|
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 27 2017 03:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 03:40 Mohdoo wrote:On September 27 2017 03:38 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2017 03:33 Wulfey_LA wrote:On September 27 2017 03:20 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2017 03:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:On September 27 2017 02:49 Plansix wrote:Of course that slid under everyone's radara, that he talked with a vet about the most respectful way to protest. That he was thoughtful and understood the gravity of what he wanted to do. I might send that to my brother. Or maybe have my mother do it. Eric Reid (Colin's kneeling teammate) also had some great remarks that should tag along with those ones. He does a great job cutting through the Republican partisan spin on this issue. I approached Colin the Saturday before our next game to discuss how I could get involved with the cause but also how we could make a more powerful and positive impact on the social justice movement. We spoke at length about many of the issues that face our community, including systemic oppression against people of color, police brutality and the criminal justice system. We also discussed how we could use our platform, provided to us by being professional athletes in the N.F.L., to speak for those who are voiceless.
After hours of careful consideration, and even a visit from Nate Boyer, a retired Green Beret and former N.F.L. player, we came to the conclusion that we should kneel, rather than sit, the next day during the anthem as a peaceful protest. We chose to kneel because it’s a respectful gesture. I remember thinking our posture was like a flag flown at half-mast to mark a tragedy. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/opinion/colin-kaepernick-football-protests.html?smid=fb-share Except the issue isn't the kneeling or even the sitting. It's the message behind those actions. Yeah, it is the message behind the actions that matter. But the official republican spin is that this is about the <flag/actions/disrespect>, not about protesting the disparate impact of <Officer Use of Force incidents>. Trump/Republicans/Newt/Hannity/FOX are sticking to <flag/actions/disrespect> spin because that is a much easier ground upon which to spin up some white grievance. Talking about <Officer Use of Force incidents> and how they come down heavier and bloodier on people of darker complexion is a hard issue that Republicans would rather pretend doesn't exist. I am surprised that you are accepting the premises of the Lib side here. I don't think that there are meaningful grounds to distinguish between the message and the action. The bottom line is that Kaepernick is intentionally condemning and showing disrespect for the country. That's not going to rub people the right way. In your eyes, is there to say what he is saying in a respectful way? There are a couple layers to peel here. First, using the national anthem to protest the country in any way is a bad idea for the reasons that Donald Trump showed this weekend (like I discussed yesterday). It's too easy to have your cause turned (fairly or not) into a referendum on your patriotism (regardless of the justness of your cause). Second, and like all of the conservative posters have been saying til they have been blue in the face, framing the issue in terms of the country being racist is only going to piss people off and turn them against you. The better way to approach the issue is to frame it as a race neutral issue along the lines of "Police brutality is a problem in this country" or "Inner city families are broken and need help." Amazing things will happen when you stop calling whitey racist.
This seems to ignore a fairly obvious point. What if racism actually IS a problem? Should everyone just shut up about it because it's inconvenient or unpopular?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 27 2017 04:53 CatharsisUT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2017 03:40 Mohdoo wrote:On September 27 2017 03:38 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2017 03:33 Wulfey_LA wrote:On September 27 2017 03:20 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2017 03:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:On September 27 2017 02:49 Plansix wrote:Of course that slid under everyone's radara, that he talked with a vet about the most respectful way to protest. That he was thoughtful and understood the gravity of what he wanted to do. I might send that to my brother. Or maybe have my mother do it. Eric Reid (Colin's kneeling teammate) also had some great remarks that should tag along with those ones. He does a great job cutting through the Republican partisan spin on this issue. I approached Colin the Saturday before our next game to discuss how I could get involved with the cause but also how we could make a more powerful and positive impact on the social justice movement. We spoke at length about many of the issues that face our community, including systemic oppression against people of color, police brutality and the criminal justice system. We also discussed how we could use our platform, provided to us by being professional athletes in the N.F.L., to speak for those who are voiceless.
After hours of careful consideration, and even a visit from Nate Boyer, a retired Green Beret and former N.F.L. player, we came to the conclusion that we should kneel, rather than sit, the next day during the anthem as a peaceful protest. We chose to kneel because it’s a respectful gesture. I remember thinking our posture was like a flag flown at half-mast to mark a tragedy. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/opinion/colin-kaepernick-football-protests.html?smid=fb-share Except the issue isn't the kneeling or even the sitting. It's the message behind those actions. Yeah, it is the message behind the actions that matter. But the official republican spin is that this is about the <flag/actions/disrespect>, not about protesting the disparate impact of <Officer Use of Force incidents>. Trump/Republicans/Newt/Hannity/FOX are sticking to <flag/actions/disrespect> spin because that is a much easier ground upon which to spin up some white grievance. Talking about <Officer Use of Force incidents> and how they come down heavier and bloodier on people of darker complexion is a hard issue that Republicans would rather pretend doesn't exist. I am surprised that you are accepting the premises of the Lib side here. I don't think that there are meaningful grounds to distinguish between the message and the action. The bottom line is that Kaepernick is intentionally condemning and showing disrespect for the country. That's not going to rub people the right way. In your eyes, is there to say what he is saying in a respectful way? There are a couple layers to peel here. First, using the national anthem to protest the country in any way is a bad idea for the reasons that Donald Trump showed this weekend (like I discussed yesterday). It's too easy to have your cause turned (fairly or not) into a referendum on your patriotism (regardless of the justness of your cause). Second, and like all of the conservative posters have been saying til they have been blue in the face, framing the issue in terms of the country being racist is only going to piss people off and turn them against you. The better way to approach the issue is to frame it as a race neutral issue along the lines of "Police brutality is a problem in this country" or "Inner city families are broken and need help." Amazing things will happen when you stop calling whitey racist. This seems to ignore a fairly obvious point. What if racism actually IS a problem? Should everyone just shut up about it because it's inconvenient or unpopular?
Does calling everyone racist, implicitly or otherwise, solve the problem? It's certainly not a matter of convenience, it's a matter of not being a repulsive dumbass who can't help but alienate potential support.
|
On September 27 2017 04:55 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 04:53 CatharsisUT wrote:On September 27 2017 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2017 03:40 Mohdoo wrote:On September 27 2017 03:38 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2017 03:33 Wulfey_LA wrote:On September 27 2017 03:20 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2017 03:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:On September 27 2017 02:49 Plansix wrote:Of course that slid under everyone's radara, that he talked with a vet about the most respectful way to protest. That he was thoughtful and understood the gravity of what he wanted to do. I might send that to my brother. Or maybe have my mother do it. Eric Reid (Colin's kneeling teammate) also had some great remarks that should tag along with those ones. He does a great job cutting through the Republican partisan spin on this issue. I approached Colin the Saturday before our next game to discuss how I could get involved with the cause but also how we could make a more powerful and positive impact on the social justice movement. We spoke at length about many of the issues that face our community, including systemic oppression against people of color, police brutality and the criminal justice system. We also discussed how we could use our platform, provided to us by being professional athletes in the N.F.L., to speak for those who are voiceless.
After hours of careful consideration, and even a visit from Nate Boyer, a retired Green Beret and former N.F.L. player, we came to the conclusion that we should kneel, rather than sit, the next day during the anthem as a peaceful protest. We chose to kneel because it’s a respectful gesture. I remember thinking our posture was like a flag flown at half-mast to mark a tragedy. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/opinion/colin-kaepernick-football-protests.html?smid=fb-share Except the issue isn't the kneeling or even the sitting. It's the message behind those actions. Yeah, it is the message behind the actions that matter. But the official republican spin is that this is about the <flag/actions/disrespect>, not about protesting the disparate impact of <Officer Use of Force incidents>. Trump/Republicans/Newt/Hannity/FOX are sticking to <flag/actions/disrespect> spin because that is a much easier ground upon which to spin up some white grievance. Talking about <Officer Use of Force incidents> and how they come down heavier and bloodier on people of darker complexion is a hard issue that Republicans would rather pretend doesn't exist. I am surprised that you are accepting the premises of the Lib side here. I don't think that there are meaningful grounds to distinguish between the message and the action. The bottom line is that Kaepernick is intentionally condemning and showing disrespect for the country. That's not going to rub people the right way. In your eyes, is there to say what he is saying in a respectful way? There are a couple layers to peel here. First, using the national anthem to protest the country in any way is a bad idea for the reasons that Donald Trump showed this weekend (like I discussed yesterday). It's too easy to have your cause turned (fairly or not) into a referendum on your patriotism (regardless of the justness of your cause). Second, and like all of the conservative posters have been saying til they have been blue in the face, framing the issue in terms of the country being racist is only going to piss people off and turn them against you. The better way to approach the issue is to frame it as a race neutral issue along the lines of "Police brutality is a problem in this country" or "Inner city families are broken and need help." Amazing things will happen when you stop calling whitey racist. This seems to ignore a fairly obvious point. What if racism actually IS a problem? Should everyone just shut up about it because it's inconvenient or unpopular? Does calling everyone racist, implicitly or otherwise, solve the problem? It's certainly not a matter of convenience, it's a matter of not being a repulsive dumbass who can't help but alienate potential support.
Who's going around calling everyone a racist? You keep talking about these people, but who's actually doing it?
|
On September 27 2017 04:41 LegalLord wrote:
Advocating for civil rights is good. Trying to frame the opposition/moderation in terms of racial identity politics and encouraging the most scummy amongst your own rank to do their stuff just might not get you the results you want. A discomfort fetish is just a great way to be an annoying twat.
If you're referring to antifa or looters/rioters in the BLM movement, no one here is encouraging that. I consider myself to be open to different viewpoints and try to see the different opinions being proffered. But you have to admit that the right has less ground to stand on than falling back to not liking being called names.
We use the terms we use because that is what is being shown to us. This was explained in above posts quite well. You call it a discomfort fetish, but you don't have to feel discomfort if you speak up for equality for all, ignore the racists charges and refute them at every turn if they are applied directly to you, and don't shy away from topics you are uncomfortable with, you'll be just fine.
|
On September 27 2017 04:52 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 04:02 thePunGun wrote:On September 27 2017 03:22 brian wrote:
weird. because we’ve been hearing about the disrespect to the flag for twenty pages. This entire discussion is quite comical. People are more important than symbols, George Carlin's famous quote: ![[image loading]](http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-i-don-t-get-all-choked-up-about-yellow-ribbons-and-american-flags-i-consider-them-to-george-carlin-80-89-06.jpg) Is my mantra, when it comes to stuff like that. George Carlin is a comedian, and my general rule of thumb is, "if your news comes from a comedian then your news source is literally a joke." But perhaps Carlin in particular deserves a few more words than that. He was definitely quite popular when alive, though I would say that if I had to describe his style, it would be decidedly nihilistic. A very pointed sort of pessimism that offered people a view that "X and Y doesn't really matter and our priorities are all wrong for focusing on it." If that's your style then fine - but for me and definitely for at least a couple others, it is lamentably reductionist and fails to capture reality beyond that of a "deep" line of thought in the middle of a marijuana break.
Carlin was way more than just a comedian, he spoke up when others didn't. His specials had more spine and truth in them, than any of those jokers on Capitol Hill!
You clearly missed the point of that quote, delibrately or not. I won't try to convince you..
Edit: f*** my phone and it's battery life. It's all gunked up .....I'll kill whoever greased all over it ....sticky ass sugary fingers ...ugh
|
|
|
That's a great use of resources. I wonder if they're gonna use the information for a diversity pride parade?
|
honestly shouldn’t that already be part of the process? at least at the time of any immigrating- not in perpituity.
|
On September 27 2017 04:03 ZasZ. wrote:
Isn't the point of protest to be inconvenient and uncomfortable? I would say that certain black celebrities (athletes or otherwise) are uniquely positioned to protest the state of affairs in the U.S. because they are nationally recognized and there is very little chance that they are punished for their actions.
As we saw over the weekend, the NFL is a slave to cash, and it took Trump threatening them directly for them to find their "unity." While individual owners may have been able to blackball Kaepernick on the questionable grounds of his on-field play, they can't ostracize all of these players as well.
Ironically enough, for all their "snowflake" and "safe-space" talk, there is no easier way to trigger a conservative than to disrespect the flag or national anthem. But respect is earned, is it not? And if your belief is that this country's law enforcement officials disproportionately target and murder people of color, why would you respect it?
I consider the underlying issues important. Otherwise, I couldn't care less if some idiotic protesters undermine their own cause and create stagnation. It's because I'd like to see some progress out there that I remind folks they're barking up the wrong tree alienating potential allies. If you're down with the suffering and police violence, by all means protest at the anthem, at founder's statues, and call one side of the political debate racists. You are the sustainer of injustice and well deserving to help support its continued existance. Bravo.
|
On September 27 2017 05:20 brian wrote:
honestly shouldn’t that already be part of the process? at least at the time of any immigrating- not in perpituity.
For a little more detail than a tweet...
The Department of Homeland Security has moved to collect social media information on all immigrants, including permanent residents and naturalized citizens.
A new rule published in the Federal Register last week calls to include "social media handles and aliases, associated identifiable information and search results" in the department's immigrant files.
BuzzFeed News first reported the new rule on Monday. It is set to go into effect on Oct. 18 after a public comment period.
According to BuzzFeed, the new rule could also affect U.S. citizens who communicate with immigrants on social media by making their conversations the subject of government surveillance.
Homeland Security's inspector general published a report earlier this year concluding that DHS pilot programs for using social media to screen immigration applicants "lack criteria for measuring performance to ensure they meet their objectives."
"Although the pilots include some objectives, such as determining the effectiveness of an automated search tool and assessing data collection and dissemination procedures, it is not clear DHS is measuring and evaluating the pilots’ results to determine how well they are performing against set criteria," the report reads.
In May, the Trump administration approved a new questionnaire for visa applicants that requests social media handles for the past five years, as well as biographical information going back 15 years.
The rule filed last week, however, goes beyond would-be visitors to the U.S. and would also apply to those who have already obtained a green card or gone through the naturalization process.
|
On September 27 2017 05:20 brian wrote:
honestly shouldn’t that already be part of the process? at least at the time of any immigrating- not in perpituity.
Its not hard to do at all, catching digital footprints is joke easy. I did a consulting project on some credit card fraud protection systems in like 2013 and the SF startup that was doing the rating system had an algorithm that relied on a bunch of parameters, the info they were siphoning from just a name and an phone number is probably borderline illegal. But hey, it was on the internet soo...
|
On September 27 2017 04:41 LegalLord wrote:
Advocating for civil rights is good. Trying to frame the opposition/moderation in terms of racial identity politics and encouraging the most scummy amongst your own rank to do their stuff just might not get you the results you want. A discomfort fetish is just a great way to be an annoying twat.
From the last thirty pages or so, I'm gathering that the results don't matter. Piss the country off and then your grievances are as good as addressed. As long as contrary opinions are shouted down and branded racist, the cause is picking up steam. The logic is astounding.
People can feel pretty good about themselves all while ensuring these problems become tribal and unsolved for another generation.
|
From the last 30 pages, it's quite clear that some people just don't want to discuss racial issues in the US and will deflect to flags or tarps or whatever they feel like when its convenient.
I guess it's fortunate that progress has nothing to do with convincing everyone.
|
|
|
On September 27 2017 05:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 04:03 ZasZ. wrote:
Isn't the point of protest to be inconvenient and uncomfortable? I would say that certain black celebrities (athletes or otherwise) are uniquely positioned to protest the state of affairs in the U.S. because they are nationally recognized and there is very little chance that they are punished for their actions.
As we saw over the weekend, the NFL is a slave to cash, and it took Trump threatening them directly for them to find their "unity." While individual owners may have been able to blackball Kaepernick on the questionable grounds of his on-field play, they can't ostracize all of these players as well.
Ironically enough, for all their "snowflake" and "safe-space" talk, there is no easier way to trigger a conservative than to disrespect the flag or national anthem. But respect is earned, is it not? And if your belief is that this country's law enforcement officials disproportionately target and murder people of color, why would you respect it? I consider the underlying issues important. Otherwise, I couldn't care less if some idiotic protesters undermine their own cause and create stagnation. It's because I'd like to see some progress out there that I remind folks they're barking up the wrong tree alienating potential allies. If you're down with the suffering and police violence, by all means protest at the anthem, at founder's statues, and call one side of the political debate racists. You are the sustainer of injustice and well deserving to help support its continued existance. Bravo.
Same can be said if you sit quietly on the sidelines and shirk any responsibility because you feel it doesn't concern you or that because you haven't done any of the things being protested, you aren't the focus.
|
For the less name-educated among the thread, who are these people and what does this reflect with the current party?
Are they old party members who don't like the new party? New party members who realized that government is hard? Just old politicians who are retiring?
|
On September 27 2017 05:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:
From the last 30 pages, it's quite clear that some people just don't want to discuss racial issues in the US and will deflect to flags or tarps or whatever they feel like when its convenient.
I guess it's fortunate that progress has nothing to do with convincing everyone.
yea, something about those benefitting from the status quo often see no reason to change it, and yet it changes anyway.
|
On September 27 2017 05:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 04:41 LegalLord wrote:
Advocating for civil rights is good. Trying to frame the opposition/moderation in terms of racial identity politics and encouraging the most scummy amongst your own rank to do their stuff just might not get you the results you want. A discomfort fetish is just a great way to be an annoying twat. From the last thirty pages or so, I'm gathering that the results don't matter. Piss the country off and then your grievances are as good as addressed. As long as contrary opinions are shouted down and branded racist, the cause is picking up steam. The logic is astounding. People can feel pretty good about themselves all while ensuring these problems become tribal and unsolved for another generation.
The problem in this case is that people are more pissed off about kneeling during a game than the actual issue that triggered the kneeling during the game. It is remarkable that even after this is pointed out the conversation is still dominated by an attack on the protest rather than an attack on the actions that precipitated the protest.
Just like the country agreed on the need to defend the free speech of the protesters at charlottesville despite the fact that one of them committed murder, the country needs to defend the free speech of the protesters at football games despite the fact that they appear to be disrespecting the flag (which to me is utter bullshit because taking a knee is not a symbol of disrespect in any way, if it was a middlefinger i might feel differently about that).
|
On September 27 2017 05:31 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 05:20 brian wrote:
honestly shouldn’t that already be part of the process? at least at the time of any immigrating- not in perpituity. For a little more detail than a tweet... Show nested quote +The Department of Homeland Security has moved to collect social media information on all immigrants, including permanent residents and naturalized citizens.
A new rule published in the Federal Register last week calls to include "social media handles and aliases, associated identifiable information and search results" in the department's immigrant files.
BuzzFeed News first reported the new rule on Monday. It is set to go into effect on Oct. 18 after a public comment period.
According to BuzzFeed, the new rule could also affect U.S. citizens who communicate with immigrants on social media by making their conversations the subject of government surveillance.
Homeland Security's inspector general published a report earlier this year concluding that DHS pilot programs for using social media to screen immigration applicants "lack criteria for measuring performance to ensure they meet their objectives."
"Although the pilots include some objectives, such as determining the effectiveness of an automated search tool and assessing data collection and dissemination procedures, it is not clear DHS is measuring and evaluating the pilots’ results to determine how well they are performing against set criteria," the report reads.
In May, the Trump administration approved a new questionnaire for visa applicants that requests social media handles for the past five years, as well as biographical information going back 15 years.
The rule filed last week, however, goes beyond would-be visitors to the U.S. and would also apply to those who have already obtained a green card or gone through the naturalization process.
Yeah, there is no way this won’t lead to an overwhelming amount of useless information that will never be properly reviewed or used in an appropriate manner.
|
Norway28561 Posts
On September 27 2017 02:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 01:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:On September 27 2017 01:45 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2017 01:25 RealityIsKing wrote:
I'm saying that it is wrong to go on campaign to demonize white people.
Then the response I get is "Hey you don't understand man!"
... It's a fair point. And you're absolutely right that the extreme rhetoric has reached the level where they basically ask whites to apologize for being born white and for the slavery of their ancestors. How come you are seeing it this way? I'm as white as it gets, purebred norwegian all the way, supposedly traceable lineage to the first king of norway. I've never been even remotely close to thinking that anyone expects me to apologize for being born white. I see people arguing 'recognize that your whiteness is a privilege' and 'recognize that black people being disadvantaged in current day society is rooted in history, particularly slavery and colonialism, rather than the african american's inability to pull himself up by his own bootstraps'. But all the stuff you're arguing against, I've never encountered it. And I'm inclined to believe that I actually hang out in more progressive circles than you do, so I just don't get why you apparently see this all the time from the groups that I associate with, but that I, despite associating with them, never do. It doesn't make sense. It's really tough to explain to a foreigner. I don't really expect I'll be convincing if you haven't lived the political scene of the United States. It masquerades as something inarguable. An uneducated black child born to a single mother living in south central LA will not have as easy a time making a good life himself than a white kid born in the suburbs. No problem. The problems come in when people heighten what that privilege has meant (enduring disadvantage, or trying to say racism is prevalent and damaging in their hiring, promotion, etc) and what should be done to (essentially) hurt white privilege and create PoC/minority privilege. Maybe read the Mizzou list of demands. I disagreed with a few, and they said it was because I couldn't see they were necessary because of my white privilege. Take Coates' piece. Whiteness, white supremacy, historical white privilege are literally argued for why Trump won. I didn't vote for him because he was white. But again, part of my white privilege is not understanding the deeper point of the article. I really think you should read and tell me what you think about his argument. Suffice it to say I'm convinced from my dealings in real-life one-on-one discussions and online debating that white privilege is being almost exclusively used as a cover to ad-hominem white speakers on issues impacting all races. Again, it could have been a tame topic, but the means of its use has gained it a reputation for just trying to silence dissent and discount other's opinions.
The Coates piece is too big for me to handle right now, and the rest of you have debated it to death already. But I don't see how it at any point asked white people to apologize for their whiteness? I can see how you think it goes too far in asserting the scope of white privilege or white supremacy, and it's fair if you want to dismiss the article on those grounds. But I do not see how it asks for me, or other white people, to apologize for being born white. This was your claim.
The Mizzou list however, is short and succinct, so that I can tackle. I can see how you find some of their demands extreme, counter-productive or wholly unrealistic. But no part of that list, at all, demands that any white person apologizes for their whiteness. The closest is asking one specific, clearly hated, individual, to recognize his white privilege. This is very different from 'apologize for being born white', which again, was your claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
