|
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 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 06:59 m4ini wrote:On September 27 2017 06:39 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 27 2017 06:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:On September 27 2017 06:27 RealityIsKing wrote:
Can the issue be solved in a non-violent, minimizing polarization, unifying manner? Absolutely!
In what kind of timeframe? What progress would you say has been made in the past 10 years? What would you say is an acceptable amount of time for blacks to be disproportionately killed by police? How many people die before the issue needs to be escalated? If those are true, then the BLM needs focus their location of protest at police stations and not go out and breaking down local communities and shutting down major traffic intersection. Again, talking about efficiency and making a bad name for yourself PR-wise. Shutting down a major traffic intersection is an almost perfect way of protesting. It forces your viewpoint into the public consciousness non violently so that seems fine to me. I get the feeling you would rather they protesting quietly without disturbing anyone, maybe by writing a letter to the police. Protest is supposed to be a major disturbance. Otherwise it won't work. I always find this part mindbogglingly idiotic. Yeah. I will see your viewpoint, and on top of that, i will not give the slightest of shits because i'm pissed off since you potentially make me miss an important meeting/job interview/doctors appointment/prevent me from picking up my kids from school. It's like arguing that to get the attention of a police officer, instead of calling him over you should throw sticks at him. Yeah, you will get his attention, but not the way you intended to - and certainly not the reaction you apparently expected either. Interrupting the lives of people who have nothing to do with whatever you're protesting will not help your cause, it will in fact hurt it. The people in traffic will get pissed off, and your opposition to whatever you're advocating will have a field day pointing out what a menace you are to the public. If one is more worried about stopping traffic protests than what they're protesting, that highlights your problem right there.
No, it really isn't. It's not like everyone lives a perfect white persons life, people have their own problems too. But it's a very suiting way for you to argue, "if you get angry because people fuck up your day, YOU are the problem". Fuck off. lol. See? You're angry about me pointing out getting angry and irrational about a traffic protest indicates that you don't appreciate why they are protesting in the first place. If you did, then you would expect them to do much worse than interrupt traffic. Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 07:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
This argument is old and tired. If they protest the police stations then it's "they have to stay at the station and can't police crime" or some other bullshit. It's never the right place or the right time to attack the white supremacy deep in this country's soul.
To a degree I get it. White mediocrity succeeded in America in no small part thanks to the exclusion and oppression of other non-white people. From corporations, to unions, to the NFL/NBA/MLB mediocre white people were catapulted to the top in the forced absence and/or on the backs of of better suited non-white peers, simply for their whiteness. why do non-white people continue to flock to the USA if things are so bad? i have a close friend and colleague who is iranian. he went from Baghdad to Toronto. His first decent job offer in New York state and he is gone. Guy was making $10,000 USD a month in Toronto... and he couldn't leave fast enough. or is Iranian considered white? are jews white? my gf has 4 great parents who are white and 4 who are non-white. is she white? is white just a social construct? Legally, yes, Iranian is white. Jews pass for white all the time. Yes white is a social construct meant to dehumanize and subjugate those deemed "non-white". The US and other influential countries have exploited lots of places around the world, it would make sense for the people to want to follow where the wealth generated from their country went (and would also make sense why they try to send it back).
how much wealth is Syria generating these days?
|
On September 27 2017 07:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 07:12 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 07:02 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2017 06:54 Simberto wrote:On September 27 2017 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:On September 27 2017 06:27 RealityIsKing wrote:
Can the issue be solved in a non-violent, minimizing polarization, unifying manner? Absolutely!
In what kind of timeframe? What progress would you say has been made in the past 10 years? What would you say is an acceptable amount of time for blacks to be disproportionately killed by police? How many people die before the issue needs to be escalated? If those are true, then the BLM needs focus their location of protest at police stations and not go out and breaking down local communities and shutting down major traffic intersection. Again, talking about efficiency and making a bad name for yourself PR-wise. This argument is old and tired. If they protest the police stations then it's "they have to stay at the station and can't police crime" or some other bullshit. It's never the right place or the right time to attack the white supremacy deep in this country's soul. To a degree I get it. White mediocrity succeeded in America in no small part thanks to the exclusion and oppression of other non-white people. From corporations, to unions, to the NFL/NBA/MLB mediocre white people were catapulted to the top in the forced absence and/or on the backs of of better suited non-white peers, simply for their whiteness. Attacking the structures that keep that in place is a direct threat to those who benefit from it. That's why it's always going to upset them no matter how you do it. On September 27 2017 06:39 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 27 2017 06:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:On September 27 2017 06:27 RealityIsKing wrote:
Can the issue be solved in a non-violent, minimizing polarization, unifying manner? Absolutely!
In what kind of timeframe? What progress would you say has been made in the past 10 years? What would you say is an acceptable amount of time for blacks to be disproportionately killed by police? How many people die before the issue needs to be escalated? If those are true, then the BLM needs focus their location of protest at police stations and not go out and breaking down local communities and shutting down major traffic intersection. Again, talking about efficiency and making a bad name for yourself PR-wise. Shutting down a major traffic intersection is an almost perfect way of protesting. It forces your viewpoint into the public consciousness non violently so that seems fine to me. I get the feeling you would rather they protesting quietly without disturbing anyone, maybe by writing a letter to the police. Protest is supposed to be a major disturbance. Otherwise it won't work. If one is more worried about stopping traffic protests than what they're protesting, that highlights your problem right there. If you get pissed off enough to want to RUN OVER another HUMAN BEING because they are blocking traffic (Republicans are trying to make this legal) , imagine how pissed we are about not having our rights? I am getting this feeling now, too. There just does not seem to be any protest that is in any way acceptable. I personally can barely imagine a tamer protest than taking a knee. This has literally no impact on any other people. And apparently that is still too much. Taking a knee is completely nonviolent, does not disturb anything, the only effect it does have is that people have to look at a guy on a knee instead of standing. If this is not acceptable, it seems very clear that the problem is not the way of the protest, but the actual subject. Which is weird, because apparently being a Nazi is an acceptable ground to protest, but being black and not content with the civil rights situation is not. You're still confusing what you have the right to do, and what forms of protest advance or hurt the cause. When a lawyer represents a client clearly guilty of the murder, we don't say he's pro-murder or is apathetic about murderers. But when it's neonazis marching in the streets, suddenly free speech and free assembly go out the window. It's a clear poisoning of the debate. Nope, it's just hypocritical for you to defend the rights of Nazis to speak on one hand, and on the other cry out that NFL players taking a knee is disrespectful to the country, and that they should just play the game. does the average american consider Ben Shapiro a nazi, white-supremacist?
I'd suspect not. He does help advance arguments that aid in keeping white supremacy structures in place though.
On September 27 2017 07:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:59 m4ini wrote:On September 27 2017 06:39 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 27 2017 06:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:On September 27 2017 06:27 RealityIsKing wrote:
Can the issue be solved in a non-violent, minimizing polarization, unifying manner? Absolutely!
In what kind of timeframe? What progress would you say has been made in the past 10 years? What would you say is an acceptable amount of time for blacks to be disproportionately killed by police? How many people die before the issue needs to be escalated? If those are true, then the BLM needs focus their location of protest at police stations and not go out and breaking down local communities and shutting down major traffic intersection. Again, talking about efficiency and making a bad name for yourself PR-wise. Shutting down a major traffic intersection is an almost perfect way of protesting. It forces your viewpoint into the public consciousness non violently so that seems fine to me. I get the feeling you would rather they protesting quietly without disturbing anyone, maybe by writing a letter to the police. Protest is supposed to be a major disturbance. Otherwise it won't work. I always find this part mindbogglingly idiotic. Yeah. I will see your viewpoint, and on top of that, i will not give the slightest of shits because i'm pissed off since you potentially make me miss an important meeting/job interview/doctors appointment/prevent me from picking up my kids from school. It's like arguing that to get the attention of a police officer, instead of calling him over you should throw sticks at him. Yeah, you will get his attention, but not the way you intended to - and certainly not the reaction you apparently expected either. Interrupting the lives of people who have nothing to do with whatever you're protesting will not help your cause, it will in fact hurt it. The people in traffic will get pissed off, and your opposition to whatever you're advocating will have a field day pointing out what a menace you are to the public. If one is more worried about stopping traffic protests than what they're protesting, that highlights your problem right there.
No, it really isn't. It's not like everyone lives a perfect white persons life, people have their own problems too. But it's a very suiting way for you to argue, "if you get angry because people fuck up your day, YOU are the problem". Fuck off. lol. See? You're angry about me pointing out getting angry and irrational about a traffic protest indicates that you don't appreciate why they are protesting in the first place. If you did, then you would expect them to do much worse than interrupt traffic. On September 27 2017 07:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
This argument is old and tired. If they protest the police stations then it's "they have to stay at the station and can't police crime" or some other bullshit. It's never the right place or the right time to attack the white supremacy deep in this country's soul.
To a degree I get it. White mediocrity succeeded in America in no small part thanks to the exclusion and oppression of other non-white people. From corporations, to unions, to the NFL/NBA/MLB mediocre white people were catapulted to the top in the forced absence and/or on the backs of of better suited non-white peers, simply for their whiteness. why do non-white people continue to flock to the USA if things are so bad? i have a close friend and colleague who is iranian. he went from Baghdad to Toronto. His first decent job offer in New York state and he is gone. Guy was making $10,000 USD a month in Toronto... and he couldn't leave fast enough. or is Iranian considered white? are jews white? my gf has 4 great parents who are white and 4 who are non-white. is she white? is white just a social construct? Legally, yes, Iranian is white. Jews pass for white all the time. Yes white is a social construct meant to dehumanize and subjugate those deemed "non-white". The US and other influential countries have exploited lots of places around the world, it would make sense for the people to want to follow where the wealth generated from their country went (and would also make sense why they try to send it back). how much wealth is Syria generating these days?
For the MIC? Billions.
|
On September 27 2017 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 07:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:12 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 07:02 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2017 06:54 Simberto wrote:On September 27 2017 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:On September 27 2017 06:27 RealityIsKing wrote:
Can the issue be solved in a non-violent, minimizing polarization, unifying manner? Absolutely!
In what kind of timeframe? What progress would you say has been made in the past 10 years? What would you say is an acceptable amount of time for blacks to be disproportionately killed by police? How many people die before the issue needs to be escalated? If those are true, then the BLM needs focus their location of protest at police stations and not go out and breaking down local communities and shutting down major traffic intersection. Again, talking about efficiency and making a bad name for yourself PR-wise. This argument is old and tired. If they protest the police stations then it's "they have to stay at the station and can't police crime" or some other bullshit. It's never the right place or the right time to attack the white supremacy deep in this country's soul. To a degree I get it. White mediocrity succeeded in America in no small part thanks to the exclusion and oppression of other non-white people. From corporations, to unions, to the NFL/NBA/MLB mediocre white people were catapulted to the top in the forced absence and/or on the backs of of better suited non-white peers, simply for their whiteness. Attacking the structures that keep that in place is a direct threat to those who benefit from it. That's why it's always going to upset them no matter how you do it. On September 27 2017 06:39 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 27 2017 06:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:On September 27 2017 06:27 RealityIsKing wrote:
Can the issue be solved in a non-violent, minimizing polarization, unifying manner? Absolutely!
In what kind of timeframe? What progress would you say has been made in the past 10 years? What would you say is an acceptable amount of time for blacks to be disproportionately killed by police? How many people die before the issue needs to be escalated? If those are true, then the BLM needs focus their location of protest at police stations and not go out and breaking down local communities and shutting down major traffic intersection. Again, talking about efficiency and making a bad name for yourself PR-wise. Shutting down a major traffic intersection is an almost perfect way of protesting. It forces your viewpoint into the public consciousness non violently so that seems fine to me. I get the feeling you would rather they protesting quietly without disturbing anyone, maybe by writing a letter to the police. Protest is supposed to be a major disturbance. Otherwise it won't work. If one is more worried about stopping traffic protests than what they're protesting, that highlights your problem right there. If you get pissed off enough to want to RUN OVER another HUMAN BEING because they are blocking traffic (Republicans are trying to make this legal) , imagine how pissed we are about not having our rights? I am getting this feeling now, too. There just does not seem to be any protest that is in any way acceptable. I personally can barely imagine a tamer protest than taking a knee. This has literally no impact on any other people. And apparently that is still too much. Taking a knee is completely nonviolent, does not disturb anything, the only effect it does have is that people have to look at a guy on a knee instead of standing. If this is not acceptable, it seems very clear that the problem is not the way of the protest, but the actual subject. Which is weird, because apparently being a Nazi is an acceptable ground to protest, but being black and not content with the civil rights situation is not. You're still confusing what you have the right to do, and what forms of protest advance or hurt the cause. When a lawyer represents a client clearly guilty of the murder, we don't say he's pro-murder or is apathetic about murderers. But when it's neonazis marching in the streets, suddenly free speech and free assembly go out the window. It's a clear poisoning of the debate. Nope, it's just hypocritical for you to defend the rights of Nazis to speak on one hand, and on the other cry out that NFL players taking a knee is disrespectful to the country, and that they should just play the game. does the average american consider Ben Shapiro a nazi, white-supremacist? I'd suspect not. He does help advance arguments that aid in keeping white supremacy structures in place though. Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 07:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:59 m4ini wrote:On September 27 2017 06:39 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 27 2017 06:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:On September 27 2017 06:27 RealityIsKing wrote:
Can the issue be solved in a non-violent, minimizing polarization, unifying manner? Absolutely!
In what kind of timeframe? What progress would you say has been made in the past 10 years? What would you say is an acceptable amount of time for blacks to be disproportionately killed by police? How many people die before the issue needs to be escalated? If those are true, then the BLM needs focus their location of protest at police stations and not go out and breaking down local communities and shutting down major traffic intersection. Again, talking about efficiency and making a bad name for yourself PR-wise. Shutting down a major traffic intersection is an almost perfect way of protesting. It forces your viewpoint into the public consciousness non violently so that seems fine to me. I get the feeling you would rather they protesting quietly without disturbing anyone, maybe by writing a letter to the police. Protest is supposed to be a major disturbance. Otherwise it won't work. I always find this part mindbogglingly idiotic. Yeah. I will see your viewpoint, and on top of that, i will not give the slightest of shits because i'm pissed off since you potentially make me miss an important meeting/job interview/doctors appointment/prevent me from picking up my kids from school. It's like arguing that to get the attention of a police officer, instead of calling him over you should throw sticks at him. Yeah, you will get his attention, but not the way you intended to - and certainly not the reaction you apparently expected either. Interrupting the lives of people who have nothing to do with whatever you're protesting will not help your cause, it will in fact hurt it. The people in traffic will get pissed off, and your opposition to whatever you're advocating will have a field day pointing out what a menace you are to the public. If one is more worried about stopping traffic protests than what they're protesting, that highlights your problem right there.
No, it really isn't. It's not like everyone lives a perfect white persons life, people have their own problems too. But it's a very suiting way for you to argue, "if you get angry because people fuck up your day, YOU are the problem". Fuck off. lol. See? You're angry about me pointing out getting angry and irrational about a traffic protest indicates that you don't appreciate why they are protesting in the first place. If you did, then you would expect them to do much worse than interrupt traffic. On September 27 2017 07:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
This argument is old and tired. If they protest the police stations then it's "they have to stay at the station and can't police crime" or some other bullshit. It's never the right place or the right time to attack the white supremacy deep in this country's soul.
To a degree I get it. White mediocrity succeeded in America in no small part thanks to the exclusion and oppression of other non-white people. From corporations, to unions, to the NFL/NBA/MLB mediocre white people were catapulted to the top in the forced absence and/or on the backs of of better suited non-white peers, simply for their whiteness. why do non-white people continue to flock to the USA if things are so bad? i have a close friend and colleague who is iranian. he went from Baghdad to Toronto. His first decent job offer in New York state and he is gone. Guy was making $10,000 USD a month in Toronto... and he couldn't leave fast enough. or is Iranian considered white? are jews white? my gf has 4 great parents who are white and 4 who are non-white. is she white? is white just a social construct? Legally, yes, Iranian is white. Jews pass for white all the time. Yes white is a social construct meant to dehumanize and subjugate those deemed "non-white". The US and other influential countries have exploited lots of places around the world, it would make sense for the people to want to follow where the wealth generated from their country went (and would also make sense why they try to send it back). how much wealth is Syria generating these days? For the MIC? Billions.
so should Ben Shapiro be free to speak?
great, if the Syrians do not like it here in Canada they can leave. if they commit crimes they go to jail.
|
United States42004 Posts
On September 27 2017 06:27 RealityIsKing wrote:
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.
I can assure you that your unique experience of "working in an office environment" has not actually given you the answer to fixing racism in America. Even if you think that it has.
|
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.
The great tragedy here is is that I understand and even accept the bolded part above, but we can't get to a discussion on how to deal with it given the toxicity that the Left injects into the debate.
|
On September 27 2017 07:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote: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. The great tragedy here is is that I understand and even accept the bolded part above, but we can't get to a discussion on how to deal with it given the toxicity that the Left injects into the debate.
I think you'll be surprised if you don't enter the conversation in bad faith.
|
On September 27 2017 07:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 06:27 RealityIsKing wrote:
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. I can assure you that your unique experience of "working in an office environment" has not actually given you the answer to fixing racism in America. Even if you think that it has.
You did think that Hillary Clinton would win against Trump so I don't think that you have the brightest outlook.
|
|
|
On September 27 2017 07:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 07:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:12 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 07:02 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2017 06:54 Simberto wrote:On September 27 2017 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:On September 27 2017 06:27 RealityIsKing wrote:
Can the issue be solved in a non-violent, minimizing polarization, unifying manner? Absolutely!
In what kind of timeframe? What progress would you say has been made in the past 10 years? What would you say is an acceptable amount of time for blacks to be disproportionately killed by police? How many people die before the issue needs to be escalated? If those are true, then the BLM needs focus their location of protest at police stations and not go out and breaking down local communities and shutting down major traffic intersection. Again, talking about efficiency and making a bad name for yourself PR-wise. This argument is old and tired. If they protest the police stations then it's "they have to stay at the station and can't police crime" or some other bullshit. It's never the right place or the right time to attack the white supremacy deep in this country's soul. To a degree I get it. White mediocrity succeeded in America in no small part thanks to the exclusion and oppression of other non-white people. From corporations, to unions, to the NFL/NBA/MLB mediocre white people were catapulted to the top in the forced absence and/or on the backs of of better suited non-white peers, simply for their whiteness. Attacking the structures that keep that in place is a direct threat to those who benefit from it. That's why it's always going to upset them no matter how you do it. On September 27 2017 06:39 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 27 2017 06:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
In what kind of timeframe? What progress would you say has been made in the past 10 years? What would you say is an acceptable amount of time for blacks to be disproportionately killed by police? How many people die before the issue needs to be escalated? If those are true, then the BLM needs focus their location of protest at police stations and not go out and breaking down local communities and shutting down major traffic intersection. Again, talking about efficiency and making a bad name for yourself PR-wise. Shutting down a major traffic intersection is an almost perfect way of protesting. It forces your viewpoint into the public consciousness non violently so that seems fine to me. I get the feeling you would rather they protesting quietly without disturbing anyone, maybe by writing a letter to the police. Protest is supposed to be a major disturbance. Otherwise it won't work. If one is more worried about stopping traffic protests than what they're protesting, that highlights your problem right there. If you get pissed off enough to want to RUN OVER another HUMAN BEING because they are blocking traffic (Republicans are trying to make this legal) , imagine how pissed we are about not having our rights? I am getting this feeling now, too. There just does not seem to be any protest that is in any way acceptable. I personally can barely imagine a tamer protest than taking a knee. This has literally no impact on any other people. And apparently that is still too much. Taking a knee is completely nonviolent, does not disturb anything, the only effect it does have is that people have to look at a guy on a knee instead of standing. If this is not acceptable, it seems very clear that the problem is not the way of the protest, but the actual subject. Which is weird, because apparently being a Nazi is an acceptable ground to protest, but being black and not content with the civil rights situation is not. You're still confusing what you have the right to do, and what forms of protest advance or hurt the cause. When a lawyer represents a client clearly guilty of the murder, we don't say he's pro-murder or is apathetic about murderers. But when it's neonazis marching in the streets, suddenly free speech and free assembly go out the window. It's a clear poisoning of the debate. Nope, it's just hypocritical for you to defend the rights of Nazis to speak on one hand, and on the other cry out that NFL players taking a knee is disrespectful to the country, and that they should just play the game. does the average american consider Ben Shapiro a nazi, white-supremacist? I'd suspect not. He does help advance arguments that aid in keeping white supremacy structures in place though. On September 27 2017 07:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:59 m4ini wrote:On September 27 2017 06:39 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 27 2017 06:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:On September 27 2017 06:27 RealityIsKing wrote:
Can the issue be solved in a non-violent, minimizing polarization, unifying manner? Absolutely!
In what kind of timeframe? What progress would you say has been made in the past 10 years? What would you say is an acceptable amount of time for blacks to be disproportionately killed by police? How many people die before the issue needs to be escalated? If those are true, then the BLM needs focus their location of protest at police stations and not go out and breaking down local communities and shutting down major traffic intersection. Again, talking about efficiency and making a bad name for yourself PR-wise. Shutting down a major traffic intersection is an almost perfect way of protesting. It forces your viewpoint into the public consciousness non violently so that seems fine to me. I get the feeling you would rather they protesting quietly without disturbing anyone, maybe by writing a letter to the police. Protest is supposed to be a major disturbance. Otherwise it won't work. I always find this part mindbogglingly idiotic. Yeah. I will see your viewpoint, and on top of that, i will not give the slightest of shits because i'm pissed off since you potentially make me miss an important meeting/job interview/doctors appointment/prevent me from picking up my kids from school. It's like arguing that to get the attention of a police officer, instead of calling him over you should throw sticks at him. Yeah, you will get his attention, but not the way you intended to - and certainly not the reaction you apparently expected either. Interrupting the lives of people who have nothing to do with whatever you're protesting will not help your cause, it will in fact hurt it. The people in traffic will get pissed off, and your opposition to whatever you're advocating will have a field day pointing out what a menace you are to the public. If one is more worried about stopping traffic protests than what they're protesting, that highlights your problem right there.
No, it really isn't. It's not like everyone lives a perfect white persons life, people have their own problems too. But it's a very suiting way for you to argue, "if you get angry because people fuck up your day, YOU are the problem". Fuck off. lol. See? You're angry about me pointing out getting angry and irrational about a traffic protest indicates that you don't appreciate why they are protesting in the first place. If you did, then you would expect them to do much worse than interrupt traffic. On September 27 2017 07:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
This argument is old and tired. If they protest the police stations then it's "they have to stay at the station and can't police crime" or some other bullshit. It's never the right place or the right time to attack the white supremacy deep in this country's soul.
To a degree I get it. White mediocrity succeeded in America in no small part thanks to the exclusion and oppression of other non-white people. From corporations, to unions, to the NFL/NBA/MLB mediocre white people were catapulted to the top in the forced absence and/or on the backs of of better suited non-white peers, simply for their whiteness. why do non-white people continue to flock to the USA if things are so bad? i have a close friend and colleague who is iranian. he went from Baghdad to Toronto. His first decent job offer in New York state and he is gone. Guy was making $10,000 USD a month in Toronto... and he couldn't leave fast enough. or is Iranian considered white? are jews white? my gf has 4 great parents who are white and 4 who are non-white. is she white? is white just a social construct? Legally, yes, Iranian is white. Jews pass for white all the time. Yes white is a social construct meant to dehumanize and subjugate those deemed "non-white". The US and other influential countries have exploited lots of places around the world, it would make sense for the people to want to follow where the wealth generated from their country went (and would also make sense why they try to send it back). how much wealth is Syria generating these days? For the MIC? Billions. so should Ben Shapiro be free to speak? great, if the Syrians do not like it here in Canada they can leave. if they commit crimes they go to jail.
Sure, and people should be able to protest his speaking.
I literally have no idea where this Syrians in Canada thing is coming from but I imagine that's an option for some and less so for others. I mean that's how it usually works for poor people (the wealthy or connected not as much, but I can't speak much to Canada's justice system).
Considering the minimal information I know about indigenous people of Canada, I can imagine you guys have you're own problems with bigotry, though different than the US.
|
United States42004 Posts
On September 27 2017 07:26 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 07:21 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2017 06:27 RealityIsKing wrote:
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. I can assure you that your unique experience of "working in an office environment" has not actually given you the answer to fixing racism in America. Even if you think that it has. You did think that Hillary Clinton would win against Trump so I don't think that you have the brightest outlook.
I would also bet that a given six sided die would return a result of 3 or higher. But more importantly, if someone else were to make that bet and be proven wrong by a 1, I wouldn't call them a fool based upon that result. Doing so would reveal that I was the fool, not them.
There's a lesson there if you care to learn it.
|
On September 27 2017 07:12 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 07:02 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2017 06:54 Simberto wrote:On September 27 2017 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:On September 27 2017 06:27 RealityIsKing wrote:
Can the issue be solved in a non-violent, minimizing polarization, unifying manner? Absolutely!
In what kind of timeframe? What progress would you say has been made in the past 10 years? What would you say is an acceptable amount of time for blacks to be disproportionately killed by police? How many people die before the issue needs to be escalated? If those are true, then the BLM needs focus their location of protest at police stations and not go out and breaking down local communities and shutting down major traffic intersection. Again, talking about efficiency and making a bad name for yourself PR-wise. This argument is old and tired. If they protest the police stations then it's "they have to stay at the station and can't police crime" or some other bullshit. It's never the right place or the right time to attack the white supremacy deep in this country's soul. To a degree I get it. White mediocrity succeeded in America in no small part thanks to the exclusion and oppression of other non-white people. From corporations, to unions, to the NFL/NBA/MLB mediocre white people were catapulted to the top in the forced absence and/or on the backs of of better suited non-white peers, simply for their whiteness. Attacking the structures that keep that in place is a direct threat to those who benefit from it. That's why it's always going to upset them no matter how you do it. On September 27 2017 06:39 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 27 2017 06:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:On September 27 2017 06:27 RealityIsKing wrote:
Can the issue be solved in a non-violent, minimizing polarization, unifying manner? Absolutely!
In what kind of timeframe? What progress would you say has been made in the past 10 years? What would you say is an acceptable amount of time for blacks to be disproportionately killed by police? How many people die before the issue needs to be escalated? If those are true, then the BLM needs focus their location of protest at police stations and not go out and breaking down local communities and shutting down major traffic intersection. Again, talking about efficiency and making a bad name for yourself PR-wise. Shutting down a major traffic intersection is an almost perfect way of protesting. It forces your viewpoint into the public consciousness non violently so that seems fine to me. I get the feeling you would rather they protesting quietly without disturbing anyone, maybe by writing a letter to the police. Protest is supposed to be a major disturbance. Otherwise it won't work. If one is more worried about stopping traffic protests than what they're protesting, that highlights your problem right there. If you get pissed off enough to want to RUN OVER another HUMAN BEING because they are blocking traffic (Republicans are trying to make this legal) , imagine how pissed we are about not having our rights? I am getting this feeling now, too. There just does not seem to be any protest that is in any way acceptable. I personally can barely imagine a tamer protest than taking a knee. This has literally no impact on any other people. And apparently that is still too much. Taking a knee is completely nonviolent, does not disturb anything, the only effect it does have is that people have to look at a guy on a knee instead of standing. If this is not acceptable, it seems very clear that the problem is not the way of the protest, but the actual subject. Which is weird, because apparently being a Nazi is an acceptable ground to protest, but being black and not content with the civil rights situation is not. You're still confusing what you have the right to do, and what forms of protest advance or hurt the cause. When a lawyer represents a client clearly guilty of the murder, we don't say he's pro-murder or is apathetic about murderers. But when it's neonazis marching in the streets, suddenly free speech and free assembly go out the window. It's a clear poisoning of the debate. Nope, it's just hypocritical for you to defend the rights of Nazis to speak on one hand, and on the other cry out that NFL players taking a knee is disrespectful to the country, and that they should just play the game.
You should really read more of my posts. I never said that.
|
On September 27 2017 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 07:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 07:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:12 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 07:02 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2017 06:54 Simberto wrote:On September 27 2017 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
In what kind of timeframe? What progress would you say has been made in the past 10 years? What would you say is an acceptable amount of time for blacks to be disproportionately killed by police? How many people die before the issue needs to be escalated? If those are true, then the BLM needs focus their location of protest at police stations and not go out and breaking down local communities and shutting down major traffic intersection. Again, talking about efficiency and making a bad name for yourself PR-wise. This argument is old and tired. If they protest the police stations then it's "they have to stay at the station and can't police crime" or some other bullshit. It's never the right place or the right time to attack the white supremacy deep in this country's soul. To a degree I get it. White mediocrity succeeded in America in no small part thanks to the exclusion and oppression of other non-white people. From corporations, to unions, to the NFL/NBA/MLB mediocre white people were catapulted to the top in the forced absence and/or on the backs of of better suited non-white peers, simply for their whiteness. Attacking the structures that keep that in place is a direct threat to those who benefit from it. That's why it's always going to upset them no matter how you do it. On September 27 2017 06:39 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 27 2017 06:34 RealityIsKing wrote:
[quote]
If those are true, then the BLM needs focus their location of protest at police stations and not go out and breaking down local communities and shutting down major traffic intersection.
Again, talking about efficiency and making a bad name for yourself PR-wise. Shutting down a major traffic intersection is an almost perfect way of protesting. It forces your viewpoint into the public consciousness non violently so that seems fine to me. I get the feeling you would rather they protesting quietly without disturbing anyone, maybe by writing a letter to the police. Protest is supposed to be a major disturbance. Otherwise it won't work. If one is more worried about stopping traffic protests than what they're protesting, that highlights your problem right there. If you get pissed off enough to want to RUN OVER another HUMAN BEING because they are blocking traffic (Republicans are trying to make this legal) , imagine how pissed we are about not having our rights? I am getting this feeling now, too. There just does not seem to be any protest that is in any way acceptable. I personally can barely imagine a tamer protest than taking a knee. This has literally no impact on any other people. And apparently that is still too much. Taking a knee is completely nonviolent, does not disturb anything, the only effect it does have is that people have to look at a guy on a knee instead of standing. If this is not acceptable, it seems very clear that the problem is not the way of the protest, but the actual subject. Which is weird, because apparently being a Nazi is an acceptable ground to protest, but being black and not content with the civil rights situation is not. You're still confusing what you have the right to do, and what forms of protest advance or hurt the cause. When a lawyer represents a client clearly guilty of the murder, we don't say he's pro-murder or is apathetic about murderers. But when it's neonazis marching in the streets, suddenly free speech and free assembly go out the window. It's a clear poisoning of the debate. Nope, it's just hypocritical for you to defend the rights of Nazis to speak on one hand, and on the other cry out that NFL players taking a knee is disrespectful to the country, and that they should just play the game. does the average american consider Ben Shapiro a nazi, white-supremacist? I'd suspect not. He does help advance arguments that aid in keeping white supremacy structures in place though. On September 27 2017 07:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:59 m4ini wrote:On September 27 2017 06:39 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 27 2017 06:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:On September 27 2017 06:27 RealityIsKing wrote:
Can the issue be solved in a non-violent, minimizing polarization, unifying manner? Absolutely!
In what kind of timeframe? What progress would you say has been made in the past 10 years? What would you say is an acceptable amount of time for blacks to be disproportionately killed by police? How many people die before the issue needs to be escalated? If those are true, then the BLM needs focus their location of protest at police stations and not go out and breaking down local communities and shutting down major traffic intersection. Again, talking about efficiency and making a bad name for yourself PR-wise. Shutting down a major traffic intersection is an almost perfect way of protesting. It forces your viewpoint into the public consciousness non violently so that seems fine to me. I get the feeling you would rather they protesting quietly without disturbing anyone, maybe by writing a letter to the police. Protest is supposed to be a major disturbance. Otherwise it won't work. I always find this part mindbogglingly idiotic. Yeah. I will see your viewpoint, and on top of that, i will not give the slightest of shits because i'm pissed off since you potentially make me miss an important meeting/job interview/doctors appointment/prevent me from picking up my kids from school. It's like arguing that to get the attention of a police officer, instead of calling him over you should throw sticks at him. Yeah, you will get his attention, but not the way you intended to - and certainly not the reaction you apparently expected either. Interrupting the lives of people who have nothing to do with whatever you're protesting will not help your cause, it will in fact hurt it. The people in traffic will get pissed off, and your opposition to whatever you're advocating will have a field day pointing out what a menace you are to the public. If one is more worried about stopping traffic protests than what they're protesting, that highlights your problem right there.
No, it really isn't. It's not like everyone lives a perfect white persons life, people have their own problems too. But it's a very suiting way for you to argue, "if you get angry because people fuck up your day, YOU are the problem". Fuck off. lol. See? You're angry about me pointing out getting angry and irrational about a traffic protest indicates that you don't appreciate why they are protesting in the first place. If you did, then you would expect them to do much worse than interrupt traffic. On September 27 2017 07:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
This argument is old and tired. If they protest the police stations then it's "they have to stay at the station and can't police crime" or some other bullshit. It's never the right place or the right time to attack the white supremacy deep in this country's soul.
To a degree I get it. White mediocrity succeeded in America in no small part thanks to the exclusion and oppression of other non-white people. From corporations, to unions, to the NFL/NBA/MLB mediocre white people were catapulted to the top in the forced absence and/or on the backs of of better suited non-white peers, simply for their whiteness. why do non-white people continue to flock to the USA if things are so bad? i have a close friend and colleague who is iranian. he went from Baghdad to Toronto. His first decent job offer in New York state and he is gone. Guy was making $10,000 USD a month in Toronto... and he couldn't leave fast enough. or is Iranian considered white? are jews white? my gf has 4 great parents who are white and 4 who are non-white. is she white? is white just a social construct? Legally, yes, Iranian is white. Jews pass for white all the time. Yes white is a social construct meant to dehumanize and subjugate those deemed "non-white". The US and other influential countries have exploited lots of places around the world, it would make sense for the people to want to follow where the wealth generated from their country went (and would also make sense why they try to send it back). how much wealth is Syria generating these days? For the MIC? Billions. so should Ben Shapiro be free to speak? great, if the Syrians do not like it here in Canada they can leave. if they commit crimes they go to jail. Sure, and people should be able to protest his speaking. I literally have no idea where this Syrians in Canada thing is coming from but I imagine that's an option for some and less so for others. I mean that's how it usually works for poor people (the wealthy or connected not as much, but I can't speak much to Canada's justice system). Considering the minimal information I know about indigenous people of Canada, I can imagine you guys have you're own problems with bigotry, though different than the US.
everything here is just fine. people who want to be lifelong victims can find a reason to complain about anything though.
|
|
|
On September 27 2017 07:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote: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. The great tragedy here is is that I understand and even accept the bolded part above, but we can't get to a discussion on how to deal with it given the toxicity that the Left injects into the debate.
Suck it up Suzy, and do the work.
On September 27 2017 07:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 07:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 07:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:12 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 07:02 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2017 06:54 Simberto wrote:On September 27 2017 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:34 RealityIsKing wrote:
[quote]
If those are true, then the BLM needs focus their location of protest at police stations and not go out and breaking down local communities and shutting down major traffic intersection.
Again, talking about efficiency and making a bad name for yourself PR-wise. This argument is old and tired. If they protest the police stations then it's "they have to stay at the station and can't police crime" or some other bullshit. It's never the right place or the right time to attack the white supremacy deep in this country's soul. To a degree I get it. White mediocrity succeeded in America in no small part thanks to the exclusion and oppression of other non-white people. From corporations, to unions, to the NFL/NBA/MLB mediocre white people were catapulted to the top in the forced absence and/or on the backs of of better suited non-white peers, simply for their whiteness. Attacking the structures that keep that in place is a direct threat to those who benefit from it. That's why it's always going to upset them no matter how you do it. On September 27 2017 06:39 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
Shutting down a major traffic intersection is an almost perfect way of protesting. It forces your viewpoint into the public consciousness non violently so that seems fine to me.
I get the feeling you would rather they protesting quietly without disturbing anyone, maybe by writing a letter to the police.
Protest is supposed to be a major disturbance. Otherwise it won't work. If one is more worried about stopping traffic protests than what they're protesting, that highlights your problem right there. If you get pissed off enough to want to RUN OVER another HUMAN BEING because they are blocking traffic (Republicans are trying to make this legal) , imagine how pissed we are about not having our rights? I am getting this feeling now, too. There just does not seem to be any protest that is in any way acceptable. I personally can barely imagine a tamer protest than taking a knee. This has literally no impact on any other people. And apparently that is still too much. Taking a knee is completely nonviolent, does not disturb anything, the only effect it does have is that people have to look at a guy on a knee instead of standing. If this is not acceptable, it seems very clear that the problem is not the way of the protest, but the actual subject. Which is weird, because apparently being a Nazi is an acceptable ground to protest, but being black and not content with the civil rights situation is not. You're still confusing what you have the right to do, and what forms of protest advance or hurt the cause. When a lawyer represents a client clearly guilty of the murder, we don't say he's pro-murder or is apathetic about murderers. But when it's neonazis marching in the streets, suddenly free speech and free assembly go out the window. It's a clear poisoning of the debate. Nope, it's just hypocritical for you to defend the rights of Nazis to speak on one hand, and on the other cry out that NFL players taking a knee is disrespectful to the country, and that they should just play the game. does the average american consider Ben Shapiro a nazi, white-supremacist? I'd suspect not. He does help advance arguments that aid in keeping white supremacy structures in place though. On September 27 2017 07:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:59 m4ini wrote:On September 27 2017 06:39 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 27 2017 06:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
In what kind of timeframe? What progress would you say has been made in the past 10 years? What would you say is an acceptable amount of time for blacks to be disproportionately killed by police? How many people die before the issue needs to be escalated? If those are true, then the BLM needs focus their location of protest at police stations and not go out and breaking down local communities and shutting down major traffic intersection. Again, talking about efficiency and making a bad name for yourself PR-wise. Shutting down a major traffic intersection is an almost perfect way of protesting. It forces your viewpoint into the public consciousness non violently so that seems fine to me. I get the feeling you would rather they protesting quietly without disturbing anyone, maybe by writing a letter to the police. Protest is supposed to be a major disturbance. Otherwise it won't work. I always find this part mindbogglingly idiotic. Yeah. I will see your viewpoint, and on top of that, i will not give the slightest of shits because i'm pissed off since you potentially make me miss an important meeting/job interview/doctors appointment/prevent me from picking up my kids from school. It's like arguing that to get the attention of a police officer, instead of calling him over you should throw sticks at him. Yeah, you will get his attention, but not the way you intended to - and certainly not the reaction you apparently expected either. Interrupting the lives of people who have nothing to do with whatever you're protesting will not help your cause, it will in fact hurt it. The people in traffic will get pissed off, and your opposition to whatever you're advocating will have a field day pointing out what a menace you are to the public. If one is more worried about stopping traffic protests than what they're protesting, that highlights your problem right there.
No, it really isn't. It's not like everyone lives a perfect white persons life, people have their own problems too. But it's a very suiting way for you to argue, "if you get angry because people fuck up your day, YOU are the problem". Fuck off. lol. See? You're angry about me pointing out getting angry and irrational about a traffic protest indicates that you don't appreciate why they are protesting in the first place. If you did, then you would expect them to do much worse than interrupt traffic. On September 27 2017 07:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
This argument is old and tired. If they protest the police stations then it's "they have to stay at the station and can't police crime" or some other bullshit. It's never the right place or the right time to attack the white supremacy deep in this country's soul.
To a degree I get it. White mediocrity succeeded in America in no small part thanks to the exclusion and oppression of other non-white people. From corporations, to unions, to the NFL/NBA/MLB mediocre white people were catapulted to the top in the forced absence and/or on the backs of of better suited non-white peers, simply for their whiteness. why do non-white people continue to flock to the USA if things are so bad? i have a close friend and colleague who is iranian. he went from Baghdad to Toronto. His first decent job offer in New York state and he is gone. Guy was making $10,000 USD a month in Toronto... and he couldn't leave fast enough. or is Iranian considered white? are jews white? my gf has 4 great parents who are white and 4 who are non-white. is she white? is white just a social construct? Legally, yes, Iranian is white. Jews pass for white all the time. Yes white is a social construct meant to dehumanize and subjugate those deemed "non-white". The US and other influential countries have exploited lots of places around the world, it would make sense for the people to want to follow where the wealth generated from their country went (and would also make sense why they try to send it back). how much wealth is Syria generating these days? For the MIC? Billions. so should Ben Shapiro be free to speak? great, if the Syrians do not like it here in Canada they can leave. if they commit crimes they go to jail. Sure, and people should be able to protest his speaking. I literally have no idea where this Syrians in Canada thing is coming from but I imagine that's an option for some and less so for others. I mean that's how it usually works for poor people (the wealthy or connected not as much, but I can't speak much to Canada's justice system). Considering the minimal information I know about indigenous people of Canada, I can imagine you guys have you're own problems with bigotry, though different than the US. everything here is just fine. people who want to be lifelong victims can find a reason to complain about anything though.
I doubt that, but I don't doubt your sincerity in believing it.
EDIT: For instance, this sounds kinda familiar:
A Canadian government minister has suggested that as many as 4,000 indigenous women have gone missing or been murdered over the past three decades.
Patricia Hajdu, minister for the status of women, said research from the Native Women’s Association of Canada put the figure much higher than the 1,200 mentioned in a 2014 report by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).
Hadju said a lack of hard data made it almost impossible to reach an accurate figure but 4,000 could be correct because of a history of police underreporting murders or failing to investigate suspicious deaths.
Source
|
On September 27 2017 07:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 07:12 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 07:02 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2017 06:54 Simberto wrote:On September 27 2017 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:On September 27 2017 06:27 RealityIsKing wrote:
Can the issue be solved in a non-violent, minimizing polarization, unifying manner? Absolutely!
In what kind of timeframe? What progress would you say has been made in the past 10 years? What would you say is an acceptable amount of time for blacks to be disproportionately killed by police? How many people die before the issue needs to be escalated? If those are true, then the BLM needs focus their location of protest at police stations and not go out and breaking down local communities and shutting down major traffic intersection. Again, talking about efficiency and making a bad name for yourself PR-wise. This argument is old and tired. If they protest the police stations then it's "they have to stay at the station and can't police crime" or some other bullshit. It's never the right place or the right time to attack the white supremacy deep in this country's soul. To a degree I get it. White mediocrity succeeded in America in no small part thanks to the exclusion and oppression of other non-white people. From corporations, to unions, to the NFL/NBA/MLB mediocre white people were catapulted to the top in the forced absence and/or on the backs of of better suited non-white peers, simply for their whiteness. Attacking the structures that keep that in place is a direct threat to those who benefit from it. That's why it's always going to upset them no matter how you do it. On September 27 2017 06:39 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 27 2017 06:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:On September 27 2017 06:27 RealityIsKing wrote:
Can the issue be solved in a non-violent, minimizing polarization, unifying manner? Absolutely!
In what kind of timeframe? What progress would you say has been made in the past 10 years? What would you say is an acceptable amount of time for blacks to be disproportionately killed by police? How many people die before the issue needs to be escalated? If those are true, then the BLM needs focus their location of protest at police stations and not go out and breaking down local communities and shutting down major traffic intersection. Again, talking about efficiency and making a bad name for yourself PR-wise. Shutting down a major traffic intersection is an almost perfect way of protesting. It forces your viewpoint into the public consciousness non violently so that seems fine to me. I get the feeling you would rather they protesting quietly without disturbing anyone, maybe by writing a letter to the police. Protest is supposed to be a major disturbance. Otherwise it won't work. If one is more worried about stopping traffic protests than what they're protesting, that highlights your problem right there. If you get pissed off enough to want to RUN OVER another HUMAN BEING because they are blocking traffic (Republicans are trying to make this legal) , imagine how pissed we are about not having our rights? I am getting this feeling now, too. There just does not seem to be any protest that is in any way acceptable. I personally can barely imagine a tamer protest than taking a knee. This has literally no impact on any other people. And apparently that is still too much. Taking a knee is completely nonviolent, does not disturb anything, the only effect it does have is that people have to look at a guy on a knee instead of standing. If this is not acceptable, it seems very clear that the problem is not the way of the protest, but the actual subject. Which is weird, because apparently being a Nazi is an acceptable ground to protest, but being black and not content with the civil rights situation is not. You're still confusing what you have the right to do, and what forms of protest advance or hurt the cause. When a lawyer represents a client clearly guilty of the murder, we don't say he's pro-murder or is apathetic about murderers. But when it's neonazis marching in the streets, suddenly free speech and free assembly go out the window. It's a clear poisoning of the debate. Nope, it's just hypocritical for you to defend the rights of Nazis to speak on one hand, and on the other cry out that NFL players taking a knee is disrespectful to the country, and that they should just play the game. You should really read more of my posts. I never said that.
You come very close. It is pretty easy to see this post a disapproval and claiming the protest is disrespectful.
On September 24 2017 11:04 Danglars wrote:
Also, wow about the American flag and the military. The flag of the Republican Party and the military of the Republican Party, am I right?
Trump has an impressive race to the bottom, but his competition is doing their best to beat him. It'll be close.
But of course, we read it wrong. We get it.
|
|
|
On September 27 2017 07:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote: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. The great tragedy here is is that I understand and even accept the bolded part above, but we can't get to a discussion on how to deal with it given the toxicity that the Left injects into the debate.
I like how " if you adopt that definition of "white supremacy," then you might as well just get back on the boat and go back to Africa"
Became
you told me to "get back on a boat back to Africa"
|
On September 27 2017 07:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Here's a hint, Sessions.
And Miller, who's understanding of the world beyond the US is basic AF.
|
On September 27 2017 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 07:23 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote: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. The great tragedy here is is that I understand and even accept the bolded part above, but we can't get to a discussion on how to deal with it given the toxicity that the Left injects into the debate. Suck it up Suzy, and do the work. Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 07:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 07:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 07:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:12 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 07:02 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2017 06:54 Simberto wrote:On September 27 2017 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
This argument is old and tired. If they protest the police stations then it's "they have to stay at the station and can't police crime" or some other bullshit. It's never the right place or the right time to attack the white supremacy deep in this country's soul.
To a degree I get it. White mediocrity succeeded in America in no small part thanks to the exclusion and oppression of other non-white people. From corporations, to unions, to the NFL/NBA/MLB mediocre white people were catapulted to the top in the forced absence and/or on the backs of of better suited non-white peers, simply for their whiteness.
Attacking the structures that keep that in place is a direct threat to those who benefit from it. That's why it's always going to upset them no matter how you do it.
[quote]
If one is more worried about stopping traffic protests than what they're protesting, that highlights your problem right there.
If you get pissed off enough to want to RUN OVER another HUMAN BEING because they are blocking traffic (Republicans are trying to make this legal) , imagine how pissed we are about not having our rights? I am getting this feeling now, too. There just does not seem to be any protest that is in any way acceptable. I personally can barely imagine a tamer protest than taking a knee. This has literally no impact on any other people. And apparently that is still too much. Taking a knee is completely nonviolent, does not disturb anything, the only effect it does have is that people have to look at a guy on a knee instead of standing. If this is not acceptable, it seems very clear that the problem is not the way of the protest, but the actual subject. Which is weird, because apparently being a Nazi is an acceptable ground to protest, but being black and not content with the civil rights situation is not. You're still confusing what you have the right to do, and what forms of protest advance or hurt the cause. When a lawyer represents a client clearly guilty of the murder, we don't say he's pro-murder or is apathetic about murderers. But when it's neonazis marching in the streets, suddenly free speech and free assembly go out the window. It's a clear poisoning of the debate. Nope, it's just hypocritical for you to defend the rights of Nazis to speak on one hand, and on the other cry out that NFL players taking a knee is disrespectful to the country, and that they should just play the game. does the average american consider Ben Shapiro a nazi, white-supremacist? I'd suspect not. He does help advance arguments that aid in keeping white supremacy structures in place though. On September 27 2017 07:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:59 m4ini wrote:On September 27 2017 06:39 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 27 2017 06:34 RealityIsKing wrote:
[quote]
If those are true, then the BLM needs focus their location of protest at police stations and not go out and breaking down local communities and shutting down major traffic intersection.
Again, talking about efficiency and making a bad name for yourself PR-wise. Shutting down a major traffic intersection is an almost perfect way of protesting. It forces your viewpoint into the public consciousness non violently so that seems fine to me. I get the feeling you would rather they protesting quietly without disturbing anyone, maybe by writing a letter to the police. Protest is supposed to be a major disturbance. Otherwise it won't work. I always find this part mindbogglingly idiotic. Yeah. I will see your viewpoint, and on top of that, i will not give the slightest of shits because i'm pissed off since you potentially make me miss an important meeting/job interview/doctors appointment/prevent me from picking up my kids from school. It's like arguing that to get the attention of a police officer, instead of calling him over you should throw sticks at him. Yeah, you will get his attention, but not the way you intended to - and certainly not the reaction you apparently expected either. Interrupting the lives of people who have nothing to do with whatever you're protesting will not help your cause, it will in fact hurt it. The people in traffic will get pissed off, and your opposition to whatever you're advocating will have a field day pointing out what a menace you are to the public. If one is more worried about stopping traffic protests than what they're protesting, that highlights your problem right there.
No, it really isn't. It's not like everyone lives a perfect white persons life, people have their own problems too. But it's a very suiting way for you to argue, "if you get angry because people fuck up your day, YOU are the problem". Fuck off. lol. See? You're angry about me pointing out getting angry and irrational about a traffic protest indicates that you don't appreciate why they are protesting in the first place. If you did, then you would expect them to do much worse than interrupt traffic. On September 27 2017 07:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
This argument is old and tired. If they protest the police stations then it's "they have to stay at the station and can't police crime" or some other bullshit. It's never the right place or the right time to attack the white supremacy deep in this country's soul.
To a degree I get it. White mediocrity succeeded in America in no small part thanks to the exclusion and oppression of other non-white people. From corporations, to unions, to the NFL/NBA/MLB mediocre white people were catapulted to the top in the forced absence and/or on the backs of of better suited non-white peers, simply for their whiteness. why do non-white people continue to flock to the USA if things are so bad? i have a close friend and colleague who is iranian. he went from Baghdad to Toronto. His first decent job offer in New York state and he is gone. Guy was making $10,000 USD a month in Toronto... and he couldn't leave fast enough. or is Iranian considered white? are jews white? my gf has 4 great parents who are white and 4 who are non-white. is she white? is white just a social construct? Legally, yes, Iranian is white. Jews pass for white all the time. Yes white is a social construct meant to dehumanize and subjugate those deemed "non-white". The US and other influential countries have exploited lots of places around the world, it would make sense for the people to want to follow where the wealth generated from their country went (and would also make sense why they try to send it back). how much wealth is Syria generating these days? For the MIC? Billions. so should Ben Shapiro be free to speak? great, if the Syrians do not like it here in Canada they can leave. if they commit crimes they go to jail. Sure, and people should be able to protest his speaking. I literally have no idea where this Syrians in Canada thing is coming from but I imagine that's an option for some and less so for others. I mean that's how it usually works for poor people (the wealthy or connected not as much, but I can't speak much to Canada's justice system). Considering the minimal information I know about indigenous people of Canada, I can imagine you guys have you're own problems with bigotry, though different than the US. everything here is just fine. people who want to be lifelong victims can find a reason to complain about anything though. I doubt that, but I don't doubt your sincerity in believing it.
my old high school criminal/bum friends are whining and crying.... they're all pushing 30 now. hey .. for me it was rough from 18 to 22.. i worked and studied non-stop for 4.666 years with no gf.. worked retail from 15 to 20.. went to a Co-Op school because i couldn't afford a standard academic university. my bum/criminal friends chose the lazy route. their life sucks and now they are in "blame the system" mode. A few years ago they could've moved to Alberta if they wanted to make great cash working a labour job.... but now that's dried up.
in terms of actual, real work.. i probably do 20 hours a week. of course, i bill about 50.  as far as i know zero people from my university program are jobless. The program i was in cost approximately $40,000 and is free of charge for native canadians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
