.Testie wrote:
Because rioting and burning down buildings solves nothing. It will always hurt your own movement. The cameras made most people make up their mind about what happened there. So the systemic violations of constitutional and civil rights get ignored because people got footage of people raging against the machine... lol It's this ease with which people turn a violent reaction into the reason why progress isn't made that is at the source of so much of this problem. Had their rights not been systematically taken from them, they wouldn't have reacted in the first place. Anyone who dismisses those events without being outraged at what they were about isn't sincerely trying to address the problems at all, full stop. Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 05:27 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 05:18 Plansix wrote:On May 18 2016 05:12 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 18 2016 04:52 SolaR- wrote:On May 18 2016 03:11 Plansix wrote:On May 18 2016 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 02:49 Plansix wrote:On May 18 2016 02:39 OtherWorld wrote:
[quote]
I'm not saying that things like dumping shit on poor populations don't affect minorities more, because that's true. I'm saying that the reason we're dumping shit on poor populations is not the fact that they're minorities, it's the fact that they're poor. You seem to define racism as "racism by result", which is basically saying that any policy or discourse which as a byproduct seems to discriminate a race more than another is racist ; I'd argue that racism should be defined by its intent. For example, Clinton's crime bill was (I assume) not meant to heighten incarceration rates for Black people, yet as a result it did. Was Clinton's bill racist? I think we can agree that the answer is obviously no. Did it have a discriminatory effect? Sure. Systematic racism is not defined by intent. If we remove intent from the equation, how do you assign guilt? If someone tries to help black communities, but makes them worse, what then? People criticize Clinton for the bill and its impact. But is there not also a certain amount of assumed failure? Is it really fair for some people to call the Clinton's racist for the (unintended) effect of the crime bill? It feels like people take guilt and then assume intent. Clearly if it was a Clinton bill and they are responsible for the effect. But that doesn't mean they intended for the effect to happen, so it feels inappropriate for people to call the Clinton's racist. They created a bill which had a racist impact, but that doesn't make them racists. You don't assign guilt, you fix the problem with the system in the best way possible. You assign guilt to the people who dig their heels in the instant they hear that there might be a problem. Or doubles down on defending their actions and claim that they didn't have a negative impact on a specific race. People get way to bent out of shape about the word "racist". I'm a white guy from from an all white section of my state. There were literally zero minorities students in my school until my junior year. Then we had one minority. I said a bunch of racist shit in my life simply because of where I grew up and lack of information. And I did this into my late 20s, despite having black co workers and thinking I was fine. My life got way easier when I just accepted that I am likely to be unintentionally racist in the future and I need to just admit it. We are all human and we fuck up. Just own up to it and move on. I disagree. I thought that racism was wrong since 9th grade of high school when i realized the ignorance of the people that i regularly associated with. I distanced myself from those types of people for that reason and many other reasons( most importantly I realized i was an atheist at a very young age and didn't want to be associated with people who didnt believe in evolution and people who thought that black people were less, etc) I also grew up in a predominately upper class white area with very few minorities. It seems troubling that you didn't come to terms with your racism until your late 20s. In today's age with the internet and everything you have the opportuntiy to gain exposure to other opinions, so it doesn't seem like a valid excuse. While i agree that humans are inherently racist, it is easily combated or stifled from self awareness, intelligence, and knowledge. It is similiar to wrongs such as rape, murder, and incest. Most people view this as wrong and are certainly capable of being civilized and not succumbing to their carnal needs. I would say the difference between us is that I grew up without religion, but religion seemed like a big part of your life( you're christian i believe?). Without religion i was able to grow and develop my own opinions and i wasn't circumvented by religious dogma. I was able to look at life freely without constraint of an authoritative religion. Religion is a great supresser which propably had an impact on other areas of your life. It indirectly limited your frame of thought which is probably the reason you held racist mindsets for so long. Your brain was stuck on that rigid outlook of life. Now that you have become aware of your inherent racism, you actively become a huge proponent against racism. This reinvigorates a feeling of self-worth as you can feel proud that you are less racist than your white counterparts and it helps to deal with the guilt of your racist history. Now this is all fine and dandy, but i noticed a bit of a problem with people that i have known who are similiar to you. White people, like you, begin to pity minorities instead of seeing them as one and the same. They see minorities as helpless victims instead of peers. They can only get there with the aid of the white man mentality. These people predominately associate with other white people, and rarely have any experience with other cultures or races. They have not integrated with any other culture but their own. I hope i don't sound like an asshole. This is just my general perspective on some people. I think i associate you with those peope so correct me if i am wrong. but you have to keep in mind the discussion right now is how can we talk about racism without offending white people. No, the conversation is about how to get more people on your side. My point is that people may share your same goals while still being really sensitive to the word "racism". Take the issue of socialized medicine as an example. Call it socialized medicine and you'll get a hefty emotional response. Call it "expanding medicaid" and people look at it. Obviously not a perfect example, but there are numerous cases where just using a different word really brings people together and gets rid of a lot of divisiveness. The problem is, as many people have pointed out, at some point it becomes the people you are trying to convince avoiding the topic. Which is evident by this thread having this discussion for the 5 time in as many months. Mostly with the same people. You can only lead a horse to water so many times, as the saying goes. Edit: If white people were not sensitive, we would not be having this protracted discussion about racism and words that would be less offensive. I’ve been on the other side of this, we are sort of big babies about the R-word. I agree with every single thing you said. However, after how long do you try to adjust your message. The conversation goes like this: Black people: White people are racist White people: No we are not Repeat 10 x End conversation. So what benefit is really gained by "calling it like it is" and that sorta thing? If the end result is to make life better for black people, does it really matter how that happens? Do we need people to "admit" to what they've done, or do we just need black people to feel like equals? I'm not making an argument based on ethics or what is appropriate, just what would actually make the situation different. Here on TL, we see time and time again where as soon as the word "racism" is used, it's like the entire conversation dies. What if that conversation could continue without using the word "racism"? And it's not so much that I am advocating for totally dropping the word, I am just saying that I do believe more agreement could be reached with new terminology. Anyone saying we should stop using the word racism should redirect their energies to getting the people offended by it's legitimate use to stop being offended.
Are you saying that you think using the word racism is an effective tool at communicating with the people whose view you are trying to change? You are approaching this from an ethical perspective, that's the issue. The ethical thing is for white people to process the systematic racism and all that. But be honest, do you see that ever happening?
|
On May 18 2016 05:35 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 18 2016 05:22 SK.Testie wrote:
Because rioting and burning down buildings solves nothing. It will always hurt your own movement. The cameras made most people make up their mind about what happened there. So the systemic violations of constitutional and civil rights get ignored because people got footage of people raging against the machine... lol It's this ease with which people turn a violent reaction into the reason why progress isn't made that is at the source of so much of this problem. Had their rights not been systematically taken from them, they wouldn't have reacted in the first place. Anyone who dismisses those events without being outraged at what they were about isn't sincerely trying to address the problems at all, full stop. It also needs to be noted that not everyone who was burning down buildings and stealing are a part of the blm movement. It's just people seizing the opportunity for the sake of violence or personal gain. Blm has legit concerns. Like all groups there are bad apples that ruin the perception of the movement. For example, the racist trump supporters tarnish the view of the average trump person.
Ferguson has been brewing for over a decade too. The riots were after a decade of complaints without improvement or addressing the problem. People who claim the protests and riots didn’t solve the problems forget that the community tried it the other way for 10 years the other way.
|
The problem with BLM is that whenever it is given a chance to voice their legit concerns, they cannot fight back against the counterpoints their detractors give. They lose the argument, effectively to my knowledge thus far. Ben Shapiro utterly annihilated their arguments. He was begging them to give him reasons to help. But they couldn't. I haven't seen a BLM representative win an argument yet. There was a video linked earlier where a black man interviewed two BLM members and it had to end with 'stop, you're hurting them'. He wasn't even an incredibly intelligent interviewer. He just applied basic common sense like "don't you think you should cut your hair for a job interview?".
Then the Steven Colbert interview happened, the number of dislikes shows not that people are racist. But that he didn't bring a single argument. "See? I'm sitting here. That's what it feels like. This is your privilege!" Meanwhile Steven clearly worked his entire life in the craft of comedy and writing to get where he was. And he's also a unique talent with a very sharp wit. So to play the privilege game failed miserably. There'll definitely be racism in those comments sections somewhere, but you have to beat your detractors at a debate. And right now, I don't think BLM can do it. I really don't. They haven't convinced people yet, and they won't convince people in the future.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On May 18 2016 05:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 18 2016 05:22 SK.Testie wrote:
Because rioting and burning down buildings solves nothing. It will always hurt your own movement. The cameras made most people make up their mind about what happened there. So the systemic violations of constitutional and civil rights get ignored because people got footage of people raging against the machine... lol It's this ease with which people turn a violent reaction into the reason why progress isn't made that is at the source of so much of this problem. Had their rights not been systematically taken from them, they wouldn't have reacted in the first place. Anyone who dismisses those events without being outraged at what they were about isn't sincerely trying to address the problems at all, full stop. On May 18 2016 05:27 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 05:18 Plansix wrote:On May 18 2016 05:12 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 18 2016 04:52 SolaR- wrote:On May 18 2016 03:11 Plansix wrote:On May 18 2016 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 02:49 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Systematic racism is not defined by intent. If we remove intent from the equation, how do you assign guilt? If someone tries to help black communities, but makes them worse, what then? People criticize Clinton for the bill and its impact. But is there not also a certain amount of assumed failure? Is it really fair for some people to call the Clinton's racist for the (unintended) effect of the crime bill? It feels like people take guilt and then assume intent. Clearly if it was a Clinton bill and they are responsible for the effect. But that doesn't mean they intended for the effect to happen, so it feels inappropriate for people to call the Clinton's racist. They created a bill which had a racist impact, but that doesn't make them racists. You don't assign guilt, you fix the problem with the system in the best way possible. You assign guilt to the people who dig their heels in the instant they hear that there might be a problem. Or doubles down on defending their actions and claim that they didn't have a negative impact on a specific race. People get way to bent out of shape about the word "racist". I'm a white guy from from an all white section of my state. There were literally zero minorities students in my school until my junior year. Then we had one minority. I said a bunch of racist shit in my life simply because of where I grew up and lack of information. And I did this into my late 20s, despite having black co workers and thinking I was fine. My life got way easier when I just accepted that I am likely to be unintentionally racist in the future and I need to just admit it. We are all human and we fuck up. Just own up to it and move on. I disagree. I thought that racism was wrong since 9th grade of high school when i realized the ignorance of the people that i regularly associated with. I distanced myself from those types of people for that reason and many other reasons( most importantly I realized i was an atheist at a very young age and didn't want to be associated with people who didnt believe in evolution and people who thought that black people were less, etc) I also grew up in a predominately upper class white area with very few minorities. It seems troubling that you didn't come to terms with your racism until your late 20s. In today's age with the internet and everything you have the opportuntiy to gain exposure to other opinions, so it doesn't seem like a valid excuse. While i agree that humans are inherently racist, it is easily combated or stifled from self awareness, intelligence, and knowledge. It is similiar to wrongs such as rape, murder, and incest. Most people view this as wrong and are certainly capable of being civilized and not succumbing to their carnal needs. I would say the difference between us is that I grew up without religion, but religion seemed like a big part of your life( you're christian i believe?). Without religion i was able to grow and develop my own opinions and i wasn't circumvented by religious dogma. I was able to look at life freely without constraint of an authoritative religion. Religion is a great supresser which propably had an impact on other areas of your life. It indirectly limited your frame of thought which is probably the reason you held racist mindsets for so long. Your brain was stuck on that rigid outlook of life. Now that you have become aware of your inherent racism, you actively become a huge proponent against racism. This reinvigorates a feeling of self-worth as you can feel proud that you are less racist than your white counterparts and it helps to deal with the guilt of your racist history. Now this is all fine and dandy, but i noticed a bit of a problem with people that i have known who are similiar to you. White people, like you, begin to pity minorities instead of seeing them as one and the same. They see minorities as helpless victims instead of peers. They can only get there with the aid of the white man mentality. These people predominately associate with other white people, and rarely have any experience with other cultures or races. They have not integrated with any other culture but their own. I hope i don't sound like an asshole. This is just my general perspective on some people. I think i associate you with those peope so correct me if i am wrong. but you have to keep in mind the discussion right now is how can we talk about racism without offending white people. No, the conversation is about how to get more people on your side. My point is that people may share your same goals while still being really sensitive to the word "racism". Take the issue of socialized medicine as an example. Call it socialized medicine and you'll get a hefty emotional response. Call it "expanding medicaid" and people look at it. Obviously not a perfect example, but there are numerous cases where just using a different word really brings people together and gets rid of a lot of divisiveness. The problem is, as many people have pointed out, at some point it becomes the people you are trying to convince avoiding the topic. Which is evident by this thread having this discussion for the 5 time in as many months. Mostly with the same people. You can only lead a horse to water so many times, as the saying goes. Edit: If white people were not sensitive, we would not be having this protracted discussion about racism and words that would be less offensive. I’ve been on the other side of this, we are sort of big babies about the R-word. I agree with every single thing you said. However, after how long do you try to adjust your message. The conversation goes like this: Black people: White people are racist White people: No we are not Repeat 10 x End conversation. So what benefit is really gained by "calling it like it is" and that sorta thing? If the end result is to make life better for black people, does it really matter how that happens? Do we need people to "admit" to what they've done, or do we just need black people to feel like equals? I'm not making an argument based on ethics or what is appropriate, just what would actually make the situation different. Here on TL, we see time and time again where as soon as the word "racism" is used, it's like the entire conversation dies. What if that conversation could continue without using the word "racism"? And it's not so much that I am advocating for totally dropping the word, I am just saying that I do believe more agreement could be reached with new terminology. Anyone saying we should stop using the word racism should redirect their energies to getting the people offended by it's legitimate use to stop being offended. Are you saying that you think using the word racism is an effective tool at communicating with the people whose view you are trying to change? You are approaching this from an ethical perspective, that's the issue. The ethical thing is for white people to process the systematic racism and all that. But be honest, do you see that ever happening?
I'm saying there doesn't seem to be an effective way with communicating with people who can't even deal with the word racism being used. They've dug their heads in the sand and they've shown no signs that a discussion sans the word racism would be any more productive, it's usually the opposite.
It almost always leads down a path towards "see white people are victims too", which displays that they had no idea what the discussion was about in the first place.
|
On May 18 2016 03:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +"The Senate unanimously passed legislation Tuesday that would allow families of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to hold the government of Saudi Arabia legally accountable — setting up a showdown with the White House, which has opposed the bill.
The measure, spearheaded by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), is called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.
"If the Saudis did not participate (in the Sept. 11 attacks) they have nothing to worry about," Schumer said at a news conference Tuesday. "If they did, they should be held accountable."
The legislation would prevent governments complicit in terrorist attacks in the United States from invoking so-called “sovereign immunity” as a legal shield. It would also allow civil litigation against foreign entities complicit in terrorism to proceed. The measure passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously in January.
Family members of several Sept. 11 victims praised the passage of the legislation Tuesday, saying "The American people, as well as our families, deserve the truth about Sept. 11 and those responsible deserve to be held to account."
The Schumer-Cornyn bill "promises us the truth, accountability and a strong warning that the United States finally will stand behind its promise of justice to those who were injured and the survivors of the 3,000 children, mothers, fathers, wives and husbands who were murdered in our homeland on Sept. 11," said the family members. Source
Oh dear lord this opens up so many cans of worms.
It's apparently up to the House to be the reasonable party here.
|
On May 18 2016 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 05:39 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 18 2016 05:22 SK.Testie wrote:
Because rioting and burning down buildings solves nothing. It will always hurt your own movement. The cameras made most people make up their mind about what happened there. So the systemic violations of constitutional and civil rights get ignored because people got footage of people raging against the machine... lol It's this ease with which people turn a violent reaction into the reason why progress isn't made that is at the source of so much of this problem. Had their rights not been systematically taken from them, they wouldn't have reacted in the first place. Anyone who dismisses those events without being outraged at what they were about isn't sincerely trying to address the problems at all, full stop. On May 18 2016 05:27 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 05:18 Plansix wrote:On May 18 2016 05:12 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 18 2016 04:52 SolaR- wrote:On May 18 2016 03:11 Plansix wrote:On May 18 2016 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
If we remove intent from the equation, how do you assign guilt? If someone tries to help black communities, but makes them worse, what then? People criticize Clinton for the bill and its impact. But is there not also a certain amount of assumed failure? Is it really fair for some people to call the Clinton's racist for the (unintended) effect of the crime bill?
It feels like people take guilt and then assume intent. Clearly if it was a Clinton bill and they are responsible for the effect. But that doesn't mean they intended for the effect to happen, so it feels inappropriate for people to call the Clinton's racist. They created a bill which had a racist impact, but that doesn't make them racists. You don't assign guilt, you fix the problem with the system in the best way possible. You assign guilt to the people who dig their heels in the instant they hear that there might be a problem. Or doubles down on defending their actions and claim that they didn't have a negative impact on a specific race. People get way to bent out of shape about the word "racist". I'm a white guy from from an all white section of my state. There were literally zero minorities students in my school until my junior year. Then we had one minority. I said a bunch of racist shit in my life simply because of where I grew up and lack of information. And I did this into my late 20s, despite having black co workers and thinking I was fine. My life got way easier when I just accepted that I am likely to be unintentionally racist in the future and I need to just admit it. We are all human and we fuck up. Just own up to it and move on. I disagree. I thought that racism was wrong since 9th grade of high school when i realized the ignorance of the people that i regularly associated with. I distanced myself from those types of people for that reason and many other reasons( most importantly I realized i was an atheist at a very young age and didn't want to be associated with people who didnt believe in evolution and people who thought that black people were less, etc) I also grew up in a predominately upper class white area with very few minorities. It seems troubling that you didn't come to terms with your racism until your late 20s. In today's age with the internet and everything you have the opportuntiy to gain exposure to other opinions, so it doesn't seem like a valid excuse. While i agree that humans are inherently racist, it is easily combated or stifled from self awareness, intelligence, and knowledge. It is similiar to wrongs such as rape, murder, and incest. Most people view this as wrong and are certainly capable of being civilized and not succumbing to their carnal needs. I would say the difference between us is that I grew up without religion, but religion seemed like a big part of your life( you're christian i believe?). Without religion i was able to grow and develop my own opinions and i wasn't circumvented by religious dogma. I was able to look at life freely without constraint of an authoritative religion. Religion is a great supresser which propably had an impact on other areas of your life. It indirectly limited your frame of thought which is probably the reason you held racist mindsets for so long. Your brain was stuck on that rigid outlook of life. Now that you have become aware of your inherent racism, you actively become a huge proponent against racism. This reinvigorates a feeling of self-worth as you can feel proud that you are less racist than your white counterparts and it helps to deal with the guilt of your racist history. Now this is all fine and dandy, but i noticed a bit of a problem with people that i have known who are similiar to you. White people, like you, begin to pity minorities instead of seeing them as one and the same. They see minorities as helpless victims instead of peers. They can only get there with the aid of the white man mentality. These people predominately associate with other white people, and rarely have any experience with other cultures or races. They have not integrated with any other culture but their own. I hope i don't sound like an asshole. This is just my general perspective on some people. I think i associate you with those peope so correct me if i am wrong. but you have to keep in mind the discussion right now is how can we talk about racism without offending white people. No, the conversation is about how to get more people on your side. My point is that people may share your same goals while still being really sensitive to the word "racism". Take the issue of socialized medicine as an example. Call it socialized medicine and you'll get a hefty emotional response. Call it "expanding medicaid" and people look at it. Obviously not a perfect example, but there are numerous cases where just using a different word really brings people together and gets rid of a lot of divisiveness. The problem is, as many people have pointed out, at some point it becomes the people you are trying to convince avoiding the topic. Which is evident by this thread having this discussion for the 5 time in as many months. Mostly with the same people. You can only lead a horse to water so many times, as the saying goes. Edit: If white people were not sensitive, we would not be having this protracted discussion about racism and words that would be less offensive. I’ve been on the other side of this, we are sort of big babies about the R-word. I agree with every single thing you said. However, after how long do you try to adjust your message. The conversation goes like this: Black people: White people are racist White people: No we are not Repeat 10 x End conversation. So what benefit is really gained by "calling it like it is" and that sorta thing? If the end result is to make life better for black people, does it really matter how that happens? Do we need people to "admit" to what they've done, or do we just need black people to feel like equals? I'm not making an argument based on ethics or what is appropriate, just what would actually make the situation different. Here on TL, we see time and time again where as soon as the word "racism" is used, it's like the entire conversation dies. What if that conversation could continue without using the word "racism"? And it's not so much that I am advocating for totally dropping the word, I am just saying that I do believe more agreement could be reached with new terminology. Anyone saying we should stop using the word racism should redirect their energies to getting the people offended by it's legitimate use to stop being offended. Are you saying that you think using the word racism is an effective tool at communicating with the people whose view you are trying to change? You are approaching this from an ethical perspective, that's the issue. The ethical thing is for white people to process the systematic racism and all that. But be honest, do you see that ever happening? I'm saying there doesn't seem to be an effective way with communicating with people who can't even deal with the word racism being used. They've dug their heads in the sand and they've shown no signs that a discussion sans the word racism would be any more productive, it's usually the opposite. It almost always leads down a path towards "see white people are victims too", which displays that they had no idea what the discussion was about in the first place.
Are you saying you don't think there exists an effective mechanism for communication and progress? What do you think will effectively end the shittiness that black people put up with?
|
On May 18 2016 05:22 SK.Testie wrote:
Because rioting and burning down buildings solves nothing. It will always hurt your own movement. The cameras made most people make up their mind about what happened there. Marching through the streets of NY saying, 'what do we want? DEAD COPS! when do we want it? NOW!' makes the movements lose all credibility.
The fact that they've mixed up the death of criminals with innocent men in their cause really hurt them as well. They tacked more dead men on to make their movement more justified, but instead it hurt the message they are trying to convey because people are like.. 'well.. at least 30%-50% of those killings were justified..' or whatever number it is.
the people looting and burning and the Ferguson protestors were largely two different groups. Most of the pillagers were out of towners who came looking for trouble/profit; and often weren't in the marchers/protests at all.
And there were entirely legitimate and major issues in Ferguson, which the peaceful protestors (of which there were many) helped bring light to.
Whenever there's a good reason to protest, there's a chance some troublemakers show up with the specific intent of taking advantage of the situation, and it's sometimes hard to stop those. There were of course some practical measures which could have helped with that.
|
On May 18 2016 05:52 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 18 2016 05:39 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 18 2016 05:22 SK.Testie wrote:
Because rioting and burning down buildings solves nothing. It will always hurt your own movement. The cameras made most people make up their mind about what happened there. So the systemic violations of constitutional and civil rights get ignored because people got footage of people raging against the machine... lol It's this ease with which people turn a violent reaction into the reason why progress isn't made that is at the source of so much of this problem. Had their rights not been systematically taken from them, they wouldn't have reacted in the first place. Anyone who dismisses those events without being outraged at what they were about isn't sincerely trying to address the problems at all, full stop. On May 18 2016 05:27 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 05:18 Plansix wrote:On May 18 2016 05:12 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 18 2016 04:52 SolaR- wrote:On May 18 2016 03:11 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
You don't assign guilt, you fix the problem with the system in the best way possible. You assign guilt to the people who dig their heels in the instant they hear that there might be a problem. Or doubles down on defending their actions and claim that they didn't have a negative impact on a specific race.
People get way to bent out of shape about the word "racist". I'm a white guy from from an all white section of my state. There were literally zero minorities students in my school until my junior year. Then we had one minority. I said a bunch of racist shit in my life simply because of where I grew up and lack of information. And I did this into my late 20s, despite having black co workers and thinking I was fine. My life got way easier when I just accepted that I am likely to be unintentionally racist in the future and I need to just admit it. We are all human and we fuck up. Just own up to it and move on. I disagree. I thought that racism was wrong since 9th grade of high school when i realized the ignorance of the people that i regularly associated with. I distanced myself from those types of people for that reason and many other reasons( most importantly I realized i was an atheist at a very young age and didn't want to be associated with people who didnt believe in evolution and people who thought that black people were less, etc) I also grew up in a predominately upper class white area with very few minorities. It seems troubling that you didn't come to terms with your racism until your late 20s. In today's age with the internet and everything you have the opportuntiy to gain exposure to other opinions, so it doesn't seem like a valid excuse. While i agree that humans are inherently racist, it is easily combated or stifled from self awareness, intelligence, and knowledge. It is similiar to wrongs such as rape, murder, and incest. Most people view this as wrong and are certainly capable of being civilized and not succumbing to their carnal needs. I would say the difference between us is that I grew up without religion, but religion seemed like a big part of your life( you're christian i believe?). Without religion i was able to grow and develop my own opinions and i wasn't circumvented by religious dogma. I was able to look at life freely without constraint of an authoritative religion. Religion is a great supresser which propably had an impact on other areas of your life. It indirectly limited your frame of thought which is probably the reason you held racist mindsets for so long. Your brain was stuck on that rigid outlook of life. Now that you have become aware of your inherent racism, you actively become a huge proponent against racism. This reinvigorates a feeling of self-worth as you can feel proud that you are less racist than your white counterparts and it helps to deal with the guilt of your racist history. Now this is all fine and dandy, but i noticed a bit of a problem with people that i have known who are similiar to you. White people, like you, begin to pity minorities instead of seeing them as one and the same. They see minorities as helpless victims instead of peers. They can only get there with the aid of the white man mentality. These people predominately associate with other white people, and rarely have any experience with other cultures or races. They have not integrated with any other culture but their own. I hope i don't sound like an asshole. This is just my general perspective on some people. I think i associate you with those peope so correct me if i am wrong. but you have to keep in mind the discussion right now is how can we talk about racism without offending white people. No, the conversation is about how to get more people on your side. My point is that people may share your same goals while still being really sensitive to the word "racism". Take the issue of socialized medicine as an example. Call it socialized medicine and you'll get a hefty emotional response. Call it "expanding medicaid" and people look at it. Obviously not a perfect example, but there are numerous cases where just using a different word really brings people together and gets rid of a lot of divisiveness. The problem is, as many people have pointed out, at some point it becomes the people you are trying to convince avoiding the topic. Which is evident by this thread having this discussion for the 5 time in as many months. Mostly with the same people. You can only lead a horse to water so many times, as the saying goes. Edit: If white people were not sensitive, we would not be having this protracted discussion about racism and words that would be less offensive. I’ve been on the other side of this, we are sort of big babies about the R-word. I agree with every single thing you said. However, after how long do you try to adjust your message. The conversation goes like this: Black people: White people are racist White people: No we are not Repeat 10 x End conversation. So what benefit is really gained by "calling it like it is" and that sorta thing? If the end result is to make life better for black people, does it really matter how that happens? Do we need people to "admit" to what they've done, or do we just need black people to feel like equals? I'm not making an argument based on ethics or what is appropriate, just what would actually make the situation different. Here on TL, we see time and time again where as soon as the word "racism" is used, it's like the entire conversation dies. What if that conversation could continue without using the word "racism"? And it's not so much that I am advocating for totally dropping the word, I am just saying that I do believe more agreement could be reached with new terminology. Anyone saying we should stop using the word racism should redirect their energies to getting the people offended by it's legitimate use to stop being offended. Are you saying that you think using the word racism is an effective tool at communicating with the people whose view you are trying to change? You are approaching this from an ethical perspective, that's the issue. The ethical thing is for white people to process the systematic racism and all that. But be honest, do you see that ever happening? I'm saying there doesn't seem to be an effective way with communicating with people who can't even deal with the word racism being used. They've dug their heads in the sand and they've shown no signs that a discussion sans the word racism would be any more productive, it's usually the opposite. It almost always leads down a path towards "see white people are victims too", which displays that they had no idea what the discussion was about in the first place. Are you saying you don't think there exists an effective mechanism for communication and progress? What do you think will effectively end the shittiness that black people put up with?
Honestly, shitty people dying of old age and such, and the new generations not accepting their BS world views. Combined with white people eventually becoming a minority in the US.
So if the question is how do we accelerate that, I'd say by making sure we don't allow those views to be treated like they are worthy of discussion. We need to treat the absurdity of modern racism in the same way we would treat the idea of re-enslaving people (as that's basically what's happened with private prisons anyway).
But we're not changing racists minds (generally), particularly once they are over 30, at best we can hope to make them ashamed to say what they think in public.
That's one reason why the vanguard of change is almost always young people, because you don't really change older people's minds on this kind of stuff, you appeal to people who never really agreed with it (sometimes that includes older folks who held their contrarian view close to the vest).
EDIT: + Show Spoiler +A more modern way might be to get a bunch of racists and turn it into a survival reality show where they either learn to respect the people they are racist toward or perish. Maybe people could extrapolate and realize that's the reality we face both nationally and globally or maybe it just sells 100 million more "Americas" and lead's into an episode of "Ow My Balls!"
|
Ugh, loudmouth republican idiocy over guantanamo bay again (watching c-span house debate).
It's annoying when people in congress get to repeat things that simply aren't factually true over and over again.
|
On May 18 2016 06:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 05:52 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 18 2016 05:39 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 18 2016 05:22 SK.Testie wrote:
Because rioting and burning down buildings solves nothing. It will always hurt your own movement. The cameras made most people make up their mind about what happened there. So the systemic violations of constitutional and civil rights get ignored because people got footage of people raging against the machine... lol It's this ease with which people turn a violent reaction into the reason why progress isn't made that is at the source of so much of this problem. Had their rights not been systematically taken from them, they wouldn't have reacted in the first place. Anyone who dismisses those events without being outraged at what they were about isn't sincerely trying to address the problems at all, full stop. On May 18 2016 05:27 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 05:18 Plansix wrote:On May 18 2016 05:12 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 18 2016 04:52 SolaR- wrote:
[quote]
I disagree. I thought that racism was wrong since 9th grade of high school when i realized the ignorance of the people that i regularly associated with. I distanced myself from those types of people for that reason and many other reasons( most importantly I realized i was an atheist at a very young age and didn't want to be associated with people who didnt believe in evolution and people who thought that black people were less, etc) I also grew up in a predominately upper class white area with very few minorities.
It seems troubling that you didn't come to terms with your racism until your late 20s. In today's age with the internet and everything you have the opportuntiy to gain exposure to other opinions, so it doesn't seem like a valid excuse. While i agree that humans are inherently racist, it is easily combated or stifled from self awareness, intelligence, and knowledge. It is similiar to wrongs such as rape, murder, and incest. Most people view this as wrong and are certainly capable of being civilized and not succumbing to their carnal needs.
I would say the difference between us is that I grew up without religion, but religion seemed like a big part of your life( you're christian i believe?). Without religion i was able to grow and develop my own opinions and i wasn't circumvented by religious dogma. I was able to look at life freely without constraint of an authoritative religion. Religion is a great supresser which propably had an impact on other areas of your life. It indirectly limited your frame of thought which is probably the reason you held racist mindsets for so long. Your brain was stuck on that rigid outlook of life.
Now that you have become aware of your inherent racism, you actively become a huge proponent against racism. This reinvigorates a feeling of self-worth as you can feel proud that you are less racist than your white counterparts and it helps to deal with the guilt of your racist history.
Now this is all fine and dandy, but i noticed a bit of a problem with people that i have known who are similiar to you. White people, like you, begin to pity minorities instead of seeing them as one and the same. They see minorities as helpless victims instead of peers. They can only get there with the aid of the white man mentality. These people predominately associate with other white people, and rarely have any experience with other cultures or races. They have not integrated with any other culture but their own.
I hope i don't sound like an asshole. This is just my general perspective on some people. I think i associate you with those peope so correct me if i am wrong. but you have to keep in mind the discussion right now is how can we talk about racism without offending white people. No, the conversation is about how to get more people on your side. My point is that people may share your same goals while still being really sensitive to the word "racism". Take the issue of socialized medicine as an example. Call it socialized medicine and you'll get a hefty emotional response. Call it "expanding medicaid" and people look at it. Obviously not a perfect example, but there are numerous cases where just using a different word really brings people together and gets rid of a lot of divisiveness. The problem is, as many people have pointed out, at some point it becomes the people you are trying to convince avoiding the topic. Which is evident by this thread having this discussion for the 5 time in as many months. Mostly with the same people. You can only lead a horse to water so many times, as the saying goes. Edit: If white people were not sensitive, we would not be having this protracted discussion about racism and words that would be less offensive. I’ve been on the other side of this, we are sort of big babies about the R-word. I agree with every single thing you said. However, after how long do you try to adjust your message. The conversation goes like this: Black people: White people are racist White people: No we are not Repeat 10 x End conversation. So what benefit is really gained by "calling it like it is" and that sorta thing? If the end result is to make life better for black people, does it really matter how that happens? Do we need people to "admit" to what they've done, or do we just need black people to feel like equals? I'm not making an argument based on ethics or what is appropriate, just what would actually make the situation different. Here on TL, we see time and time again where as soon as the word "racism" is used, it's like the entire conversation dies. What if that conversation could continue without using the word "racism"? And it's not so much that I am advocating for totally dropping the word, I am just saying that I do believe more agreement could be reached with new terminology. Anyone saying we should stop using the word racism should redirect their energies to getting the people offended by it's legitimate use to stop being offended. Are you saying that you think using the word racism is an effective tool at communicating with the people whose view you are trying to change? You are approaching this from an ethical perspective, that's the issue. The ethical thing is for white people to process the systematic racism and all that. But be honest, do you see that ever happening? I'm saying there doesn't seem to be an effective way with communicating with people who can't even deal with the word racism being used. They've dug their heads in the sand and they've shown no signs that a discussion sans the word racism would be any more productive, it's usually the opposite. It almost always leads down a path towards "see white people are victims too", which displays that they had no idea what the discussion was about in the first place. Are you saying you don't think there exists an effective mechanism for communication and progress? What do you think will effectively end the shittiness that black people put up with? Honestly, shitty people dying of old age and such, and the new generations not accepting their BS world views. Combined with white people eventually becoming a minority in the US. So if the question is how do we accelerate that, I'd say by making sure we don't allow those views to be treated like they are worthy of discussion. We need to treat the absurdity of modern racism in the same way we would treat the idea of re-enslaving people (as that's basically what's happened with private prisons anyway). But we're not changing racists minds (generally), particularly once they are over 30, at best we can hope to make them ashamed to say what they think in public. That's one reason why the vanguard of change is almost always young people, because you don't really change older people's minds on this kind of stuff, you appeal to people who never really agreed with it (sometimes that includes older folks who held their contrarian view close to the vest). EDIT: + Show Spoiler +A more modern way might be to get a bunch of racists and turn it into a survival reality show where they either learn to respect the people they are racist toward or perish. Maybe people could extrapolate and realize that's the reality we face both nationally and globally or maybe it just sells 100 million more "Americas" and lead's into an episode of "Ow My Balls!"
Well judging by this, you're going to put a lot of black people on your racist genocide reality show. No voter block votes more based on skin colour than this.
![[image loading]](http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/publications/1023-2.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/publications/1023-3.gif)
|
On May 18 2016 06:24 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2016 06:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 18 2016 05:52 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 18 2016 05:39 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 18 2016 05:22 SK.Testie wrote:
Because rioting and burning down buildings solves nothing. It will always hurt your own movement. The cameras made most people make up their mind about what happened there. So the systemic violations of constitutional and civil rights get ignored because people got footage of people raging against the machine... lol It's this ease with which people turn a violent reaction into the reason why progress isn't made that is at the source of so much of this problem. Had their rights not been systematically taken from them, they wouldn't have reacted in the first place. Anyone who dismisses those events without being outraged at what they were about isn't sincerely trying to address the problems at all, full stop. On May 18 2016 05:27 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 05:18 Plansix wrote:On May 18 2016 05:12 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2016 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
but you have to keep in mind the discussion right now is how can we talk about racism without offending white people. No, the conversation is about how to get more people on your side. My point is that people may share your same goals while still being really sensitive to the word "racism". Take the issue of socialized medicine as an example. Call it socialized medicine and you'll get a hefty emotional response. Call it "expanding medicaid" and people look at it. Obviously not a perfect example, but there are numerous cases where just using a different word really brings people together and gets rid of a lot of divisiveness. The problem is, as many people have pointed out, at some point it becomes the people you are trying to convince avoiding the topic. Which is evident by this thread having this discussion for the 5 time in as many months. Mostly with the same people. You can only lead a horse to water so many times, as the saying goes. Edit: If white people were not sensitive, we would not be having this protracted discussion about racism and words that would be less offensive. I’ve been on the other side of this, we are sort of big babies about the R-word. I agree with every single thing you said. However, after how long do you try to adjust your message. The conversation goes like this: Black people: White people are racist White people: No we are not Repeat 10 x End conversation. So what benefit is really gained by "calling it like it is" and that sorta thing? If the end result is to make life better for black people, does it really matter how that happens? Do we need people to "admit" to what they've done, or do we just need black people to feel like equals? I'm not making an argument based on ethics or what is appropriate, just what would actually make the situation different. Here on TL, we see time and time again where as soon as the word "racism" is used, it's like the entire conversation dies. What if that conversation could continue without using the word "racism"? And it's not so much that I am advocating for totally dropping the word, I am just saying that I do believe more agreement could be reached with new terminology. Anyone saying we should stop using the word racism should redirect their energies to getting the people offended by it's legitimate use to stop being offended. Are you saying that you think using the word racism is an effective tool at communicating with the people whose view you are trying to change? You are approaching this from an ethical perspective, that's the issue. The ethical thing is for white people to process the systematic racism and all that. But be honest, do you see that ever happening? I'm saying there doesn't seem to be an effective way with communicating with people who can't even deal with the word racism being used. They've dug their heads in the sand and they've shown no signs that a discussion sans the word racism would be any more productive, it's usually the opposite. It almost always leads down a path towards "see white people are victims too", which displays that they had no idea what the discussion was about in the first place. Are you saying you don't think there exists an effective mechanism for communication and progress? What do you think will effectively end the shittiness that black people put up with? Honestly, shitty people dying of old age and such, and the new generations not accepting their BS world views. Combined with white people eventually becoming a minority in the US. So if the question is how do we accelerate that, I'd say by making sure we don't allow those views to be treated like they are worthy of discussion. We need to treat the absurdity of modern racism in the same way we would treat the idea of re-enslaving people (as that's basically what's happened with private prisons anyway). But we're not changing racists minds (generally), particularly once they are over 30, at best we can hope to make them ashamed to say what they think in public. That's one reason why the vanguard of change is almost always young people, because you don't really change older people's minds on this kind of stuff, you appeal to people who never really agreed with it (sometimes that includes older folks who held their contrarian view close to the vest). EDIT: + Show Spoiler +A more modern way might be to get a bunch of racists and turn it into a survival reality show where they either learn to respect the people they are racist toward or perish. Maybe people could extrapolate and realize that's the reality we face both nationally and globally or maybe it just sells 100 million more "Americas" and lead's into an episode of "Ow My Balls!" Well judging by this, you're going to put a lot of black people on your racist genocide reality show. No voter block votes more based on skin colour than this. + Show Spoiler +
lol. I think I'll leave it at us not agreeing on what racism is and who our target contestants would be.
|
You must buy into the privilege + power meme. That's a meme. Racism is just disliking / hating / fearing people who are another race. No more, no less.
|
Um...John Kerry got like 90% of the black vote in 2004. Gore got 90% too. Blacks don't vote Republican. Obama got an extra like 5%. It has nothing to do with skin color, since the Republicans do literally nothing to try and court the black vote.
Edit: The most amusing part of this discussion is the assumption that we learned all about racism/power/privilege on the internet through memes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
