|
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. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 27 2017 04:56 ZerOCoolSC2 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. If you're referring to antifa or looters/rioters in the BLM movement, no one here is encouraging that.
I certainly hope not, though support for antifa and the ugly sides of BLM is definitely nonzero here. But if we want to play the game of accusing people of supporting evil for not speaking loudly enough against them (like Danglars and xDaunt are KKK sympathizers / white supremacist supporters because they don't condemn them enough) then we could look at how "pigs in a blanket" BLM protesters flat out encouraged a despicable pattern of violence.
But somewhat less charged, we could look at the way it's formed into an "us vs. them" and "if you're not with us then you're against us" mentality. Even the name is indicative. Anti-fascism (using an absurdly broad definition of fascism as to characterize any meaningful opposition as fascist), Black lives matter (explicitly formulating it as a racial issue), and so on. A great way to get shut out of being taken seriously in any meaningful discussion of policy, and rightfully so.
On September 27 2017 04:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
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.
It's not about "being called names" as much as it is about the absurd way in which the problem is being framed. There is an accepted range of dissent, beyond which you are a racist fascist or something akin to that. When a desire to label and dismiss supersedes any meaningful discussion - which the right-wingers are correct in stating that it does - there can be no meaningful policy discussion. When that isn't so our right-wingers have shown every willingness to talk policy instead.
On September 27 2017 04:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
We use the terms we use because that is what is being shown to us. This was explained in above posts quite well.
No. You use the terms because it's an easy way out. Instead of looking to properly define who is and isn't the enemy, you prefer to paint with a broad brush. When potentially sympathetic individuals are pushed rightward, you (as a group) cry fascism because some certain nationalist groups reside within that right-wing, though instead of being a nuanced view it's just used as feel-good proof of your righteousness.
On September 27 2017 04:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
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.
I call it a discomfort fetish because it is a discomfort fetish. People see other people being uncomfortable as a virtue, something to strive for because it's supposed to "open their mind." An organization marching for "no more extrajudicial killing" who helps support individuals who go out on a police-murdering spree makes me feel uncomfortable too. But it'd probably be better if that weren't a thing.
"Refute all of them at every turn" fucking lol. No, I'm not into the game of trying to disprove rabid dogs either. An idiot with persistence can make a thousand claims that need refuting before the first is properly addressed. And it's kind of ironic that you end your spiel with essentially a support of the exact kind of discomfort fetish I'm talking about - "discomfort makes you groooow!" No, it just makes you an annoying twat when done as aimlessly and without reason as in this context.
|
On September 27 2017 05:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 02:36 Danglars wrote: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.
I get the feeling that to alot of people acknowledging white privilege is the equivalent of apologizing for being white.
|
On September 27 2017 05:55 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 04:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
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. I call it a discomfort fetish because it is a discomfort fetish. People see other people being uncomfortable as a virtue, something to strive for because it's supposed to "open their mind." An organization marching for "no more extrajudicial killing" who helps support individuals who go out on a police-murdering spree makes me feel uncomfortable too. But it'd probably be better if that weren't a thing.
It's not a discomfort fetish, it's a simple recognition of the fact that if you try to protest in a way that doesn't upset people, it won't get you anywhere. It's a very simple logical chain. If people are perpetuating an oppressive status quo, especially if it's by choice, saying something that doesn't upset these people in the context of the status quo almost necessarily means you're not actually addressing any issues. You're not trying to upset people just to upset them, you simply have to recognize that when you're out protesting and spreading your message, people are going to be upset with you, because you're rocking the boat, as it were.
Another important distinction: making people upset does not correlate to a badly constructed message.
|
On September 27 2017 04:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 04:21 Mohdoo 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. So you are saying that blacks framing these issues as black issues rather than "everyone issues", they lose support from whites? Yes, but I'd go a step further. Framing it as an everyone issue and using illustration of police violence against whites and other races (of which there are plenty of examples) would do more to get universal support than just framing it as a black issue. But more importantly, you can't use race as a wedge to divide people as is currently being done. Once it becomes "us vs them," the debate is over.
If you're put off from black people having rights because they called you names you were never really supporting them in the first place. Not that I had any doubt.
Also
We do not feel ashamed about anything because we know that we have not done anything racist.
Why didn't you just say that when I asked so that I could know you're posting indicates a delusional perception of your own actions.
EDIT: It really all boils down to them not wanting to be labeled as doing bad things when they are.
|
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.
And in that way Trump was progress. Congratulations.
|
On September 27 2017 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 05:55 LegalLord wrote:On September 27 2017 04:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
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. I call it a discomfort fetish because it is a discomfort fetish. People see other people being uncomfortable as a virtue, something to strive for because it's supposed to "open their mind." An organization marching for "no more extrajudicial killing" who helps support individuals who go out on a police-murdering spree makes me feel uncomfortable too. But it'd probably be better if that weren't a thing. It's not a discomfort fetish, it's a simple recognition of the fact that if you try to protest in a way that doesn't upset people, it won't get you anywhere. It's a very simple logical chain. If people are perpetuating an oppressive status quo, especially if it's by choice, saying something that doesn't upset these people in the context of the status quo almost necessarily means you're not actually addressing any issues. You're not trying to upset people just to upset them, you simply have to recognize that when you're out protesting and spreading your message, people are going to be upset with you.
Are you saying that the only way to get across your point is to upset people?
I thought we live in a civilized society where people can calmly look at the situation, not get emotional, and mitigating collateral damage.
|
On September 27 2017 06:02 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 05:55 LegalLord wrote:On September 27 2017 04:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
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. I call it a discomfort fetish because it is a discomfort fetish. People see other people being uncomfortable as a virtue, something to strive for because it's supposed to "open their mind." An organization marching for "no more extrajudicial killing" who helps support individuals who go out on a police-murdering spree makes me feel uncomfortable too. But it'd probably be better if that weren't a thing. It's not a discomfort fetish, it's a simple recognition of the fact that if you try to protest in a way that doesn't upset people, it won't get you anywhere. It's a very simple logical chain. If people are perpetuating an oppressive status quo, especially if it's by choice, saying something that doesn't upset these people in the context of the status quo almost necessarily means you're not actually addressing any issues. You're not trying to upset people just to upset them, you simply have to recognize that when you're out protesting and spreading your message, people are going to be upset with you. Are you saying that the only way to get across your point is to upset people? I thought we live in a civilized society where people can calmly look at the situation, not get emotional, and mitigating collateral damage.
Why would you think that?
|
On September 27 2017 06:02 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 05:55 LegalLord wrote:On September 27 2017 04:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
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. I call it a discomfort fetish because it is a discomfort fetish. People see other people being uncomfortable as a virtue, something to strive for because it's supposed to "open their mind." An organization marching for "no more extrajudicial killing" who helps support individuals who go out on a police-murdering spree makes me feel uncomfortable too. But it'd probably be better if that weren't a thing. It's not a discomfort fetish, it's a simple recognition of the fact that if you try to protest in a way that doesn't upset people, it won't get you anywhere. It's a very simple logical chain. If people are perpetuating an oppressive status quo, especially if it's by choice, saying something that doesn't upset these people in the context of the status quo almost necessarily means you're not actually addressing any issues. You're not trying to upset people just to upset them, you simply have to recognize that when you're out protesting and spreading your message, people are going to be upset with you. Are you saying that the only way to get across your point is to upset people? I thought we live in a civilized society where people can calmly look at the situation, not get emotional, and mitigating collateral damage.
Turns out you can't address white privilege without melting some snowflakes.
|
On September 27 2017 06:02 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 05:55 LegalLord wrote:On September 27 2017 04:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
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. I call it a discomfort fetish because it is a discomfort fetish. People see other people being uncomfortable as a virtue, something to strive for because it's supposed to "open their mind." An organization marching for "no more extrajudicial killing" who helps support individuals who go out on a police-murdering spree makes me feel uncomfortable too. But it'd probably be better if that weren't a thing. It's not a discomfort fetish, it's a simple recognition of the fact that if you try to protest in a way that doesn't upset people, it won't get you anywhere. It's a very simple logical chain. If people are perpetuating an oppressive status quo, especially if it's by choice, saying something that doesn't upset these people in the context of the status quo almost necessarily means you're not actually addressing any issues. You're not trying to upset people just to upset them, you simply have to recognize that when you're out protesting and spreading your message, people are going to be upset with you. Are you saying that the only way to get across your point is to upset people? I thought we live in a civilized society where people can calmly look at the situation, not get emotional, and mitigating collateral damage.
If everyone were an ideally logical human being, then no, it wouldn't be necessary to upset people. But look at every person in an abusive relationship with a narcissistic partner, and every person who unwittingly defends the rights of Nazis to protest, and cries foul when black NFL players do the same.
Sometimes someone drifts too far afield, and becomes delusional or biased about something central to their life. It's not something to dwell on, it's something to recognize and fix.
|
On September 27 2017 06:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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. And in that way Trump was progress. Congratulations.
Yes, but gays can still marry, abortions are still legal, transgenders won't get banned from the military.
Progress still happens, even if you do run into some orange roadblockers once in a while.
|
On September 27 2017 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 06:02 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 05:55 LegalLord wrote:On September 27 2017 04:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
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. I call it a discomfort fetish because it is a discomfort fetish. People see other people being uncomfortable as a virtue, something to strive for because it's supposed to "open their mind." An organization marching for "no more extrajudicial killing" who helps support individuals who go out on a police-murdering spree makes me feel uncomfortable too. But it'd probably be better if that weren't a thing. It's not a discomfort fetish, it's a simple recognition of the fact that if you try to protest in a way that doesn't upset people, it won't get you anywhere. It's a very simple logical chain. If people are perpetuating an oppressive status quo, especially if it's by choice, saying something that doesn't upset these people in the context of the status quo almost necessarily means you're not actually addressing any issues. You're not trying to upset people just to upset them, you simply have to recognize that when you're out protesting and spreading your message, people are going to be upset with you. Are you saying that the only way to get across your point is to upset people? I thought we live in a civilized society where people can calmly look at the situation, not get emotional, and mitigating collateral damage. Turns out you can't address white privilege without melting some snowflakes.
But you can minimize it.
People don't even attempt to be logical and go straight emotional to get their message across. Its the same thing as those religious people that goes "God hates fags! You are going to hell!".
Except you are condoning it, because it is from the "right side".
|
On September 27 2017 06:07 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:02 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 05:55 LegalLord wrote:On September 27 2017 04:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
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. I call it a discomfort fetish because it is a discomfort fetish. People see other people being uncomfortable as a virtue, something to strive for because it's supposed to "open their mind." An organization marching for "no more extrajudicial killing" who helps support individuals who go out on a police-murdering spree makes me feel uncomfortable too. But it'd probably be better if that weren't a thing. It's not a discomfort fetish, it's a simple recognition of the fact that if you try to protest in a way that doesn't upset people, it won't get you anywhere. It's a very simple logical chain. If people are perpetuating an oppressive status quo, especially if it's by choice, saying something that doesn't upset these people in the context of the status quo almost necessarily means you're not actually addressing any issues. You're not trying to upset people just to upset them, you simply have to recognize that when you're out protesting and spreading your message, people are going to be upset with you. Are you saying that the only way to get across your point is to upset people? I thought we live in a civilized society where people can calmly look at the situation, not get emotional, and mitigating collateral damage. Turns out you can't address white privilege without melting some snowflakes. But you can minimize it. People don't even attempt to be logical and go straight emotional to get their message across. Its the same thing as those religious people that goes "God hates fags! You are going to hell!". Except you are condoning it, because it is from the "right side".
People would take you a lot more seriously if you argued with their points, and not strawmen set up to be exaggerated versions of their points. Maybe people do what you say. Don't take them seriously.
|
Also religious fanatics need to take their quarrel up with the right person. If they think God is doing a poor job, they should take it up with him.
|
Three Americans with significant Russian business connections contributed almost $2 million to political funds controlled by Donald Trump, ABC News has learned.
The timing of contributions coming from US citizens with ties to Russia is now being questioned by investigators for special counsel Robert Mueller, according to a Republican campaign aide interviewed by Mueller’s team.
...
A review of Trump campaign records conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics for ABC News found large contributions coming from two émigrés born in the former Soviet Union who now hold U.S. citizenship, and from a third American who heads the subsidiary of a large Russian private equity firm.
Those donations began flowing to the Republican National Committee, the group says, just as Trump was on the verge of securing the Republican nomination and culminated in two large gifts – totaling $1.25 million – from these individuals to the Trump inaugural fund following his victory.
Government officials familiar with the House and Senate investigations into Russian election interference told ABC News that near the conclusion of the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting involving Trump’s son Don Jr., son-in-law Jared Kushner, then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and Russian emissaries interested in curtailing U.S. sanctions, Manafort made a cryptic and cursory notation on his phone. It said, “Active sponsors of RNC,” a phrase that some investigators have viewed as a reference to campaign donations, the sources said.
...
Experts who follow the activities of Russia’s cadre of billionaires, commonly known as the “oligarchs,” told ABC News they believe donations from these three men, all of whom have worked closely with Vekselberg, warrant intense scrutiny.
Louise Shelley, director of the Terrorism, Transnational Crime and Corruption Center at George Mason University, said she does not believe large contributions from Blavatnik or from donors associated with Vekselberg would occur without the implicit approval of the Kremlin.
“If you have investments in Russia then you cannot be sure that they are secure if you go against the Kremlin's will,” Shelley said. “You can't be an enormously rich person in Russia, or even hold large holdings in Russia without being in Putin's clutches.”
abcnews.go.com
|
On September 27 2017 06:08 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 06:07 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:02 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 05:55 LegalLord wrote:On September 27 2017 04:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
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. I call it a discomfort fetish because it is a discomfort fetish. People see other people being uncomfortable as a virtue, something to strive for because it's supposed to "open their mind." An organization marching for "no more extrajudicial killing" who helps support individuals who go out on a police-murdering spree makes me feel uncomfortable too. But it'd probably be better if that weren't a thing. It's not a discomfort fetish, it's a simple recognition of the fact that if you try to protest in a way that doesn't upset people, it won't get you anywhere. It's a very simple logical chain. If people are perpetuating an oppressive status quo, especially if it's by choice, saying something that doesn't upset these people in the context of the status quo almost necessarily means you're not actually addressing any issues. You're not trying to upset people just to upset them, you simply have to recognize that when you're out protesting and spreading your message, people are going to be upset with you. Are you saying that the only way to get across your point is to upset people? I thought we live in a civilized society where people can calmly look at the situation, not get emotional, and mitigating collateral damage. Turns out you can't address white privilege without melting some snowflakes. But you can minimize it. People don't even attempt to be logical and go straight emotional to get their message across. Its the same thing as those religious people that goes "God hates fags! You are going to hell!". Except you are condoning it, because it is from the "right side". People would take you a lot more seriously if you argued with their points, and not strawmen set up to be exaggerated versions of their points. Maybe people do what you say. Don't take them seriously.
No I wouldn't. It's clear he's arguing from a staggeringly ignorant place and that ignorance is only matched by his confidence in that ignorance.
@"Calling out racists is counterproductive crowd":
You realize using that logic there is absolutely no reason that black people should want their white opposition to enjoy the same rights they do? If being called "racist" is supposed to be a remotely legitimate reason for not wanting black people to have the same rights there's a long list of worse shit for black people.
I mean xDaunt you told me to "get back on a boat back to Africa", of course I wouldn't know what part since white Amerikkka stripped my lineage of any history or context with Africa, destroyed my family lines, and killed any of us that they found smart enough to advocate their own freedom.
Here's the thing, despite calling oppressed people "vermin", or telling black people like myself or Coats they should get on a boat back to Africa, or claiming racism isn't a big deal, I still think xDaunt deserves the same rights I should have because I'm not a petty elementary school child.
|
On September 27 2017 05:55 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 04:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: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 certainly hope not, though support for antifa and the ugly sides of BLM is definitely nonzero here. But if we want to play the game of accusing people of supporting evil for not speaking loudly enough against them (like Danglars and xDaunt are KKK sympathizers / white supremacist supporters because they don't condemn them enough) then we could look at how "pigs in a blanket" BLM protesters flat out encouraged a despicable pattern of violence. But somewhat less charged, we could look at the way it's formed into an "us vs. them" and "if you're not with us then you're against us" mentality. Even the name is indicative. Anti-fascism (using an absurdly broad definition of fascism as to characterize any meaningful opposition as fascist), Black lives matter (explicitly formulating it as a racial issue), and so on. A great way to get shut out of being taken seriously in any meaningful discussion of policy, and rightfully so. Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 04:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
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. It's not about "being called names" as much as it is about the absurd way in which the problem is being framed. There is an accepted range of dissent, beyond which you are a racist fascist or something akin to that. When a desire to label and dismiss supersedes any meaningful discussion - which the right-wingers are correct in stating that it does - there can be no meaningful policy discussion. When that isn't so our right-wingers have shown every willingness to talk policy instead. Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 04:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
We use the terms we use because that is what is being shown to us. This was explained in above posts quite well. No. You use the terms because it's an easy way out. Instead of looking to properly define who is and isn't the enemy, you prefer to paint with a broad brush. When potentially sympathetic individuals are pushed rightward, you (as a group) cry fascism because some certain nationalist groups reside within that right-wing, though instead of being a nuanced view it's just used as feel-good proof of your righteousness. Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 04:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
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. I call it a discomfort fetish because it is a discomfort fetish. People see other people being uncomfortable as a virtue, something to strive for because it's supposed to "open their mind." An organization marching for "no more extrajudicial killing" who helps support individuals who go out on a police-murdering spree makes me feel uncomfortable too. But it'd probably be better if that weren't a thing. "Refute all of them at every turn" fucking lol. No, I'm not into the game of trying to disprove rabid dogs either. An idiot with persistence can make a thousand claims that need refuting before the first is properly addressed. And it's kind of ironic that you end your spiel with essentially a support of the exact kind of discomfort fetish I'm talking about - "discomfort makes you groooow!" No, it just makes you an annoying twat when done as aimlessly and without reason as in this context.
There's a lot to take apart here. And my wrists are starting to hurt. So I'll keep it short and to the point.
You've taken what I've said and made it about you being perceived as something you are clearly not, nor have been charged with. BLM is a race thing because it started with a racial issue (black people being killed and no charges being brought forth or convictions). It is a race thing. It cannot not be a race thing. To take the race out of it is a disservice to the cause of bringing change about. You are lessening, once again, black lives.
I don't lightly call someone a racist unless you express racist/white supremacist tendencies. It's that simple. You're not the victim her and you cannot make yourself the victim because the words hurt your feelings. I know you're not, but you're fighting the wrong fight. The term is indeed being used correctly, you just don't like it. Tough shit. People are racist. They get called racist. To be complicit when racist activity is taking place, makes you a sympathizer and agent of keeping the inequality being protested in place because it's convenient for you for it to not change. You're not racist, you just don't think it pertains to you, which makes you complicit.
We can't talk policy because the right's policies aren't good for the country as a whole. Look at healthcare. That is as basic and easy an example and the right has no answer for it. Come up with policy that benefits all and we'll all agree, no matter the side.
I don't want you to be in discomfort. If you are, then you have some soul searching to do as to why it makes you uncomfortable. I get uncomfortable when black "leaders" speak and their tone is overtly racist or prejudiced. It doesn't help their cause and makes them look petty and too willing to start a race riot. I'm for sensible discussion. What I'm not for is allowing you to stick your hand in the sand and pretending that there aren't real issues in this country because it isn't something you want to talk about right now. NOW is the time to talk about it and get it in the open, come together, and figure out a way to stay united in the face of division.
My spiel ended with what it did because it's the truth. You're so agitated about this being discussed and you don't have a logical or rational solution to offer up besides "sit down, be humble, and don't rock the boat."
|
On September 27 2017 05:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 05:28 Danglars wrote: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.
That's why I engage despite the usual trolls thinking this is about safe spaces and triggering.
|
On September 27 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 06:08 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 06:07 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:02 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 05:55 LegalLord wrote:On September 27 2017 04:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
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. I call it a discomfort fetish because it is a discomfort fetish. People see other people being uncomfortable as a virtue, something to strive for because it's supposed to "open their mind." An organization marching for "no more extrajudicial killing" who helps support individuals who go out on a police-murdering spree makes me feel uncomfortable too. But it'd probably be better if that weren't a thing. It's not a discomfort fetish, it's a simple recognition of the fact that if you try to protest in a way that doesn't upset people, it won't get you anywhere. It's a very simple logical chain. If people are perpetuating an oppressive status quo, especially if it's by choice, saying something that doesn't upset these people in the context of the status quo almost necessarily means you're not actually addressing any issues. You're not trying to upset people just to upset them, you simply have to recognize that when you're out protesting and spreading your message, people are going to be upset with you. Are you saying that the only way to get across your point is to upset people? I thought we live in a civilized society where people can calmly look at the situation, not get emotional, and mitigating collateral damage. Turns out you can't address white privilege without melting some snowflakes. But you can minimize it. People don't even attempt to be logical and go straight emotional to get their message across. Its the same thing as those religious people that goes "God hates fags! You are going to hell!". Except you are condoning it, because it is from the "right side". People would take you a lot more seriously if you argued with their points, and not strawmen set up to be exaggerated versions of their points. Maybe people do what you say. Don't take them seriously. No I wouldn't. It's clear he's arguing from a staggeringly ignorant place and that ignorance is only matched by his confidence in that ignorance.
His ignorance is one thing, but if you argue genuinely with someone, they at least deserve the benefit of the doubt, and can be educated. If they're just arguing past people, there's no reason to bother.
|
On September 27 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 06:08 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 06:07 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:02 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 05:55 LegalLord wrote:On September 27 2017 04:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
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. I call it a discomfort fetish because it is a discomfort fetish. People see other people being uncomfortable as a virtue, something to strive for because it's supposed to "open their mind." An organization marching for "no more extrajudicial killing" who helps support individuals who go out on a police-murdering spree makes me feel uncomfortable too. But it'd probably be better if that weren't a thing. It's not a discomfort fetish, it's a simple recognition of the fact that if you try to protest in a way that doesn't upset people, it won't get you anywhere. It's a very simple logical chain. If people are perpetuating an oppressive status quo, especially if it's by choice, saying something that doesn't upset these people in the context of the status quo almost necessarily means you're not actually addressing any issues. You're not trying to upset people just to upset them, you simply have to recognize that when you're out protesting and spreading your message, people are going to be upset with you. Are you saying that the only way to get across your point is to upset people? I thought we live in a civilized society where people can calmly look at the situation, not get emotional, and mitigating collateral damage. Turns out you can't address white privilege without melting some snowflakes. But you can minimize it. People don't even attempt to be logical and go straight emotional to get their message across. Its the same thing as those religious people that goes "God hates fags! You are going to hell!". Except you are condoning it, because it is from the "right side". People would take you a lot more seriously if you argued with their points, and not strawmen set up to be exaggerated versions of their points. Maybe people do what you say. Don't take them seriously. No I wouldn't. It's clear he's arguing from a staggeringly ignorant place and that ignorance is only matched by his confidence in that ignorance. @"Calling out racists is counterproductive crowd": You realize using that logic there is absolutely no reason that black people should want their white opposition to enjoy the same rights they do? If being called "racist" is supposed to be a remotely legitimate reason for not wanting black people to have the same rights there's a long list of worse shit for black people. I mean xDaunt you told me to "get back on a boat back to Africa", of course I wouldn't know what part since white Amerikkka stripped my lineage of any history or context with Africa, destroyed my family lines, and killed any of us that they found smart enough to advocate their own freedom. Here's the thing, despite calling oppressed people "vermin", or telling black people like myself or Coats they should get on a boat back to Africa, or claiming racism isn't a big deal, I still think xDaunt deserves the same rights I should have because I'm not a petty elementary school child.
I guess it all comes down to if you are trying to change someone's mind or if you are just venting your frustration.
|
I don't think you guys know what ignorance means.
Its the same non argument of a certain individual that says "Hey you just don't understand man! *sobs* *sobs*" without having anything substantial.
Is race an issue in American? Definitely!
Can the issue be solved in a non-violent, minimizing polarization, unifying manner? Absolutely!
Are people using violent, polarizing acts and still end up confused of "How can I just get through my points to the white boys?" Certainly!
I wonder if some people have ever worked in an office environment before. If you want to collaborate with anyone on a project, being an asshole is not the way to successfully complete the project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
