|
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 12:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 12:09 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 11:56 Wegandi wrote:On September 27 2017 11:36 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 27 2017 11:27 Wegandi wrote:On September 27 2017 11:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 27 2017 11:12 Wegandi wrote:On September 27 2017 11:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 27 2017 10:38 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2017 09:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
Kaep said he was not standing for the anthem because he was protesting police brutality. He has since confirmed that multiple times. Over and over. The flag and anthem are part and parcel of one another. His reason has not changed. You decided to add more to it or obfuscate his reason with your own to find outrage. I directly quoted him. Like he literally said that and people heard he said that and responded to him saying that. Either address with actual quotes and dates what changed, or you're just ignoring and washing over it. Because you're saying his reason has not changed without putting that in context of what I just quoted. His whole reason to protest was to bring awareness to police brutality. That is his reason. That has not changed. That you continue to be incensed over this makes me question if you actually understand the reason behind the protest. Take the flag out of the picture, it's clouding your reasoning skills. The flag stands for justice for all and freedom and he's protesting that blacks in America are not receiving it. So why support it? Again, he is protesting police brutality by kneeling during the anthem. The flag and anthem are the vehicle to his protest, not what he is actually protesting. Same with how the bridge in Selma is the vehicle and not the object of the protest. What does the flag/anthem have to do with the police? As for the flag itself, everyone has their own notion of what it stands for. Attempting to create a consensus on something so divisive that you stake the movement to, is fucking idiotic. You've obfuscated the agenda item before you even begin, then you wonder/complain why people are viewing the acts in different ways than you are? Are people really this obtuse? Protest outside of police buildings, refuse to play in one game, etc. There are many vehicles to protest. Deciding to use such a divisive and personal device such as the flag and anthem to use as the vehicle is just dumb, and instead of seeing that, there is a ton of doubling down. Continue this lose/lose proposition though if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside even if nothing ever changes though. (Shouldn't you be trying to change peoples opinions who have different views than you do, and thus, the strategy employed should focus on them, not on you, or anyone else who all ready shares the view you're trying to make a majority opinion? Don't worry, I have the same problems with my own movements doing this, and hell I do it from time to time, but I try not to.) That's the thing. It was never as big a deal as it is now. The focus started on police brutality and it has remained that way. When it got really moving and a lot of actors started voicing their two cents, that's when the message got fuzzy. Then you get Fox and friends claiming it was about the anthem/flag and people stopped seeing the real reason the protest began. Notice how we stopped talking about police brutality and these last dozen pages have been about the flag and if someone is patriotic or not? That's what happened. Everyone got sidetracked and it's harder than ever to get the topic back on the reason for the protest. Leave the flag/anthem out of it. It's a vehicle. It's not representative of the protest no more than a bus, a rainbow, or a bridge. People are looking for ways to change the topic of discussion as to not face the real issue at hand, which is police brutality and racial inequality. Remove the flag from any further argument, and we can discuss this with sense and reason. Otherwise, we'll never get anywhere. You don't understand. You've failed to place yourselves in the shoes of people not like you, who may not see the world in the same way you do, and instead of doing so - you just say they're racist and there's nothing you can do, but you can reach many of these people (I know, my folks are these people), by not being a stupid dolt and using a symbol, that you even say doesn't matter. Why use the damn symbol then? It's counterproductive. That's reality. You can fight reality, or you can acknowledge it. That's up to you. All I see is a bunch of people doubling down and alienating a lot of people that aren't strictly on either side. Again, it's that pesky - the flag/anthem means a bunch of different shit to a bunch of different people. I've placed myself in their shoes and I can see what they are saying. I'm a veteran as well, so I have my reservations about certain things. But protesting the flag/anthem to bring awareness to something isn't one of them. I'm a black male in America first and foremost. I have a lot of poor friends and people who support Trump in my daily life that I engage with. Some are veterans as well and don't like the protesting. I see what they are saying but it doesn't mean I have to acquiesce to their wanting to not talk about it. When they don't want to talk about it, that's when you continue to talk about it. If you give in to waiting for the time to be right for them to talk about it, you're essentially defeated. I didn't tell Kaep to use the flag/anthem to protest. I get why he did it, but I didn't tell him to. If people in the US didn't get such a hard on for blind patriotism and national pride, then I think we'd be a lot better off. I'm not saying don't talk about it, I'm saying be smart, and that goes for what you choose if any of your symbology (don't choose something dumb like the flag/anthem that has a million different interpretations/meaning) and how you frame the conversation to people outside your ideological companions. It's like you just will not ever use examples of police abuses against white people to try and get white people to reform the system. If you only ever use black people and make the argument that this happens to mostly/all black people, it's just human nature, to say, well that's not my problem because it doesn't affect me (and that crosses racial boundaries - it's just human nature). If you can get them to see, yes, it could happen to you, and it is wrong, they're likelier to effect the change you want. If all you want to do is pound white privilege, supremacy, and whatever else is coming out of sociology academia, continue doing the same thing you're doing. We'll be talking about the same shit a decade now with that strategy because it's a failure before it even starts. Police reform needs more Sun Tzu and less 5 year-old I feel good about myself! Yay! Here is the thing, there is an INDUSTRY built by victimhood though. If you actually solve some of the problems (if there are any) in a efficient manner. Lots of people will end up losing their jobs/not be in demand (see Anita Sarkeesian and Jesse Jackson). So if you think about it this way, it makes total sense. I know you're big on bias, so you can admit that there is (conceding at the moment this exists on the left) comparable figures on the right?
This isn't a left/right issue, this is a scam issue.
And the moderates need to come together to destroy this scam culture/industry.
|
On September 27 2017 12:10 LegalLord wrote:
I just re-read the entire Coates piece and I pretty much stand by my original statement that it's a stupid piece of drivel that frames every problem it can as racism even when there's zero reason to see it that way. It's another testament, as if we needed one, that if you combine a long piece of writing with a lot of sources, no matter how shit your argument you will get a lot of people who think you have something meaningful to say, as long as it's sympathetic to your own cause. It's one of the most naked examples of that old "let's just face it, everyone who thinks differently is just a >>RACIST<<" syndrome that has infected our political discourse.It's neither surprising nor flattering why we have a few individuals who are beside themselves with praise for that piece.
Here's an easy way to see how insipid his point of view is. Just take a look at how all of the little acolytes to his world view have been responding to Wegandi, Danglars, me, et al. They really don't know how to deal with us and the points that we're making. This framework of theirs is so damned narrow and vapid that they can't contemplate why their chosen terminology and method of framing the issue are so self-sabotaging.
|
United States42008 Posts
On September 27 2017 12:09 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 11:56 Wegandi wrote:On September 27 2017 11:36 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 27 2017 11:27 Wegandi wrote:On September 27 2017 11:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 27 2017 11:12 Wegandi wrote:On September 27 2017 11:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 27 2017 10:38 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2017 09:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 27 2017 09:33 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
You presume agreement with a number of things on that question. How about confirming that he left very little room for interpretation on what the protest was about. Then maybe you can move on to honest questions with a basis in shared reality. Kaep said he was not standing for the anthem because he was protesting police brutality. He has since confirmed that multiple times. Over and over. The flag and anthem are part and parcel of one another. His reason has not changed. You decided to add more to it or obfuscate his reason with your own to find outrage. I directly quoted him. Like he literally said that and people heard he said that and responded to him saying that. Either address with actual quotes and dates what changed, or you're just ignoring and washing over it. Because you're saying his reason has not changed without putting that in context of what I just quoted. His whole reason to protest was to bring awareness to police brutality. That is his reason. That has not changed. That you continue to be incensed over this makes me question if you actually understand the reason behind the protest. Take the flag out of the picture, it's clouding your reasoning skills. The flag stands for justice for all and freedom and he's protesting that blacks in America are not receiving it. So why support it? Again, he is protesting police brutality by kneeling during the anthem. The flag and anthem are the vehicle to his protest, not what he is actually protesting. Same with how the bridge in Selma is the vehicle and not the object of the protest. What does the flag/anthem have to do with the police? As for the flag itself, everyone has their own notion of what it stands for. Attempting to create a consensus on something so divisive that you stake the movement to, is fucking idiotic. You've obfuscated the agenda item before you even begin, then you wonder/complain why people are viewing the acts in different ways than you are? Are people really this obtuse? Protest outside of police buildings, refuse to play in one game, etc. There are many vehicles to protest. Deciding to use such a divisive and personal device such as the flag and anthem to use as the vehicle is just dumb, and instead of seeing that, there is a ton of doubling down. Continue this lose/lose proposition though if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside even if nothing ever changes though. (Shouldn't you be trying to change peoples opinions who have different views than you do, and thus, the strategy employed should focus on them, not on you, or anyone else who all ready shares the view you're trying to make a majority opinion? Don't worry, I have the same problems with my own movements doing this, and hell I do it from time to time, but I try not to.) That's the thing. It was never as big a deal as it is now. The focus started on police brutality and it has remained that way. When it got really moving and a lot of actors started voicing their two cents, that's when the message got fuzzy. Then you get Fox and friends claiming it was about the anthem/flag and people stopped seeing the real reason the protest began. Notice how we stopped talking about police brutality and these last dozen pages have been about the flag and if someone is patriotic or not? That's what happened. Everyone got sidetracked and it's harder than ever to get the topic back on the reason for the protest. Leave the flag/anthem out of it. It's a vehicle. It's not representative of the protest no more than a bus, a rainbow, or a bridge. People are looking for ways to change the topic of discussion as to not face the real issue at hand, which is police brutality and racial inequality. Remove the flag from any further argument, and we can discuss this with sense and reason. Otherwise, we'll never get anywhere. You don't understand. You've failed to place yourselves in the shoes of people not like you, who may not see the world in the same way you do, and instead of doing so - you just say they're racist and there's nothing you can do, but you can reach many of these people (I know, my folks are these people), by not being a stupid dolt and using a symbol, that you even say doesn't matter. Why use the damn symbol then? It's counterproductive. That's reality. You can fight reality, or you can acknowledge it. That's up to you. All I see is a bunch of people doubling down and alienating a lot of people that aren't strictly on either side. Again, it's that pesky - the flag/anthem means a bunch of different shit to a bunch of different people. I've placed myself in their shoes and I can see what they are saying. I'm a veteran as well, so I have my reservations about certain things. But protesting the flag/anthem to bring awareness to something isn't one of them. I'm a black male in America first and foremost. I have a lot of poor friends and people who support Trump in my daily life that I engage with. Some are veterans as well and don't like the protesting. I see what they are saying but it doesn't mean I have to acquiesce to their wanting to not talk about it. When they don't want to talk about it, that's when you continue to talk about it. If you give in to waiting for the time to be right for them to talk about it, you're essentially defeated. I didn't tell Kaep to use the flag/anthem to protest. I get why he did it, but I didn't tell him to. If people in the US didn't get such a hard on for blind patriotism and national pride, then I think we'd be a lot better off. I'm not saying don't talk about it, I'm saying be smart, and that goes for what you choose if any of your symbology (don't choose something dumb like the flag/anthem that has a million different interpretations/meaning) and how you frame the conversation to people outside your ideological companions. It's like you just will not ever use examples of police abuses against white people to try and get white people to reform the system. If you only ever use black people and make the argument that this happens to mostly/all black people, it's just human nature, to say, well that's not my problem because it doesn't affect me (and that crosses racial boundaries - it's just human nature). If you can get them to see, yes, it could happen to you, and it is wrong, they're likelier to effect the change you want. If all you want to do is pound white privilege, supremacy, and whatever else is coming out of sociology academia, continue doing the same thing you're doing. We'll be talking about the same shit a decade now with that strategy because it's a failure before it even starts. Police reform needs more Sun Tzu and less 5 year-old I feel good about myself! Yay! Here is the thing, there is an INDUSTRY built by victimhood though. If you actually solve some of the problems (if there are any) in a efficient manner. Lots of people will end up losing their jobs/not be in demand (see Anita Sarkeesian and Jesse Jackson). So if you think about it this way, it makes total sense.
No, it doesn't. All your starting assumptions are delusional.
|
On September 27 2017 12:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 12:09 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 11:56 Wegandi wrote:On September 27 2017 11:36 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 27 2017 11:27 Wegandi wrote:On September 27 2017 11:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 27 2017 11:12 Wegandi wrote:On September 27 2017 11:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 27 2017 10:38 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2017 09:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
Kaep said he was not standing for the anthem because he was protesting police brutality. He has since confirmed that multiple times. Over and over. The flag and anthem are part and parcel of one another. His reason has not changed. You decided to add more to it or obfuscate his reason with your own to find outrage. I directly quoted him. Like he literally said that and people heard he said that and responded to him saying that. Either address with actual quotes and dates what changed, or you're just ignoring and washing over it. Because you're saying his reason has not changed without putting that in context of what I just quoted. His whole reason to protest was to bring awareness to police brutality. That is his reason. That has not changed. That you continue to be incensed over this makes me question if you actually understand the reason behind the protest. Take the flag out of the picture, it's clouding your reasoning skills. The flag stands for justice for all and freedom and he's protesting that blacks in America are not receiving it. So why support it? Again, he is protesting police brutality by kneeling during the anthem. The flag and anthem are the vehicle to his protest, not what he is actually protesting. Same with how the bridge in Selma is the vehicle and not the object of the protest. What does the flag/anthem have to do with the police? As for the flag itself, everyone has their own notion of what it stands for. Attempting to create a consensus on something so divisive that you stake the movement to, is fucking idiotic. You've obfuscated the agenda item before you even begin, then you wonder/complain why people are viewing the acts in different ways than you are? Are people really this obtuse? Protest outside of police buildings, refuse to play in one game, etc. There are many vehicles to protest. Deciding to use such a divisive and personal device such as the flag and anthem to use as the vehicle is just dumb, and instead of seeing that, there is a ton of doubling down. Continue this lose/lose proposition though if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside even if nothing ever changes though. (Shouldn't you be trying to change peoples opinions who have different views than you do, and thus, the strategy employed should focus on them, not on you, or anyone else who all ready shares the view you're trying to make a majority opinion? Don't worry, I have the same problems with my own movements doing this, and hell I do it from time to time, but I try not to.) That's the thing. It was never as big a deal as it is now. The focus started on police brutality and it has remained that way. When it got really moving and a lot of actors started voicing their two cents, that's when the message got fuzzy. Then you get Fox and friends claiming it was about the anthem/flag and people stopped seeing the real reason the protest began. Notice how we stopped talking about police brutality and these last dozen pages have been about the flag and if someone is patriotic or not? That's what happened. Everyone got sidetracked and it's harder than ever to get the topic back on the reason for the protest. Leave the flag/anthem out of it. It's a vehicle. It's not representative of the protest no more than a bus, a rainbow, or a bridge. People are looking for ways to change the topic of discussion as to not face the real issue at hand, which is police brutality and racial inequality. Remove the flag from any further argument, and we can discuss this with sense and reason. Otherwise, we'll never get anywhere. You don't understand. You've failed to place yourselves in the shoes of people not like you, who may not see the world in the same way you do, and instead of doing so - you just say they're racist and there's nothing you can do, but you can reach many of these people (I know, my folks are these people), by not being a stupid dolt and using a symbol, that you even say doesn't matter. Why use the damn symbol then? It's counterproductive. That's reality. You can fight reality, or you can acknowledge it. That's up to you. All I see is a bunch of people doubling down and alienating a lot of people that aren't strictly on either side. Again, it's that pesky - the flag/anthem means a bunch of different shit to a bunch of different people. I've placed myself in their shoes and I can see what they are saying. I'm a veteran as well, so I have my reservations about certain things. But protesting the flag/anthem to bring awareness to something isn't one of them. I'm a black male in America first and foremost. I have a lot of poor friends and people who support Trump in my daily life that I engage with. Some are veterans as well and don't like the protesting. I see what they are saying but it doesn't mean I have to acquiesce to their wanting to not talk about it. When they don't want to talk about it, that's when you continue to talk about it. If you give in to waiting for the time to be right for them to talk about it, you're essentially defeated. I didn't tell Kaep to use the flag/anthem to protest. I get why he did it, but I didn't tell him to. If people in the US didn't get such a hard on for blind patriotism and national pride, then I think we'd be a lot better off. I'm not saying don't talk about it, I'm saying be smart, and that goes for what you choose if any of your symbology (don't choose something dumb like the flag/anthem that has a million different interpretations/meaning) and how you frame the conversation to people outside your ideological companions. It's like you just will not ever use examples of police abuses against white people to try and get white people to reform the system. If you only ever use black people and make the argument that this happens to mostly/all black people, it's just human nature, to say, well that's not my problem because it doesn't affect me (and that crosses racial boundaries - it's just human nature). If you can get them to see, yes, it could happen to you, and it is wrong, they're likelier to effect the change you want. If all you want to do is pound white privilege, supremacy, and whatever else is coming out of sociology academia, continue doing the same thing you're doing. We'll be talking about the same shit a decade now with that strategy because it's a failure before it even starts. Police reform needs more Sun Tzu and less 5 year-old I feel good about myself! Yay! Here is the thing, there is an INDUSTRY built by victimhood though. If you actually solve some of the problems (if there are any) in a efficient manner. Lots of people will end up losing their jobs/not be in demand (see Anita Sarkeesian and Jesse Jackson). So if you think about it this way, it makes total sense. No, it doesn't. All your starting assumptions are delusional.
No.
|
S, to LL and Wegandi, we agree in principle on a lot of issues, just the method of deliverance. Am I correct on this?
|
On September 27 2017 12:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 12:10 LegalLord wrote:
I just re-read the entire Coates piece and I pretty much stand by my original statement that it's a stupid piece of drivel that frames every problem it can as racism even when there's zero reason to see it that way. It's another testament, as if we needed one, that if you combine a long piece of writing with a lot of sources, no matter how shit your argument you will get a lot of people who think you have something meaningful to say, as long as it's sympathetic to your own cause. It's one of the most naked examples of that old "let's just face it, everyone who thinks differently is just a >>RACIST<<" syndrome that has infected our political discourse.It's neither surprising nor flattering why we have a few individuals who are beside themselves with praise for that piece. Here's an easy way to see how insipid his point of view is. Just take a look at how all of the little acolytes to his world view have been responding to Wegandi, Danglars, me, et al. They really don't know how to deal with us and the points that we're making. This framework of theirs is so damned narrow and vapid that they can't contemplate why their chosen terminology and method of framing the issue are so self-sabotaging.
That's what this is all about right? Your paternal interest in helping them understand it's not a problem of people refusing to acknowledge their shortcomings in resolving America's legacy of white supremacy, it's those wanting to resolve it not properly courting those who don't or aren't motivated.
Give me a break. This is such garbage.
|
On September 27 2017 10:54 Doodsmack wrote:
Looks like Alabama went full retard. Now we know why people like Corker are retiring.
The alternative is worse than the status quo.
Alabama just decided to elect someone represents the core values of their Republican party, a bigot that that outshines Trump. A man that wants to criminalize being gays and is generally an all around ass hole. The GOP is loving this conservative take over. This culture war they have been feeding off of will only end in more strife.
|
On September 27 2017 12:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 12:10 LegalLord wrote:
I just re-read the entire Coates piece and I pretty much stand by my original statement that it's a stupid piece of drivel that frames every problem it can as racism even when there's zero reason to see it that way. It's another testament, as if we needed one, that if you combine a long piece of writing with a lot of sources, no matter how shit your argument you will get a lot of people who think you have something meaningful to say, as long as it's sympathetic to your own cause. It's one of the most naked examples of that old "let's just face it, everyone who thinks differently is just a >>RACIST<<" syndrome that has infected our political discourse.It's neither surprising nor flattering why we have a few individuals who are beside themselves with praise for that piece. Here's an easy way to see how insipid his point of view is. Just take a look at how all of the little acolytes to his world view have been responding to Wegandi, Danglars, me, et al. They really don't know how to deal with us and the points that we're making. This framework of theirs is so damned narrow and vapid that they can't contemplate why their chosen terminology and method of framing the issue are so self-sabotaging.
There can be more than one reason for this.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 27 2017 12:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
S, to LL and Wegandi, we agree in principle on a lot of issues, just the method of deliverance. Am I correct on this?
We agree on issues of policy, for the most part, yes.
|
On September 27 2017 12:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 12:10 LegalLord wrote:
I just re-read the entire Coates piece and I pretty much stand by my original statement that it's a stupid piece of drivel that frames every problem it can as racism even when there's zero reason to see it that way. It's another testament, as if we needed one, that if you combine a long piece of writing with a lot of sources, no matter how shit your argument you will get a lot of people who think you have something meaningful to say, as long as it's sympathetic to your own cause. It's one of the most naked examples of that old "let's just face it, everyone who thinks differently is just a >>RACIST<<" syndrome that has infected our political discourse.It's neither surprising nor flattering why we have a few individuals who are beside themselves with praise for that piece. Here's an easy way to see how insipid his point of view is. Just take a look at how all of the little acolytes to his world view have been responding to Wegandi, Danglars, me, et al. They really don't know how to deal with us and the points that we're making. This framework of theirs is so damned narrow and vapid that they can't contemplate why their chosen terminology and method of framing the issue are so self-sabotaging.
This is pretty rich coming from someone who has been spoon feeding us conservative talking points with a light dusting of racist catch phrases for the better part of a year. But then again, you're only here for the big scores and the wins against the left. And maybe a couple tax breaks.
|
On September 27 2017 12:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
S, to LL and Wegandi, we agree in principle on a lot of issues, just the method of deliverance. Am I correct on this?
I am sure we agree on many things, and disagree on many things. I am also sure I am a lot more radical in my views on things such as Government policing (I am a Molinarian on this issue - Les Soirées de la Rue Saint-Lazare: Entretiens sur les lois économiques et défense de la propriété (I am for market security and policing (e.g. competition + I am sure Biff will just love this one lmao)). Yes, I want to see violations of our liberties stopped, and am willing to accommodate across the aisle in doing so, as I am on any areas of agreement. I don't agree with the racist framework many in this thread base their foundations on, however. Regardless, if the outcome is the same, does it really matter (If you were to provide solid statistical evidence beyond merely a standard deviation of officer involved shootings of blacks, I'd be much more receptive, but all of the police statistics (as fractured as it is), most areas of civil rights violations tend to mirror per capita population decently well)? Also, yes, I think we could get things done a lot faster if the approach is smart and phrases things for the audience you're addressing (even if I love me some ideological purity).
E.g., if I'm talking to some fiscal conservatives, my argument against war isn't going to be Anti-Imperialist, using War is a Racket, etc. it's going to be Jeffersonian or Randolph Bourne in nature. If it's social conservatives, then I'll use Lindbergh rhetoric, etc. If it's progressives, then it's peace and anti-imperialism. With libertarians, I can make the argument I most believe in mixing Bourne, Benjamin Tucker, and Free-Trade language. I don't see why this is so confusing or heated? It should be damn common sense.
|
I feel like this should be consuming our entire government and all its attention. This are Americans that are going to die of thirst for no real reason.
|
Canada11279 Posts
On September 27 2017 11:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 11:48 Wegandi wrote:On September 27 2017 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 11:29 Wegandi wrote:On September 27 2017 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 10:52 Wegandi wrote:On September 27 2017 04:37 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 27 2017 04:21 Mohdoo wrote:On September 27 2017 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2017 03:40 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
In your eyes, is there to say what he is saying in a respectful way? There are a couple layers to peel here. First, using the national anthem to protest the country in any way is a bad idea for the reasons that Donald Trump showed this weekend (like I discussed yesterday). It's too easy to have your cause turned (fairly or not) into a referendum on your patriotism (regardless of the justness of your cause). Second, and like all of the conservative posters have been saying til they have been blue in the face, framing the issue in terms of the country being racist is only going to piss people off and turn them against you. The better way to approach the issue is to frame it as a race neutral issue along the lines of "Police brutality is a problem in this country" or "Inner city families are broken and need help." Amazing things will happen when you stop calling whitey racist. So you are saying that blacks framing these issues as black issues rather than "everyone issues", they lose support from whites? This is in reply to xD, using your post. Whites weren't going to do anything about it. Hispanics were only worried about deportation. Blacks had to be the voice to bring some of these issues up. Only when they did, did we see more PoC, including whites, speaking out on police brutality and racial inequality. Taking race out of it doesn't drive home the fact of what is really going on. It's hiding the true issue at hand behind a fog. By bringing race into this, more people are inclined to speak up in support for the cause. The civil rights movement was about blacks and that got a lot of people on board to get laws enacted that serves everyone equally (or it should). Why is now different? Take the black man's plight in America and use it to forward change for all. The LGBT community is doing it (sometimes wrongly) and they are getting their rights increased slowly but surely. People bring in race because it's an effective means to get things heard and things done. Because you are uncomfortable with it, is not my nor anyone else's problems. It is your own. Whites aren't going to do anything about it because police brutality against whites (the majority of cases) aren't reported and if they are tend to go away quite fast (talk to the average white person - they're totally ignorant about stuff like Kelly Thomas, James Boyd, etc.). There's no national outrage when a policeman kills unarmed white people. Most of the white people killed are poor, have a mental illness, or "were sassy" with the states Gendarmes. Funny enough, if you look at the majority of cases involving blacks the same characteristics show up. I brought it up before, but this is much more a socioeconomic concern than a race concern. Blacks make up 13% of the population and are 30% of officer involved shootings. That is a problem, definitely, but it's being blown far out of proportion (as if, as one poster earlier alluded to - white people never experience the same civil rights violations from police as blacks...). The hyperbole is out of control, fueled by a media who uses these events for publicity and viewership. In addition, other areas of civil rights violations aren't out of the statistical norms (e.g. asset forfeiture, abuse, 4th amendment violations, etc.), but some are such as drug incarceration statistics. I point out the above to say that if whites got the same considerations that blacks get (nationally) when killed being unarmed more whites would give a fuck about police brutality and excessive use of force (I really hate the "I feared for my safety, qualified immunity" bullshit). Which many will take as whites being racist, but it's more of "if it isn't effecting me, I don't really care" and that's just sadly, a HUMAN quality (there were no large scale black movement to come to the Kelly Thomas case for instance - which is one of the most egregious unarmed deaths by Police). Please debate me on this one. Again, this "systemic" racism is most heavily prevalent in majority black controlled cities. Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, etc. with black Chief of Polices, etc. Of course, there are places like NYC that are abysmal with openly racist policies like stop and frisk (but they are supposed to be enlightened progressive northerners....imagine the outrage if stop and frisk was MO in Mobile, Shreveport, Jacksonville, etc.). The point being that yes, there is a major moral and political crisis of the lack of 1) police accountability 2) excessive and abusive practices 3) "thin blue line" as default 4) persecution complex as America is at a time when crime rates are historically low 5) Politicians who continuously create more and more laws forcing their enforcement arm to do things that are extremely negatively perceived by the average person (but, yet, oddly, keep voting for the same politicians - I'm going to name this paradox after myself, I think.). Instead of framing the issue as solely a black one, you should frame the issue as an American one, because as Americans, we're all impacted by these abuses. You're also going to be a lot more successful if you actually care about changing shit, framing the issue this way. Why do you think black people are acutely aware of these problems and doing whatever they can to address them and white people are waiting to be convinced they're worth taking action immediately on? Are you always so thinly veiled. Everyone knows your view, you don't have to be so coy. I get it - whitey is racist, there's no other explanation. Notice, by the way, that none of what I say is actually addressed. It's just repeating the mantra. No matter how many times people repeat that's my argument it doesn't make it my argument. For people arguing others need to pay more attention to their arguments and not the ones they've manifested you guys seem to be doing a pretty shitty job. What did you want me to address? Notice you didn't actually answer the question, just continued the "everything is blame racist whitey's" mantra that's not my argument. Ok, let me answer it then. Black people are more acutely aware of these problems because they have a higher percentage of people in lower socioeconomic rungs, which is correlated to higher incidences of police abuse and civil rights violations. Even in majority black cities, with black mayors, and black Chiefs of Police, the same holds. You ask why? 1) Crime rates are higher in lower socioeconomic areas 2) There is less recourse for poor people to redress their grievances 2 ties into use of force and qualified immunity. Rich people can afford really good lawyers and often have political connections. They're likely to throw a cop under the bus because you don't mean as much as the rich guy. The poor guy doesn't have this advantage, and thus, the cop is much more highly valued. In a system without competition, the poor guy is screwed. It just so happens that blacks have one of the highest percentages living in poverty. Now, we can address the reasons why, but I suspect, like this issue, you're going to frame it from racism mostly. Also, I'm awaiting your reply of - No, it's mostly racism, which will be odd when addressing cities like Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, etc. You seem to be under some completely false notion that black people can't perpetrate racism and/or perpetuate white supremacy policies against other black people (or themselves)? Do I have to explain why that's obviously wrong?
It might be worth doing as it isn't so obvious to me. Something about internalized oppression?
|
I got two on my side. I'm good. Good night all.
|
On September 27 2017 10:54 Doodsmack wrote:
Looks like Alabama went full retard. Now we know why people like Corker are retiring.
The alternative is worse than the status quo.
Holy hell, you weren't kidding. Alabama in a fierce race to the bottom choosing Roy Moore. Then again, it is Alabama. They might have won that race awhile ago.
On September 27 2017 13:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 10:54 Doodsmack wrote:
Looks like Alabama went full retard. Now we know why people like Corker are retiring.
The alternative is worse than the status quo. Alabama just decided to elect someone represents the core values of their Republican party, a bigot that that outshines Trump. A man that wants to criminalize being gays and is generally an all around ass hole. The GOP is loving this conservative take over. This culture war they have been feeding off of will only end in more strife.
From what I've been reading this guy is going to be a pain in the ass for McConnell to deal with, hence the millions of dollars spent campaigning against him, and Trump backing his opponent. More disharmony in the senate, just what the GOP needs.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
It honestly sounds like Trump wasn't really into the candidate he endorsed and campaigned for.
|
On September 27 2017 13:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I got two on my side. I'm good. Good night all.
Dude, I've been against police abuses way before any of this BLM stuff started. As much as people on the "left" hate the Ruby Ridge, Waco, stuff, there is still a decent part that never bought into the police lionization crap. "Left" and "Right" have plenty of common ground against the Government, if they were to stop shouting at each other for a second and accusing each other of being the devil (even I, a person who hates communists with a passion, can work with them on an issue if it moves toward liberty for instance).
|
On September 27 2017 13:13 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 11:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 11:48 Wegandi wrote:On September 27 2017 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 11:29 Wegandi wrote:On September 27 2017 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 10:52 Wegandi wrote:On September 27 2017 04:37 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 27 2017 04:21 Mohdoo wrote:On September 27 2017 03:48 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
There are a couple layers to peel here. First, using the national anthem to protest the country in any way is a bad idea for the reasons that Donald Trump showed this weekend (like I discussed yesterday). It's too easy to have your cause turned (fairly or not) into a referendum on your patriotism (regardless of the justness of your cause). Second, and like all of the conservative posters have been saying til they have been blue in the face, framing the issue in terms of the country being racist is only going to piss people off and turn them against you. The better way to approach the issue is to frame it as a race neutral issue along the lines of "Police brutality is a problem in this country" or "Inner city families are broken and need help." Amazing things will happen when you stop calling whitey racist. So you are saying that blacks framing these issues as black issues rather than "everyone issues", they lose support from whites? This is in reply to xD, using your post. Whites weren't going to do anything about it. Hispanics were only worried about deportation. Blacks had to be the voice to bring some of these issues up. Only when they did, did we see more PoC, including whites, speaking out on police brutality and racial inequality. Taking race out of it doesn't drive home the fact of what is really going on. It's hiding the true issue at hand behind a fog. By bringing race into this, more people are inclined to speak up in support for the cause. The civil rights movement was about blacks and that got a lot of people on board to get laws enacted that serves everyone equally (or it should). Why is now different? Take the black man's plight in America and use it to forward change for all. The LGBT community is doing it (sometimes wrongly) and they are getting their rights increased slowly but surely. People bring in race because it's an effective means to get things heard and things done. Because you are uncomfortable with it, is not my nor anyone else's problems. It is your own. Whites aren't going to do anything about it because police brutality against whites (the majority of cases) aren't reported and if they are tend to go away quite fast (talk to the average white person - they're totally ignorant about stuff like Kelly Thomas, James Boyd, etc.). There's no national outrage when a policeman kills unarmed white people. Most of the white people killed are poor, have a mental illness, or "were sassy" with the states Gendarmes. Funny enough, if you look at the majority of cases involving blacks the same characteristics show up. I brought it up before, but this is much more a socioeconomic concern than a race concern. Blacks make up 13% of the population and are 30% of officer involved shootings. That is a problem, definitely, but it's being blown far out of proportion (as if, as one poster earlier alluded to - white people never experience the same civil rights violations from police as blacks...). The hyperbole is out of control, fueled by a media who uses these events for publicity and viewership. In addition, other areas of civil rights violations aren't out of the statistical norms (e.g. asset forfeiture, abuse, 4th amendment violations, etc.), but some are such as drug incarceration statistics. I point out the above to say that if whites got the same considerations that blacks get (nationally) when killed being unarmed more whites would give a fuck about police brutality and excessive use of force (I really hate the "I feared for my safety, qualified immunity" bullshit). Which many will take as whites being racist, but it's more of "if it isn't effecting me, I don't really care" and that's just sadly, a HUMAN quality (there were no large scale black movement to come to the Kelly Thomas case for instance - which is one of the most egregious unarmed deaths by Police). Please debate me on this one. Again, this "systemic" racism is most heavily prevalent in majority black controlled cities. Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, etc. with black Chief of Polices, etc. Of course, there are places like NYC that are abysmal with openly racist policies like stop and frisk (but they are supposed to be enlightened progressive northerners....imagine the outrage if stop and frisk was MO in Mobile, Shreveport, Jacksonville, etc.). The point being that yes, there is a major moral and political crisis of the lack of 1) police accountability 2) excessive and abusive practices 3) "thin blue line" as default 4) persecution complex as America is at a time when crime rates are historically low 5) Politicians who continuously create more and more laws forcing their enforcement arm to do things that are extremely negatively perceived by the average person (but, yet, oddly, keep voting for the same politicians - I'm going to name this paradox after myself, I think.). Instead of framing the issue as solely a black one, you should frame the issue as an American one, because as Americans, we're all impacted by these abuses. You're also going to be a lot more successful if you actually care about changing shit, framing the issue this way. Why do you think black people are acutely aware of these problems and doing whatever they can to address them and white people are waiting to be convinced they're worth taking action immediately on? Are you always so thinly veiled. Everyone knows your view, you don't have to be so coy. I get it - whitey is racist, there's no other explanation. Notice, by the way, that none of what I say is actually addressed. It's just repeating the mantra. No matter how many times people repeat that's my argument it doesn't make it my argument. For people arguing others need to pay more attention to their arguments and not the ones they've manifested you guys seem to be doing a pretty shitty job. What did you want me to address? Notice you didn't actually answer the question, just continued the "everything is blame racist whitey's" mantra that's not my argument. Ok, let me answer it then. Black people are more acutely aware of these problems because they have a higher percentage of people in lower socioeconomic rungs, which is correlated to higher incidences of police abuse and civil rights violations. Even in majority black cities, with black mayors, and black Chiefs of Police, the same holds. You ask why? 1) Crime rates are higher in lower socioeconomic areas 2) There is less recourse for poor people to redress their grievances 2 ties into use of force and qualified immunity. Rich people can afford really good lawyers and often have political connections. They're likely to throw a cop under the bus because you don't mean as much as the rich guy. The poor guy doesn't have this advantage, and thus, the cop is much more highly valued. In a system without competition, the poor guy is screwed. It just so happens that blacks have one of the highest percentages living in poverty. Now, we can address the reasons why, but I suspect, like this issue, you're going to frame it from racism mostly. Also, I'm awaiting your reply of - No, it's mostly racism, which will be odd when addressing cities like Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, etc. You seem to be under some completely false notion that black people can't perpetrate racism and/or perpetuate white supremacy policies against other black people (or themselves)? Do I have to explain why that's obviously wrong? It might be worth doing as it isn't so obvious to me. Something about internalized oppression?
Alright...
Well from the fields of a "New America", to the Holocaust, to Black police showing out for the white cop, there have always been members of the oppressed helping to perpetuate the oppression/subjugation of people like themselves.
Usually conditional on some sort of elevated status above others like them (but still comfortably below the oppressors).
There's plenty more examples (or I could provide specific ones if this is all news to you) but that about sums it up.
On September 27 2017 13:25 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 13:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I got two on my side. I'm good. Good night all. Dude, I've been against police abuses way before any of this BLM stuff started. As much as people on the "left" hate the Ruby Ridge, Waco, stuff, there is still a decent part that never bought into the police lionization crap. "Left" and "Right" have plenty of common ground against the Government, if they were to stop shouting at each other for a second and accusing each other of being the devil (even I, a person who hates communists with a passion, can work with them on an issue if it moves toward liberty for instance).
To your credit, I've noticed that throughout the years. What I think you could be more aware of is how quickly and easily some of your allies on the right abandon those values when applied to PoC and that you would have us more cordially convince them to continue to extend them to black people instead of calling it what it is.
You're right that poor whites are being abandoned by the system in order to preserve the infallibility of (piss poorly trained) police and other enforcement agencies. Then you should appreciate the irony in that fear of oppression through government you feel and notice getting worse and you and others deem worthy of correction is only a fraction of the injustice that has always and continues to be the everyday reality of black America.
Clearly I disagree with privatizing policing as a solution, but I can find common ground in identifying some of the problems.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
In actual usage, "internalized racism" and the like seems to be used in a manner that is awfully convenient as if to say "any of our kind that isn't in on our crusade is a shill for the enemy." I don't deny that the phenomenon is real, but I wonder to what extent the phenomenon is oversold as to presume that solidarity with a certain viewpoint is a necessity. I guess that's something we could check by trying to apply it to a similar concept like "Jews against Israel."
|
This has actually been measured in a recent study about how people respond to race in the context of welfare policy
What the study found
For the study, researchers deployed a survey experiment, sampling more than 700 white people on their support housing assistance programs. (The researchers only used data from white respondents because support among minority groups for Trump was too low to be statistically reliable.) But there was a twist: Respondents were randomly assigned “a subtle image of either a black or a white man.”
The two images used in the study: one of a white man in front of a foreclosure sign, and another of a black man in front of the same sign.
They found that the image of a black man greatly impacted responses among Trump supporters. After they were exposed to the black racial cue, they were not only less supportive of housing assistance programs, but they also expressed higher levels of anger that some people receive government assistance and were more likely to say that individuals who receive assistance are to blame for their situation.
All of these findings were heightened with greater favorability for Trump. In fact, there was an opposite effect among respondents who reported the least favorability toward Trump: They were less likely to oppose housing assistance, get angry at the program, or blame the recipients of such programs for their situation when exposed to the black racial cue compared to the white racial cue. (Luttig told me that this is likely a result of racial progressives viewing black people as disadvantaged in America due to structural racism, therefore requiring more aid.)
In contrast, favorability toward Clinton did not significantly change respondents’ views on any of these issues when primed with racial cues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
