|
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 September 14 2017 01:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 01:23 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 01:09 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 00:44 farvacola wrote:
Yep, just like "racism" Don't look at me, y'all are the ones who want to change the definition of racism. We are just using the MLK version of racism. And this is real history’s MLK. Not Football coach that also teaches watered down social studies MLK. This is the super angry MLK that said violence wasn’t the answer and moderate whites were the greatest obstacles to equality. What you guys keep missing and haven't adequately explained is why you think that MLK's words apply to the vastly different circumstances that exist today. Like I said before, the Civil Rights Act and its judicial enforcement eliminated virtually all of what MLK fought against. That is because a white dude killed him, not because he finished his work. The problem with your argument is that you assume that MLK fought against all the things you are comfortable labeling as racism and nothing more. The mass incarceration of black men would likely be a huge issue for him. Or the return to economic segregation of blacks in cities. But again a white dude killed MLK, so he exists in this state where all the shape edges can be refined off and he is sanitized to make white people feel comfortable with the status quo. You don't need to confront the idea that when he was talking about moderate whites, he was talking about you. I'm not the one who is presuming anything. I don't really know what MLK would think of today's race relations. Y'all are the ones who are conclusively saying that conservatives are misapplying his principles and whitewashing his legacy. I'm merely asking y'all to explain yourselves, which you have a done a demonstrably shitty job of doing.
Oh the irony.
User was warned for this post
|
On September 14 2017 01:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 01:23 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 01:09 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 00:44 farvacola wrote:
Yep, just like "racism" Don't look at me, y'all are the ones who want to change the definition of racism. We are just using the MLK version of racism. And this is real history’s MLK. Not Football coach that also teaches watered down social studies MLK. This is the super angry MLK that said violence wasn’t the answer and moderate whites were the greatest obstacles to equality. What you guys keep missing and haven't adequately explained is why you think that MLK's words apply to the vastly different circumstances that exist today. Like I said before, the Civil Rights Act and its judicial enforcement eliminated virtually all of what MLK fought against. That is because a white dude killed him, not because he finished his work. The problem with your argument is that you assume that MLK fought against all the things you are comfortable labeling as racism and nothing more. The mass incarceration of black men would likely be a huge issue for him. Or the return to economic segregation of blacks in cities. But again a white dude killed MLK, so he exists in this state where all the shape edges can be refined off and he is sanitized to make white people feel comfortable with the status quo. You don't need to confront the idea that when he was talking about moderate whites, he was talking about you. I'm not the one who is presuming anything. I don't really know what MLK would think of today's race relations. Y'all are the ones who are conclusively saying that conservatives are misapplying his principles and whitewashing his legacy. I'm merely asking y'all to explain yourselves, which you have a done a demonstrably shitty job of doing.
I completely disagree. You are presuming that MLK would feel that equality had been reached in the modern era. That he would not side with current fights against discrimination. You provide little evidence to back up this claim beyond the fact that racist laws existed in the 1960 and they are now gone. Then go you about demanding that we prove your presumption incorrect, be acting as if your presumption is given fact. You are doing a shit job of backing up your wild assertion that MLK wouldn't have fought racism until his dying breath.
|
On September 14 2017 01:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 01:10 Ghostcom wrote:On September 14 2017 00:57 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 00:44 farvacola wrote:
Yep, just like "racism" Clearly we need to define words by the meanings that make us feel comfortable. Like "sexpositive". That is two words.
Apparently it should actually be hyphenated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_movement
But I trust that you got my point regardless.
|
On September 14 2017 01:41 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 01:26 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:10 Ghostcom wrote:On September 14 2017 00:57 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 00:44 farvacola wrote:
Yep, just like "racism" Clearly we need to define words by the meanings that make us feel comfortable. Like "sexpositive". That is two words. Apparently it should actually be hyphenated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_movementBut I trust that you got my point regardless.
I learn new things every day. And I understand the point. Though I think it is a stretch to say that sex-positive is redefining either of the words.
|
On September 14 2017 01:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 01:28 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 01:23 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 01:09 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 00:44 farvacola wrote:
Yep, just like "racism" Don't look at me, y'all are the ones who want to change the definition of racism. We are just using the MLK version of racism. And this is real history’s MLK. Not Football coach that also teaches watered down social studies MLK. This is the super angry MLK that said violence wasn’t the answer and moderate whites were the greatest obstacles to equality. What you guys keep missing and haven't adequately explained is why you think that MLK's words apply to the vastly different circumstances that exist today. Like I said before, the Civil Rights Act and its judicial enforcement eliminated virtually all of what MLK fought against. That is because a white dude killed him, not because he finished his work. The problem with your argument is that you assume that MLK fought against all the things you are comfortable labeling as racism and nothing more. The mass incarceration of black men would likely be a huge issue for him. Or the return to economic segregation of blacks in cities. But again a white dude killed MLK, so he exists in this state where all the shape edges can be refined off and he is sanitized to make white people feel comfortable with the status quo. You don't need to confront the idea that when he was talking about moderate whites, he was talking about you. I'm not the one who is presuming anything. I don't really know what MLK would think of today's race relations. Y'all are the ones who are conclusively saying that conservatives are misapplying his principles and whitewashing his legacy. I'm merely asking y'all to explain yourselves, which you have a done a demonstrably shitty job of doing. I completely disagree. You are presuming that MLK would feel that equality had been reached in the modern era. That he would not side with current fights against discrimination. You provide little evidence to back up this claim beyond the fact that racist laws existed in the 1960 and they are now gone. Then go you about demanding that we prove your presumption incorrect, be acting as if your presumption is given fact. You are doing a shit job of backing up your wild assertion that MLK wouldn't have fought racism until his dying breath.
Where do I do that?
|
Congressional GOP is fucked (and rightly so):
Despite their failure to advance President Trump’s agenda, congressional Republicans aren’t happy about his outreach to Democrats in the House and Senate, but most voters think it’s a great idea.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 66% of Likely U.S. Voters say it is good for the country if Trump works with congressional Democrats to advance his agenda. Just 13% think the bipartisan cooperation is bad for the country, while 21% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Only 19% believe the president should continue to rely on congressional Republicans to pass his agenda. That’s down from 29% in early April. Sixty-five percent (65%) now feel he should reach out more to Democrats in Congress for help versus 58% who felt that way five months ago. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.
Republicans (72%) are even more enthusiastic about the president working with congressional Democrats than Democrats (62%) and voters not affiliated with either major party (63%) are.
Source.
|
On September 14 2017 01:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 01:40 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:28 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 01:23 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 01:09 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 00:44 farvacola wrote:
Yep, just like "racism" Don't look at me, y'all are the ones who want to change the definition of racism. We are just using the MLK version of racism. And this is real history’s MLK. Not Football coach that also teaches watered down social studies MLK. This is the super angry MLK that said violence wasn’t the answer and moderate whites were the greatest obstacles to equality. What you guys keep missing and haven't adequately explained is why you think that MLK's words apply to the vastly different circumstances that exist today. Like I said before, the Civil Rights Act and its judicial enforcement eliminated virtually all of what MLK fought against. That is because a white dude killed him, not because he finished his work. The problem with your argument is that you assume that MLK fought against all the things you are comfortable labeling as racism and nothing more. The mass incarceration of black men would likely be a huge issue for him. Or the return to economic segregation of blacks in cities. But again a white dude killed MLK, so he exists in this state where all the shape edges can be refined off and he is sanitized to make white people feel comfortable with the status quo. You don't need to confront the idea that when he was talking about moderate whites, he was talking about you. I'm not the one who is presuming anything. I don't really know what MLK would think of today's race relations. Y'all are the ones who are conclusively saying that conservatives are misapplying his principles and whitewashing his legacy. I'm merely asking y'all to explain yourselves, which you have a done a demonstrably shitty job of doing. I completely disagree. You are presuming that MLK would feel that equality had been reached in the modern era. That he would not side with current fights against discrimination. You provide little evidence to back up this claim beyond the fact that racist laws existed in the 1960 and they are now gone. Then go you about demanding that we prove your presumption incorrect, be acting as if your presumption is given fact. You are doing a shit job of backing up your wild assertion that MLK wouldn't have fought racism until his dying breath. Where do I do that?
From yesterday.
On September 13 2017 10:47 xDaunt wrote:
I'm not on board with this idea that MLK necessarily would have endorsed the current iterations of identity politics and the black civil rights movement. When he wrote his letter from Birmingham jail and talked about the systemic oppression of black people, he was describing something very different than what exists today. He was talking true discriminatory practices -- the type that were all but wiped out by the Civil Rights Act and its judicial application over the following 20+ years.
Now, in classic "Xdaunt:I'm a lawyer and know how to hid the flaws in my argument" fashion, you leave yourself some wiggle room by using the terms identity politics(bad attempts at equality) and current iterations. It leaves you the ability to say "he would have fought racism, but the real kind. Not the kind BLM is fighting, that is bad". But then you go into the classic, tired argument that all the things he was fighting against went away. Which is assisted by him dying before that happened, so no one can prove you wrong. But at its core, you argue that King might fight for equality in the modern era, but he would be fighting a fight you could approve of, not the one that is happening now.
But in reality, a lot of the civil rights leaders didn't agree with King in his own time. There was a lot of internal conflict with in the civil rights movement. There is nothing to think that he wouldn't be fighting the same fight right up until the end of his life. And since he wouldn't' have been martyred for the cause of civil rights, I'm sure most whites would still see him as a trouble maker that causes problems where there are not really problems.
|
On September 14 2017 01:49 xDaunt wrote:Congressional GOP is fucked (and rightly so): Show nested quote +Despite their failure to advance President Trump’s agenda, congressional Republicans aren’t happy about his outreach to Democrats in the House and Senate, but most voters think it’s a great idea.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 66% of Likely U.S. Voters say it is good for the country if Trump works with congressional Democrats to advance his agenda. Just 13% think the bipartisan cooperation is bad for the country, while 21% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Only 19% believe the president should continue to rely on congressional Republicans to pass his agenda. That’s down from 29% in early April. Sixty-five percent (65%) now feel he should reach out more to Democrats in Congress for help versus 58% who felt that way five months ago. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.
Republicans (72%) are even more enthusiastic about the president working with congressional Democrats than Democrats (62%) and voters not affiliated with either major party (63%) are. Source.
At the end of the day, the congressional GOP is plain and simply failing to do things. Their performance numbers are poor.
Incrementalism works and is better than transformative approaches.
|
On September 14 2017 01:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 01:23 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 01:09 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 00:44 farvacola wrote:
Yep, just like "racism" Don't look at me, y'all are the ones who want to change the definition of racism. We are just using the MLK version of racism. And this is real history’s MLK. Not Football coach that also teaches watered down social studies MLK. This is the super angry MLK that said violence wasn’t the answer and moderate whites were the greatest obstacles to equality. What you guys keep missing and haven't adequately explained is why you think that MLK's words apply to the vastly different circumstances that exist today. Like I said before, the Civil Rights Act and its judicial enforcement eliminated virtually all of what MLK fought against. That is because a white dude killed him, not because he finished his work. The problem with your argument is that you assume that MLK fought against all the things you are comfortable labeling as racism and nothing more. The mass incarceration of black men would likely be a huge issue for him. Or the return to economic segregation of blacks in cities. But again a white dude killed MLK, so he exists in this state where all the shape edges can be refined off and he is sanitized to make white people feel comfortable with the status quo. You don't need to confront the idea that when he was talking about moderate whites, he was talking about you. I'm not the one who is presuming anything. I don't really know what MLK would think of today's race relations. Y'all are the ones who are conclusively saying that conservatives are misapplying his principles and whitewashing his legacy. I'm merely asking y'all to explain yourselves, which you have a done a demonstrably shitty job of doing.
But they are? Go to any large city with a large number of black people. You can't say Colorado has a large number of black people because they don't. Visit Miami, NY, California, and everything that MLK was fighting against still exist till this day. If you fail to see it, then you're ignorant.
|
On September 14 2017 01:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 01:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 01:40 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:28 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 01:23 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 01:09 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 00:44 farvacola wrote:
Yep, just like "racism" Don't look at me, y'all are the ones who want to change the definition of racism. We are just using the MLK version of racism. And this is real history’s MLK. Not Football coach that also teaches watered down social studies MLK. This is the super angry MLK that said violence wasn’t the answer and moderate whites were the greatest obstacles to equality. What you guys keep missing and haven't adequately explained is why you think that MLK's words apply to the vastly different circumstances that exist today. Like I said before, the Civil Rights Act and its judicial enforcement eliminated virtually all of what MLK fought against. That is because a white dude killed him, not because he finished his work. The problem with your argument is that you assume that MLK fought against all the things you are comfortable labeling as racism and nothing more. The mass incarceration of black men would likely be a huge issue for him. Or the return to economic segregation of blacks in cities. But again a white dude killed MLK, so he exists in this state where all the shape edges can be refined off and he is sanitized to make white people feel comfortable with the status quo. You don't need to confront the idea that when he was talking about moderate whites, he was talking about you. I'm not the one who is presuming anything. I don't really know what MLK would think of today's race relations. Y'all are the ones who are conclusively saying that conservatives are misapplying his principles and whitewashing his legacy. I'm merely asking y'all to explain yourselves, which you have a done a demonstrably shitty job of doing. I completely disagree. You are presuming that MLK would feel that equality had been reached in the modern era. That he would not side with current fights against discrimination. You provide little evidence to back up this claim beyond the fact that racist laws existed in the 1960 and they are now gone. Then go you about demanding that we prove your presumption incorrect, be acting as if your presumption is given fact. You are doing a shit job of backing up your wild assertion that MLK wouldn't have fought racism until his dying breath. Where do I do that? From yesterday. Show nested quote +On September 13 2017 10:47 xDaunt wrote:
I'm not on board with this idea that MLK necessarily would have endorsed the current iterations of identity politics and the black civil rights movement. When he wrote his letter from Birmingham jail and talked about the systemic oppression of black people, he was describing something very different than what exists today. He was talking true discriminatory practices -- the type that were all but wiped out by the Civil Rights Act and its judicial application over the following 20+ years. Now, in classic "Xdaunt:I'm a lawyer and know how to hid the flaws in my argument" fashion, you leave yourself some wiggle room by using the term identity politics(bad attempts at equality) and current iterations. It leaves you the ability to say "he would have fought racism, but the real kind. Not the kind BLM is fighting, that is bad". But then you go into the classic, tired argument that all the things he was fighting against went away. Which is assisted by him dying before that happened, so no one can prove you wrong. King might fight for equality in the modern era, but he would be fighting a fight you could approve of, not the one that is happening now. But in reality, a lot of the civil rights leaders didn't agree with King in his own time. There was a lot of internal conflict with in the civil rights movement. There is nothing to think that he wouldn't be fighting the same fight right up until the end of his life. And since he wouldn't' have been martyred for the cause of civil rights, I'm sure most whites would still see him as a trouble maker that causes problems where there are not really problems.
Surely you understand that there are logical differences between saying "X is true," "X is not true," and "X or Y may be true," right? All of my statements have been in line with the last of those. On the other hand, you are quite eager to say "X is not true" and (by implication if not expressly that "Y is true"). Now, I'm not exactly known for being shy with my opinions, so if I really thought that MLK would shit on the current iteration of the civil rights movement, you can bet that I would. However, I don't see the man as being as infallible as popular culture would have us believe, so I really wouldn't be surprised if he signed on with second-rate shysters like Al Sharpton Jesse Jackson or decided to adopt the radical identitarian politics of the modern left. What I do know is what MLK was fighting against in his time and by extension, what he was describing, in his speeches and in his writings. Those are very clearly different circumstances than what exist today, which I know that y'all hate to admit.
|
In other, fun and amusing news:
Nun With A Chainsaw Becomes Symbol Of Post-Irma Cleanup: 'She Rocks'
The cleanup after Hurricane Irma is a massive undertaking, after the destructive storm hit Florida and neighboring states over the weekend. In Miami, a nun chipped in to clear trees in her neighborhood — and no one, it seems, can resist a story about a chainsaw-wielding nun.
Sister Margaret Ann was spotted at work by an off-duty officer of the Miami-Dade Police Department, which posted video and images from the scene Tuesday.
The department calls the sister's work another sign that Miami's community will work together to repair what Irma broke, writing on its Facebook page, "Thank you Sister and all of our neighbors that are working together to get through this!"
Sister Margaret Ann is the principal of Archbishop Coleman F. Carroll High School, southwest of downtown Miami, which wrote on its Facebook page early Wednesday, "We are so blessed to have her and the Carmelite Sisters at our school. We are proud of the example they show for our students and other members of the community every day."
The phrase "chainsaw-wielding nun" is one we didn't know we would need to use in the wake of Irma, but it shows the breadth of the work it will take to recover from this storm — in Florida, in neighboring states and in the Caribbean.
The nun with a chainsaw habit quickly drew interest beyond Miami. She made headlines in England; CNN interviewed her Tuesday night.
....
Source
|
On September 14 2017 02:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 01:28 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 01:23 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 01:09 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 00:44 farvacola wrote:
Yep, just like "racism" Don't look at me, y'all are the ones who want to change the definition of racism. We are just using the MLK version of racism. And this is real history’s MLK. Not Football coach that also teaches watered down social studies MLK. This is the super angry MLK that said violence wasn’t the answer and moderate whites were the greatest obstacles to equality. What you guys keep missing and haven't adequately explained is why you think that MLK's words apply to the vastly different circumstances that exist today. Like I said before, the Civil Rights Act and its judicial enforcement eliminated virtually all of what MLK fought against. That is because a white dude killed him, not because he finished his work. The problem with your argument is that you assume that MLK fought against all the things you are comfortable labeling as racism and nothing more. The mass incarceration of black men would likely be a huge issue for him. Or the return to economic segregation of blacks in cities. But again a white dude killed MLK, so he exists in this state where all the shape edges can be refined off and he is sanitized to make white people feel comfortable with the status quo. You don't need to confront the idea that when he was talking about moderate whites, he was talking about you. I'm not the one who is presuming anything. I don't really know what MLK would think of today's race relations. Y'all are the ones who are conclusively saying that conservatives are misapplying his principles and whitewashing his legacy. I'm merely asking y'all to explain yourselves, which you have a done a demonstrably shitty job of doing. But they are? Go to any large city with a large number of black people. You can't say Colorado has a large number of black people because they don't. Visit Miami, NY, California, and everything that MLK was fighting against still exist till this day. If you fail to see it, then you're ignorant.
Y'all keep saying that it's the same now as it was in Jim Crow/pre-1965 South, but you offer no explanation. Feel free to be the first to make a compelling argument.
|
United States43927 Posts
On September 14 2017 02:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 02:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:On September 14 2017 01:28 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 01:23 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 01:09 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 00:44 farvacola wrote:
Yep, just like "racism" Don't look at me, y'all are the ones who want to change the definition of racism. We are just using the MLK version of racism. And this is real history’s MLK. Not Football coach that also teaches watered down social studies MLK. This is the super angry MLK that said violence wasn’t the answer and moderate whites were the greatest obstacles to equality. What you guys keep missing and haven't adequately explained is why you think that MLK's words apply to the vastly different circumstances that exist today. Like I said before, the Civil Rights Act and its judicial enforcement eliminated virtually all of what MLK fought against. That is because a white dude killed him, not because he finished his work. The problem with your argument is that you assume that MLK fought against all the things you are comfortable labeling as racism and nothing more. The mass incarceration of black men would likely be a huge issue for him. Or the return to economic segregation of blacks in cities. But again a white dude killed MLK, so he exists in this state where all the shape edges can be refined off and he is sanitized to make white people feel comfortable with the status quo. You don't need to confront the idea that when he was talking about moderate whites, he was talking about you. I'm not the one who is presuming anything. I don't really know what MLK would think of today's race relations. Y'all are the ones who are conclusively saying that conservatives are misapplying his principles and whitewashing his legacy. I'm merely asking y'all to explain yourselves, which you have a done a demonstrably shitty job of doing. But they are? Go to any large city with a large number of black people. You can't say Colorado has a large number of black people because they don't. Visit Miami, NY, California, and everything that MLK was fighting against still exist till this day. If you fail to see it, then you're ignorant. Y'all keep saying that it's same now as it was in Jim Crow/pre-1965 South, but you offer no explanation. Feel free to be the first to make a compelling argument.
"racism is still a problem" is not the same argument as "it is the same now as it was before the civil rights movement".
|
On September 14 2017 02:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 02:06 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 02:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:On September 14 2017 01:28 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 01:23 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 01:09 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 00:44 farvacola wrote:
Yep, just like "racism" Don't look at me, y'all are the ones who want to change the definition of racism. We are just using the MLK version of racism. And this is real history’s MLK. Not Football coach that also teaches watered down social studies MLK. This is the super angry MLK that said violence wasn’t the answer and moderate whites were the greatest obstacles to equality. What you guys keep missing and haven't adequately explained is why you think that MLK's words apply to the vastly different circumstances that exist today. Like I said before, the Civil Rights Act and its judicial enforcement eliminated virtually all of what MLK fought against. That is because a white dude killed him, not because he finished his work. The problem with your argument is that you assume that MLK fought against all the things you are comfortable labeling as racism and nothing more. The mass incarceration of black men would likely be a huge issue for him. Or the return to economic segregation of blacks in cities. But again a white dude killed MLK, so he exists in this state where all the shape edges can be refined off and he is sanitized to make white people feel comfortable with the status quo. You don't need to confront the idea that when he was talking about moderate whites, he was talking about you. I'm not the one who is presuming anything. I don't really know what MLK would think of today's race relations. Y'all are the ones who are conclusively saying that conservatives are misapplying his principles and whitewashing his legacy. I'm merely asking y'all to explain yourselves, which you have a done a demonstrably shitty job of doing. But they are? Go to any large city with a large number of black people. You can't say Colorado has a large number of black people because they don't. Visit Miami, NY, California, and everything that MLK was fighting against still exist till this day. If you fail to see it, then you're ignorant. Y'all keep saying that it's same now as it was in Jim Crow/pre-1965 South, but you offer no explanation. Feel free to be the first to make a compelling argument. "racism is still a problem" is not the same argument as "it is the same now as it was before the civil rights movement".
Did you read his statement? He said "everything MLK was fighting against still exist till this day." I'm asking for his explanation.
EDIT: And I'm happy to open up the question to anyone else. To contextualize everything, I've seen multiple posters rather aggressively conclude that MLK would reject the conservative take on what his thoughts on race relations would be today if he were still around. In support of that contention, they have pointed to things that he has said (like the letter from jail). So my question has been how are those writings and statements relevant given that he was describing very different circumstances than those that exist today. Some people (like Shockeyy) then asserted that the circumstances are no different, so I'd like an explanation for that, too.
|
On September 14 2017 02:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 02:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:On September 14 2017 01:28 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 01:23 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 01:09 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 00:44 farvacola wrote:
Yep, just like "racism" Don't look at me, y'all are the ones who want to change the definition of racism. We are just using the MLK version of racism. And this is real history’s MLK. Not Football coach that also teaches watered down social studies MLK. This is the super angry MLK that said violence wasn’t the answer and moderate whites were the greatest obstacles to equality. What you guys keep missing and haven't adequately explained is why you think that MLK's words apply to the vastly different circumstances that exist today. Like I said before, the Civil Rights Act and its judicial enforcement eliminated virtually all of what MLK fought against. That is because a white dude killed him, not because he finished his work. The problem with your argument is that you assume that MLK fought against all the things you are comfortable labeling as racism and nothing more. The mass incarceration of black men would likely be a huge issue for him. Or the return to economic segregation of blacks in cities. But again a white dude killed MLK, so he exists in this state where all the shape edges can be refined off and he is sanitized to make white people feel comfortable with the status quo. You don't need to confront the idea that when he was talking about moderate whites, he was talking about you. I'm not the one who is presuming anything. I don't really know what MLK would think of today's race relations. Y'all are the ones who are conclusively saying that conservatives are misapplying his principles and whitewashing his legacy. I'm merely asking y'all to explain yourselves, which you have a done a demonstrably shitty job of doing. But they are? Go to any large city with a large number of black people. You can't say Colorado has a large number of black people because they don't. Visit Miami, NY, California, and everything that MLK was fighting against still exist till this day. If you fail to see it, then you're ignorant. Y'all keep saying that it's same now as it was in Jim Crow/pre-1965 South, but you offer no explanation. Feel free to be the first to make a compelling argument.
Education in black communities is at an all time low still. Through out all the decades since "segregation" was eliminated, the education given to them was a failure. They didn't provide an education, they provided a gateway into drugs, all the kids raised during the 50's came into the 60's and 70's hard on drugs because around this time, the CIA decided to experiment with drugs in the public. Only the government really knows, but I don't doubt they targeted black communities first with the influx of drugs, including the "war on drugs" which we all know was with racist intent. It harmed all minority communities in general.
If you look at current data from PEW research:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/01/racial-gender-wage-gaps-persist-in-u-s-despite-some-progress/
The wage gap shows that there still some level of segregation due to education. The only thing MLK was able to give us minorities, was the voice to be heard. Now we're speaking and we have people who are just ignoring because they swear "Everything is fine the way it is"...
|
On September 14 2017 02:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 02:09 KwarK wrote:On September 14 2017 02:06 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 02:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:On September 14 2017 01:28 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 01:23 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 01:09 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 00:44 farvacola wrote:
Yep, just like "racism" Don't look at me, y'all are the ones who want to change the definition of racism. We are just using the MLK version of racism. And this is real history’s MLK. Not Football coach that also teaches watered down social studies MLK. This is the super angry MLK that said violence wasn’t the answer and moderate whites were the greatest obstacles to equality. What you guys keep missing and haven't adequately explained is why you think that MLK's words apply to the vastly different circumstances that exist today. Like I said before, the Civil Rights Act and its judicial enforcement eliminated virtually all of what MLK fought against. That is because a white dude killed him, not because he finished his work. The problem with your argument is that you assume that MLK fought against all the things you are comfortable labeling as racism and nothing more. The mass incarceration of black men would likely be a huge issue for him. Or the return to economic segregation of blacks in cities. But again a white dude killed MLK, so he exists in this state where all the shape edges can be refined off and he is sanitized to make white people feel comfortable with the status quo. You don't need to confront the idea that when he was talking about moderate whites, he was talking about you. I'm not the one who is presuming anything. I don't really know what MLK would think of today's race relations. Y'all are the ones who are conclusively saying that conservatives are misapplying his principles and whitewashing his legacy. I'm merely asking y'all to explain yourselves, which you have a done a demonstrably shitty job of doing. But they are? Go to any large city with a large number of black people. You can't say Colorado has a large number of black people because they don't. Visit Miami, NY, California, and everything that MLK was fighting against still exist till this day. If you fail to see it, then you're ignorant. Y'all keep saying that it's same now as it was in Jim Crow/pre-1965 South, but you offer no explanation. Feel free to be the first to make a compelling argument. "racism is still a problem" is not the same argument as "it is the same now as it was before the civil rights movement". Did you read his statement? He said "everything MLK was fighting against still exist till this day." I'm asking for his explanation.
That is factual. There is still gross income and wealth inequality. Blacks lack representation equal to their place in the population in all aspects of power, either through poverty or local discrimination. Removing the laws that held them back was just the first step in the long process. It was a decades long plan of removing barriers that held blacks back. You can't just limit it to the laws and say that was all he was fighting against, because it wasn't.
|
On September 14 2017 01:49 xDaunt wrote:Congressional GOP is fucked (and rightly so): Show nested quote +Despite their failure to advance President Trump’s agenda, congressional Republicans aren’t happy about his outreach to Democrats in the House and Senate, but most voters think it’s a great idea.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 66% of Likely U.S. Voters say it is good for the country if Trump works with congressional Democrats to advance his agenda. Just 13% think the bipartisan cooperation is bad for the country, while 21% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Only 19% believe the president should continue to rely on congressional Republicans to pass his agenda. That’s down from 29% in early April. Sixty-five percent (65%) now feel he should reach out more to Democrats in Congress for help versus 58% who felt that way five months ago. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.
Republicans (72%) are even more enthusiastic about the president working with congressional Democrats than Democrats (62%) and voters not affiliated with either major party (63%) are. Source.
moderate Democratic politics seems to be pretty popular as long as the party label isn't attached to them. They seem to have a marketing problem
|
On September 14 2017 00:40 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 00:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 00:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The great thing about Hillary's book is that everybody is going to get a really good, unvarnished look at what a selfish and entitled bitch she is. She's giving everybody closure. Sometimes, if only briefly, Hillary's inability to shut the fuck up and accept shameful defeat gracefully makes me think, you know, that maybe Trump being president isn't so bad after all. He's fairly harmless ("destroying democracy" alarmists aside) relative to the more targeted and grand-scale incompetence we would get with Hillary Clinton. At the very least the Democrats get a chance to look at themselves in a mirror and realize that below the surface of a once-charming Obama they allowed themselves to rot and die from the inside. Obama himself somehow took a level in stupid in his last 6 or so months of being president. It left me a bit blindsided because I actually thought he was a good president most of the time.
I won't agree with you on Obama, but you're dead-on with Clinton. It's ironic, actually. She was criticized for appearing robotic and every bit of genuine emotion was staged and rehearsed. Now she's showing her absolutely human side. She blamed everyone but herself for her failures, and almost a year later, still blames everybody but herself for her failures. That kind of stubbornness is a genuine human failing and she is very honest about it.
|
I concur with the impression that the Dems have had poor marketing for awhile.
|
That book seems to be a mirror where people see their view of Clinton reflected in it. One of my attorney’s is reading it and she says that Clinton accepts a lot of the blame on miscalculations and other issues. It is like there are two separate books traveling around. Maybe its all true? She accepts blame, but is very happy to blame a lot of other people. And maybe those people are way too eager heap all the blame her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
