|
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 26 2017 07:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 07:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:37 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 03:33 Nebuchad wrote:
French news just had a piece on Kaepernick and they went with "to protest the murders of african american people by police". I just like that they went with that word over something more neutral like "deaths", it caught me off guard when I heard it. Because in many of these cases, under french law the police would be committing murder? Remember, the threshold for use of lethal force by the police on a civilian, armed or unarmed, is 'I felt threatened.' No physical threat of any kind is required, just a statement after the fact about their feelings. On September 26 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 03:40 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 26 2017 03:34 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 03:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On September 26 2017 03:16 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 03:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:On average, I like it when athletes voice their political opinions. But not always. I would have thought much higher of Paulo Di Canio if he hadn't. Generally though, athletes are role models and I want more people to involve themselves in politics and to be politically conscious.  How is calling the country racist being a role model? This has been my point about these racial issues all along: the free use of the term "racist" to defame a huge percentage of the country's population will never accomplish anything more than render the debate toxic and further polarize the sides. Police brutality is not a racial issue, but these idiots can't help themselves but make it one. They aren't unifying the country to solve a problem. They are further dividing it. I think most people are pretty bad at expressing themselves in ways that foster productive discussion, and I'd be very happy if the racist term was used far less than it is because it's so loaded and even if it's technically possible to make the case that a lot of behavior displayed from a whole lot of people is racist, it's also predictably going to be perceived as an insult halting the productive discussion. However, from what I've seen, I think there's a lot of legitimacy to the argument that police brutality is a racial issue and that there is a racial divide in how white and black people are treated by the police and justice system in the US. (Even if you can also make the case that a lot of this is based on poverty lines rather than race, I don't see how you can claim that race isn't an element, for example black people driving expensive cars being suspected of having stolen them much more frequently than white people, or a rich black guy forgetting his keys and trying to climb into his window being perceived as a burglar much more so than the rich white guy doing the same.) Again, disparate impact is not and should not be considered the same thing as racism. Shitty policing is a universal issue that can and should be dealt with on a race-neutral basis. No, it should not. Not even by a long shot. Stop trying to separate things so that you feel better about talking about them/avoiding them. We would not be talking about police brutality if not for these protests and blacks PoC bringing them up. We'd be back to the era before social media. Also, no one in here is calling 48% of the country racist. But you make it hard not to paint everyone with a broad brush. You haven't been around enough long enough to make this pronouncement. A number of liberal posters have made this charge. Kwark immediately comes to mind, and I could very easily find others if I was so inclined. Their not all racists per say, many of them are tho. And the rest are enablers. People who don't care enough about others being oppressed that they keep supporting the people doing the oppressing. History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.
-Martin Luther King, Jr So are you willing to differentiate between the two when you talk about people being racist or do you want to just continue the issue and call those 48% racist? I have in the past commented on the distinction. But its also hard to separate the 2 cleanly because the racists are rarely open about their racist beliefs. Even many happy enablers get a little uncomfortable when someone calls black people vermin for example.
So you admit that you are probably labeling some people racist wrongly but your excuse is that its hard to tell the difference? Commenting on the distinction in passing doesn't help anyone when you never mention it in regular conversation.
|
On September 26 2017 07:57 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 07:52 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:46 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:42 xDaunt wrote:
And where's the MLK quote where he says that the path to get good people to stop being silent is to defame them? Maybe right wing white people should be less fragile? I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are things I do which help propagate structural, systemic racism against black people, because that's what structural racism. I am a racist in that respect. I don't think that makes me a bad person so maybe people on the right need to stop being such snowflakes. So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural poverty, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, poor. I italicized the words I changed. I'm sure I can change those words to go in a few different directions but I think you understand what I'm trying to say with this. Sorry I might be being dense but could you expand or explain yourself, I don't get really what you're saying.
I didn't want to input slurs into it but make the same post but change the terms to either mean Muslims, poor people. and really any other group that gets offended when you label them something that they're not. It doesn't make it right in a special case when they're "wrong". Its still shitty to tell people that they're bad and they should accept that they're bad.
|
On September 26 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 07:56 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:46 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:42 xDaunt wrote:
And where's the MLK quote where he says that the path to get good people to stop being silent is to defame them? Maybe right wing white people should be less fragile? I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are things I do which help propagate structural, systemic racism against black people, because that's what structural racism. I am a racist in that respect. I don't think that makes me a bad person so maybe people on the right need to stop being such snowflakes. So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural racism, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, racist. Damn, with thoughts like these, you're ready to teach a master class on negotiation. Lesson 1: How to call someone a cunt and still close the deal. Not really analogous, given that I'm not trying to close a deal or negotiate anything. Oh, it absolutely is a negotiation. Y'all aren't calling us racists for shits and giggles. Y'all want justice! Y'all want change! Y'all need racist whitey to help you pass legislation! That looks like a negotiation to me.
I'm not arguing for change or legislation or anything at all. You can pretend that I am in order to try and change the ground on which I'm making my point, but it doesn't change the facts that structural racism is both directly and indirectly, intentionally and unintentionally propagated by a vast amount of white people. That makes them racist. Like I said, if 'the Right' can't muster any arguments against this, but still remain too precious to accept their reality then that reflects much more badly on them.
|
On September 26 2017 08:02 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 07:57 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:52 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:46 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:42 xDaunt wrote:
And where's the MLK quote where he says that the path to get good people to stop being silent is to defame them? Maybe right wing white people should be less fragile? I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are things I do which help propagate structural, systemic racism against black people, because that's what structural racism. I am a racist in that respect. I don't think that makes me a bad person so maybe people on the right need to stop being such snowflakes. So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural poverty, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, poor. I italicized the words I changed. I'm sure I can change those words to go in a few different directions but I think you understand what I'm trying to say with this. Sorry I might be being dense but could you expand or explain yourself, I don't get really what you're saying. I didn't want to input slurs into it but make the same post but change the terms to either mean Muslims, poor people. and really any other group that gets offended when you label them something that they're not. It doesn't make it right in a special case when they're "wrong". Its still shitty to tell people that they're bad and they should accept that they're bad.
Its shitty but what's MORE shitty is racism and racial oppression. Given the two shitty situations, the one that doesn't involve racism seems the preferable one.
|
On September 26 2017 07:59 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 07:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:37 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 03:33 Nebuchad wrote:
French news just had a piece on Kaepernick and they went with "to protest the murders of african american people by police". I just like that they went with that word over something more neutral like "deaths", it caught me off guard when I heard it. Because in many of these cases, under french law the police would be committing murder? Remember, the threshold for use of lethal force by the police on a civilian, armed or unarmed, is 'I felt threatened.' No physical threat of any kind is required, just a statement after the fact about their feelings. On September 26 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 03:40 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 26 2017 03:34 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 03:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On September 26 2017 03:16 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 03:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:On average, I like it when athletes voice their political opinions. But not always. I would have thought much higher of Paulo Di Canio if he hadn't. Generally though, athletes are role models and I want more people to involve themselves in politics and to be politically conscious. How is calling the country racist being a role model? This has been my point about these racial issues all along: the free use of the term "racist" to defame a huge percentage of the country's population will never accomplish anything more than render the debate toxic and further polarize the sides. Police brutality is not a racial issue, but these idiots can't help themselves but make it one. They aren't unifying the country to solve a problem. They are further dividing it. I think most people are pretty bad at expressing themselves in ways that foster productive discussion, and I'd be very happy if the racist term was used far less than it is because it's so loaded and even if it's technically possible to make the case that a lot of behavior displayed from a whole lot of people is racist, it's also predictably going to be perceived as an insult halting the productive discussion. However, from what I've seen, I think there's a lot of legitimacy to the argument that police brutality is a racial issue and that there is a racial divide in how white and black people are treated by the police and justice system in the US. (Even if you can also make the case that a lot of this is based on poverty lines rather than race, I don't see how you can claim that race isn't an element, for example black people driving expensive cars being suspected of having stolen them much more frequently than white people, or a rich black guy forgetting his keys and trying to climb into his window being perceived as a burglar much more so than the rich white guy doing the same.) Again, disparate impact is not and should not be considered the same thing as racism. Shitty policing is a universal issue that can and should be dealt with on a race-neutral basis. No, it should not. Not even by a long shot. Stop trying to separate things so that you feel better about talking about them/avoiding them. We would not be talking about police brutality if not for these protests and blacks PoC bringing them up. We'd be back to the era before social media. Also, no one in here is calling 48% of the country racist. But you make it hard not to paint everyone with a broad brush. You haven't been around enough long enough to make this pronouncement. A number of liberal posters have made this charge. Kwark immediately comes to mind, and I could very easily find others if I was so inclined. Their not all racists per say, many of them are tho. And the rest are enablers. People who don't care enough about others being oppressed that they keep supporting the people doing the oppressing. History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.
-Martin Luther King, Jr So are you willing to differentiate between the two when you talk about people being racist or do you want to just continue the issue and call those 48% racist? I have in the past commented on the distinction. But its also hard to separate the 2 cleanly because the racists are rarely open about their racist beliefs. Even many happy enablers get a little uncomfortable when someone calls black people vermin for example. So you admit that you are probably labeling some people racist wrongly but your excuse is that its hard to tell the difference? Commenting on the distinction in passing doesn't help anyone when you never mention it in regular conversation.
I don't believe I have called 48% (or whatever) of Americans racist. I've called them stupid tho. And they deserve that for voting for Trump.
I have remarked on how many Republicans are racists or racist enablers based on Trump approval rating among Republicans in recent months.
On September 26 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 07:56 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:46 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:42 xDaunt wrote:
And where's the MLK quote where he says that the path to get good people to stop being silent is to defame them? Maybe right wing white people should be less fragile? I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are things I do which help propagate structural, systemic racism against black people, because that's what structural racism. I am a racist in that respect. I don't think that makes me a bad person so maybe people on the right need to stop being such snowflakes. So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural racism, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, racist. Damn, with thoughts like these, you're ready to teach a master class on negotiation. Lesson 1: How to call someone a cunt and still close the deal. Not really analogous, given that I'm not trying to close a deal or negotiate anything. Oh, it absolutely is a negotiation. Y'all aren't calling us racists for shits and giggles. Y'all want justice! Y'all want change! Y'all need racist whitey to help you pass legislation! That looks like a negotiation to me.
Don't worry, this thread gave up long long ago on trying to convince you or danglers.
|
On September 26 2017 08:03 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:56 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:46 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:42 xDaunt wrote:
And where's the MLK quote where he says that the path to get good people to stop being silent is to defame them? Maybe right wing white people should be less fragile? I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are things I do which help propagate structural, systemic racism against black people, because that's what structural racism. I am a racist in that respect. I don't think that makes me a bad person so maybe people on the right need to stop being such snowflakes. So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural racism, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, racist. Damn, with thoughts like these, you're ready to teach a master class on negotiation. Lesson 1: How to call someone a cunt and still close the deal. Not really analogous, given that I'm not trying to close a deal or negotiate anything. Oh, it absolutely is a negotiation. Y'all aren't calling us racists for shits and giggles. Y'all want justice! Y'all want change! Y'all need racist whitey to help you pass legislation! That looks like a negotiation to me. structural racism is both directly and indirectly, intentionally and unintentionally propagated by a vast amount of white people. That makes them racist..
Can you expand on this? I've seen this reasoning used before but it looks to me more like a language trick or a syntax glitch than something which actually makes sense on a practical level.
You could easily put the argument forward that structural racism is propagated unintentionally and indirectly by black people also. Does it make them racist too, or is there some other factor at play here?
|
On September 26 2017 08:07 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 08:03 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:56 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:46 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:42 xDaunt wrote:
And where's the MLK quote where he says that the path to get good people to stop being silent is to defame them? Maybe right wing white people should be less fragile? I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are things I do which help propagate structural, systemic racism against black people, because that's what structural racism. I am a racist in that respect. I don't think that makes me a bad person so maybe people on the right need to stop being such snowflakes. So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural racism, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, racist. Damn, with thoughts like these, you're ready to teach a master class on negotiation. Lesson 1: How to call someone a cunt and still close the deal. Not really analogous, given that I'm not trying to close a deal or negotiate anything. Oh, it absolutely is a negotiation. Y'all aren't calling us racists for shits and giggles. Y'all want justice! Y'all want change! Y'all need racist whitey to help you pass legislation! That looks like a negotiation to me. structural racism is both directly and indirectly, intentionally and unintentionally propagated by a vast amount of white people. That makes them racist.. Can you expand on this? I've seen this reasoning used before but it looks to me more like a language trick or a syntax glitch than something which actually makes sense on a practical level. You could easily put the argument forward that structural racism is propagated unintentionally and indirectly by black people also. Does it make them racist too, or is there some other factor at play here?
I'm honestly not sure, it depends if you can engage in 'self-racism' basically. There are undoubtedly black people who have helped propagate structural racism, and I guess that would make them racist. It's similar (somewhat) to the women who didn't really fight for suffrage - I think we would feel quite comfortable in calling them out for at least propagating structural sexism, and I don't see why it should be different for race.
|
On September 26 2017 08:07 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 08:03 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:56 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:46 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:42 xDaunt wrote:
And where's the MLK quote where he says that the path to get good people to stop being silent is to defame them? Maybe right wing white people should be less fragile? I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are things I do which help propagate structural, systemic racism against black people, because that's what structural racism. I am a racist in that respect. I don't think that makes me a bad person so maybe people on the right need to stop being such snowflakes. So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural racism, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, racist. Damn, with thoughts like these, you're ready to teach a master class on negotiation. Lesson 1: How to call someone a cunt and still close the deal. Not really analogous, given that I'm not trying to close a deal or negotiate anything. Oh, it absolutely is a negotiation. Y'all aren't calling us racists for shits and giggles. Y'all want justice! Y'all want change! Y'all need racist whitey to help you pass legislation! That looks like a negotiation to me. structural racism is both directly and indirectly, intentionally and unintentionally propagated by a vast amount of white people. That makes them racist.. Can you expand on this? I've seen this reasoning used before but it looks to me more like a language trick or a syntax glitch than something which actually makes sense on a practical level. You could easily put the argument forward that structural racism is propagated unintentionally and indirectly by black people also. Does it make them racist too, or is there some other factor at play here?
It's kind of complicated, but the short answer is yes, it makes them racist too.
Though I don't have an interest in doing the "define racism" dance right now.
|
On September 26 2017 08:03 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:56 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:46 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:42 xDaunt wrote:
And where's the MLK quote where he says that the path to get good people to stop being silent is to defame them? Maybe right wing white people should be less fragile? I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are things I do which help propagate structural, systemic racism against black people, because that's what structural racism. I am a racist in that respect. I don't think that makes me a bad person so maybe people on the right need to stop being such snowflakes. So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural racism, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, racist. Damn, with thoughts like these, you're ready to teach a master class on negotiation. Lesson 1: How to call someone a cunt and still close the deal. Not really analogous, given that I'm not trying to close a deal or negotiate anything. Oh, it absolutely is a negotiation. Y'all aren't calling us racists for shits and giggles. Y'all want justice! Y'all want change! Y'all need racist whitey to help you pass legislation! That looks like a negotiation to me. I'm not arguing for change or legislation or anything at all. You can pretend that I am in order to try and change the ground on which I'm making my point, but it doesn't change the facts that structural racism is both directly and indirectly, intentionally and unintentionally propagated by a vast amount of white people. That makes them racist. Like I said, if 'the Right' can't muster any arguments against this, but still remain too precious to accept their reality then that reflects much more badly on them.
I've seen mentioned in this thread that recognizing it exists and not wanting to do anything about it is worse than the other position. How do you defend yourself from someone that thinks you're a terrible human being for not wanting to change anything about racist structures at all?
|
On September 26 2017 08:04 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 08:02 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:57 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:52 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:46 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:42 xDaunt wrote:
And where's the MLK quote where he says that the path to get good people to stop being silent is to defame them? Maybe right wing white people should be less fragile? I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are things I do which help propagate structural, systemic racism against black people, because that's what structural racism. I am a racist in that respect. I don't think that makes me a bad person so maybe people on the right need to stop being such snowflakes. So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural poverty, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, poor. I italicized the words I changed. I'm sure I can change those words to go in a few different directions but I think you understand what I'm trying to say with this. Sorry I might be being dense but could you expand or explain yourself, I don't get really what you're saying. I didn't want to input slurs into it but make the same post but change the terms to either mean Muslims, poor people. and really any other group that gets offended when you label them something that they're not. It doesn't make it right in a special case when they're "wrong". Its still shitty to tell people that they're bad and they should accept that they're bad. Its shitty but what's MORE shitty is racism and racial oppression. Given the two shitty situations, the one that doesn't involve racism seems the preferable one.
What Danglers xdaunt and me have been trying to reach you with is that calling everyone racists isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You need to change the opinions of the Racist enablers in the country in order to get them to stop enabling racism in its structural forms. Thats how change always has happened. The civil rights era didn't succeed because white people got tired of being called racist it succeeded because it divided the most racist parts of the country and the less racist parts of the country.
Thats its wrong and just bad in any other situation should show you how bad and wrong it is in this one.
On September 26 2017 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 07:59 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:37 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 03:33 Nebuchad wrote:
French news just had a piece on Kaepernick and they went with "to protest the murders of african american people by police". I just like that they went with that word over something more neutral like "deaths", it caught me off guard when I heard it. Because in many of these cases, under french law the police would be committing murder? Remember, the threshold for use of lethal force by the police on a civilian, armed or unarmed, is 'I felt threatened.' No physical threat of any kind is required, just a statement after the fact about their feelings. On September 26 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 03:40 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 26 2017 03:34 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 03:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On September 26 2017 03:16 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
How is calling the country racist being a role model? This has been my point about these racial issues all along: the free use of the term "racist" to defame a huge percentage of the country's population will never accomplish anything more than render the debate toxic and further polarize the sides. Police brutality is not a racial issue, but these idiots can't help themselves but make it one. They aren't unifying the country to solve a problem. They are further dividing it. I think most people are pretty bad at expressing themselves in ways that foster productive discussion, and I'd be very happy if the racist term was used far less than it is because it's so loaded and even if it's technically possible to make the case that a lot of behavior displayed from a whole lot of people is racist, it's also predictably going to be perceived as an insult halting the productive discussion. However, from what I've seen, I think there's a lot of legitimacy to the argument that police brutality is a racial issue and that there is a racial divide in how white and black people are treated by the police and justice system in the US. (Even if you can also make the case that a lot of this is based on poverty lines rather than race, I don't see how you can claim that race isn't an element, for example black people driving expensive cars being suspected of having stolen them much more frequently than white people, or a rich black guy forgetting his keys and trying to climb into his window being perceived as a burglar much more so than the rich white guy doing the same.) Again, disparate impact is not and should not be considered the same thing as racism. Shitty policing is a universal issue that can and should be dealt with on a race-neutral basis. No, it should not. Not even by a long shot. Stop trying to separate things so that you feel better about talking about them/avoiding them. We would not be talking about police brutality if not for these protests and blacks PoC bringing them up. We'd be back to the era before social media. Also, no one in here is calling 48% of the country racist. But you make it hard not to paint everyone with a broad brush. You haven't been around enough long enough to make this pronouncement. A number of liberal posters have made this charge. Kwark immediately comes to mind, and I could very easily find others if I was so inclined. Their not all racists per say, many of them are tho. And the rest are enablers. People who don't care enough about others being oppressed that they keep supporting the people doing the oppressing. History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.
-Martin Luther King, Jr So are you willing to differentiate between the two when you talk about people being racist or do you want to just continue the issue and call those 48% racist? I have in the past commented on the distinction. But its also hard to separate the 2 cleanly because the racists are rarely open about their racist beliefs. Even many happy enablers get a little uncomfortable when someone calls black people vermin for example. So you admit that you are probably labeling some people racist wrongly but your excuse is that its hard to tell the difference? Commenting on the distinction in passing doesn't help anyone when you never mention it in regular conversation. I don't believe I have called 48% (or whatever) of Americans racist. I've called them stupid tho. And they deserve that for voting for Trump. I have remarked on how many Republicans are racists or racist enablers based on Trump approval rating among Republicans in recent months. Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:56 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:46 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:42 xDaunt wrote:
And where's the MLK quote where he says that the path to get good people to stop being silent is to defame them? Maybe right wing white people should be less fragile? I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are things I do which help propagate structural, systemic racism against black people, because that's what structural racism. I am a racist in that respect. I don't think that makes me a bad person so maybe people on the right need to stop being such snowflakes. So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural racism, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, racist. Damn, with thoughts like these, you're ready to teach a master class on negotiation. Lesson 1: How to call someone a cunt and still close the deal. Not really analogous, given that I'm not trying to close a deal or negotiate anything. Oh, it absolutely is a negotiation. Y'all aren't calling us racists for shits and giggles. Y'all want justice! Y'all want change! Y'all need racist whitey to help you pass legislation! That looks like a negotiation to me. Don't worry, this thread gave up long long ago on trying to convince you or danglers.
You get wrapped up in identify games where you call the GOP racists then half the country stupid when it ends up you're just calling half the country racist and stupid. I don't know if this is a separation between our two countries but just being apart of a party in america doesn't mean you share all or even most of the parties values, just more then you would the other party.
|
On September 26 2017 08:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 08:03 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:56 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:46 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:42 xDaunt wrote:
And where's the MLK quote where he says that the path to get good people to stop being silent is to defame them? Maybe right wing white people should be less fragile? I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are things I do which help propagate structural, systemic racism against black people, because that's what structural racism. I am a racist in that respect. I don't think that makes me a bad person so maybe people on the right need to stop being such snowflakes. So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural racism, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, racist. Damn, with thoughts like these, you're ready to teach a master class on negotiation. Lesson 1: How to call someone a cunt and still close the deal. Not really analogous, given that I'm not trying to close a deal or negotiate anything. Oh, it absolutely is a negotiation. Y'all aren't calling us racists for shits and giggles. Y'all want justice! Y'all want change! Y'all need racist whitey to help you pass legislation! That looks like a negotiation to me. I'm not arguing for change or legislation or anything at all. You can pretend that I am in order to try and change the ground on which I'm making my point, but it doesn't change the facts that structural racism is both directly and indirectly, intentionally and unintentionally propagated by a vast amount of white people. That makes them racist. Like I said, if 'the Right' can't muster any arguments against this, but still remain too precious to accept their reality then that reflects much more badly on them. I've seen mentioned in this thread that recognizing it exists and not wanting to do anything about it is worse than the other position. How do you defend yourself from someone that thinks you're a terrible human being for not wanting to change anything about racist structures at all?
You just saw me post MLK Jr. saying it.
Remember folks, if we were just more like MLK Jr. then they would listen...
|
On September 26 2017 08:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 08:03 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:56 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:46 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:42 xDaunt wrote:
And where's the MLK quote where he says that the path to get good people to stop being silent is to defame them? Maybe right wing white people should be less fragile? I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are things I do which help propagate structural, systemic racism against black people, because that's what structural racism. I am a racist in that respect. I don't think that makes me a bad person so maybe people on the right need to stop being such snowflakes. So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural racism, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, racist. Damn, with thoughts like these, you're ready to teach a master class on negotiation. Lesson 1: How to call someone a cunt and still close the deal. Not really analogous, given that I'm not trying to close a deal or negotiate anything. Oh, it absolutely is a negotiation. Y'all aren't calling us racists for shits and giggles. Y'all want justice! Y'all want change! Y'all need racist whitey to help you pass legislation! That looks like a negotiation to me. I'm not arguing for change or legislation or anything at all. You can pretend that I am in order to try and change the ground on which I'm making my point, but it doesn't change the facts that structural racism is both directly and indirectly, intentionally and unintentionally propagated by a vast amount of white people. That makes them racist. Like I said, if 'the Right' can't muster any arguments against this, but still remain too precious to accept their reality then that reflects much more badly on them. I've seen mentioned in this thread that recognizing it exists and not wanting to do anything about it is worse than the other position. How do you defend yourself from someone that thinks you're a terrible human being for not wanting to change anything about racist structures at all?
Is the 'other position' being an active racist or something else?
The only way to defend yourself would be either to show that there is no such thing as structural racism now, or to just accept that you and whoever is calling you a terrible human have different values and move on with your life. Complaining about 'the Left' being mean is neither of these options and is why these discussions get so tiresome.
|
So replying to every Trump tweet there are always immediately waves and waves of these long threads of pro and anti Trump propaganda meme tweets that always get to the top for some reason. Do you think these are actual people obsessed with spamming these memes because they are fierce supporters? Or are these hired hands and part of the campaign team strategy? Are they bots? The memes are usually so low quality that I can't imagine many people getting excited about them no matter your affiliation yet they are always at the top?
|
On September 26 2017 08:20 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
So replying to every Trump tweet there are always immediately waves and waves of these long threads of pro and anti Trump propaganda meme tweets that always get to the top for some reason. Do you think these are actual people obsessed with spamming these memes because they are fierce supporters? Or are these hired hands and part of the campaign team strategy? Are they bots? The memes are usually so low quality that I can't imagine many people getting excited about them no matter your affiliation yet they are always at the top?
All of the above and then some. It's not unique to Trump but he has helped bring it to a whole new level.
|
On September 26 2017 08:17 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 08:04 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:02 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:57 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:52 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:46 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:42 xDaunt wrote:
And where's the MLK quote where he says that the path to get good people to stop being silent is to defame them? Maybe right wing white people should be less fragile? I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are things I do which help propagate structural, systemic racism against black people, because that's what structural racism. I am a racist in that respect. I don't think that makes me a bad person so maybe people on the right need to stop being such snowflakes. So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural poverty, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, poor. I italicized the words I changed. I'm sure I can change those words to go in a few different directions but I think you understand what I'm trying to say with this. Sorry I might be being dense but could you expand or explain yourself, I don't get really what you're saying. I didn't want to input slurs into it but make the same post but change the terms to either mean Muslims, poor people. and really any other group that gets offended when you label them something that they're not. It doesn't make it right in a special case when they're "wrong". Its still shitty to tell people that they're bad and they should accept that they're bad. Its shitty but what's MORE shitty is racism and racial oppression. Given the two shitty situations, the one that doesn't involve racism seems the preferable one. What Danglers xdaunt and me have been trying to reach you with is that calling everyone racists isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You need to change the opinions of the Racist enablers in the country in order to get them to stop enabling racism in its structural forms. Thats how change always has happened. The civil rights era didn't succeed because white people got tired of being called racist it succeeded because it divided the most racist parts of the country and the less racist parts of the country. Thats its wrong and just bad in any other situation should show you how bad and wrong it is in this one. Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:59 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:37 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 03:33 Nebuchad wrote:
French news just had a piece on Kaepernick and they went with "to protest the murders of african american people by police". I just like that they went with that word over something more neutral like "deaths", it caught me off guard when I heard it. Because in many of these cases, under french law the police would be committing murder? Remember, the threshold for use of lethal force by the police on a civilian, armed or unarmed, is 'I felt threatened.' No physical threat of any kind is required, just a statement after the fact about their feelings. On September 26 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 03:40 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 26 2017 03:34 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 03:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
[quote]
I think most people are pretty bad at expressing themselves in ways that foster productive discussion, and I'd be very happy if the racist term was used far less than it is because it's so loaded and even if it's technically possible to make the case that a lot of behavior displayed from a whole lot of people is racist, it's also predictably going to be perceived as an insult halting the productive discussion.
However, from what I've seen, I think there's a lot of legitimacy to the argument that police brutality is a racial issue and that there is a racial divide in how white and black people are treated by the police and justice system in the US. (Even if you can also make the case that a lot of this is based on poverty lines rather than race, I don't see how you can claim that race isn't an element, for example black people driving expensive cars being suspected of having stolen them much more frequently than white people, or a rich black guy forgetting his keys and trying to climb into his window being perceived as a burglar much more so than the rich white guy doing the same.) Again, disparate impact is not and should not be considered the same thing as racism. Shitty policing is a universal issue that can and should be dealt with on a race-neutral basis. No, it should not. Not even by a long shot. Stop trying to separate things so that you feel better about talking about them/avoiding them. We would not be talking about police brutality if not for these protests and blacks PoC bringing them up. We'd be back to the era before social media. Also, no one in here is calling 48% of the country racist. But you make it hard not to paint everyone with a broad brush. You haven't been around enough long enough to make this pronouncement. A number of liberal posters have made this charge. Kwark immediately comes to mind, and I could very easily find others if I was so inclined. Their not all racists per say, many of them are tho. And the rest are enablers. People who don't care enough about others being oppressed that they keep supporting the people doing the oppressing. History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.
-Martin Luther King, Jr So are you willing to differentiate between the two when you talk about people being racist or do you want to just continue the issue and call those 48% racist? I have in the past commented on the distinction. But its also hard to separate the 2 cleanly because the racists are rarely open about their racist beliefs. Even many happy enablers get a little uncomfortable when someone calls black people vermin for example. So you admit that you are probably labeling some people racist wrongly but your excuse is that its hard to tell the difference? Commenting on the distinction in passing doesn't help anyone when you never mention it in regular conversation. I don't believe I have called 48% (or whatever) of Americans racist. I've called them stupid tho. And they deserve that for voting for Trump. I have remarked on how many Republicans are racists or racist enablers based on Trump approval rating among Republicans in recent months. On September 26 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:56 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:46 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:42 xDaunt wrote:
And where's the MLK quote where he says that the path to get good people to stop being silent is to defame them? Maybe right wing white people should be less fragile? I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are things I do which help propagate structural, systemic racism against black people, because that's what structural racism. I am a racist in that respect. I don't think that makes me a bad person so maybe people on the right need to stop being such snowflakes. So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural racism, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, racist. Damn, with thoughts like these, you're ready to teach a master class on negotiation. Lesson 1: How to call someone a cunt and still close the deal. Not really analogous, given that I'm not trying to close a deal or negotiate anything. Oh, it absolutely is a negotiation. Y'all aren't calling us racists for shits and giggles. Y'all want justice! Y'all want change! Y'all need racist whitey to help you pass legislation! That looks like a negotiation to me. Don't worry, this thread gave up long long ago on trying to convince you or danglers. You get wrapped up in identify games where you call the GOP racists then half the country stupid when it ends up you're just calling half the country racist and stupid. I don't know if this is a separation between our two countries but just being apart of a party in america doesn't mean you share all or even most of the parties values, just more then you would the other party.
I'm not making an argument for the sake of political expediency, I'm making an argument that is true. Danglers and xDaunt seem much more upset about the prospect that they may be racist than the prospect racism still exists. It is not wrong and bad to call people who propagate racism racists. I don't really understand your substituting racism with poverty still.
|
On September 26 2017 08:25 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 08:17 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 08:04 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:02 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:57 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:52 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:46 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:42 xDaunt wrote:
And where's the MLK quote where he says that the path to get good people to stop being silent is to defame them? Maybe right wing white people should be less fragile? I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are things I do which help propagate structural, systemic racism against black people, because that's what structural racism. I am a racist in that respect. I don't think that makes me a bad person so maybe people on the right need to stop being such snowflakes. So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural poverty, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, poor. I italicized the words I changed. I'm sure I can change those words to go in a few different directions but I think you understand what I'm trying to say with this. Sorry I might be being dense but could you expand or explain yourself, I don't get really what you're saying. I didn't want to input slurs into it but make the same post but change the terms to either mean Muslims, poor people. and really any other group that gets offended when you label them something that they're not. It doesn't make it right in a special case when they're "wrong". Its still shitty to tell people that they're bad and they should accept that they're bad. Its shitty but what's MORE shitty is racism and racial oppression. Given the two shitty situations, the one that doesn't involve racism seems the preferable one. What Danglers xdaunt and me have been trying to reach you with is that calling everyone racists isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You need to change the opinions of the Racist enablers in the country in order to get them to stop enabling racism in its structural forms. Thats how change always has happened. The civil rights era didn't succeed because white people got tired of being called racist it succeeded because it divided the most racist parts of the country and the less racist parts of the country. Thats its wrong and just bad in any other situation should show you how bad and wrong it is in this one. On September 26 2017 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:59 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:37 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 03:33 Nebuchad wrote:
French news just had a piece on Kaepernick and they went with "to protest the murders of african american people by police". I just like that they went with that word over something more neutral like "deaths", it caught me off guard when I heard it. Because in many of these cases, under french law the police would be committing murder? Remember, the threshold for use of lethal force by the police on a civilian, armed or unarmed, is 'I felt threatened.' No physical threat of any kind is required, just a statement after the fact about their feelings. On September 26 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 03:40 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 26 2017 03:34 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Again, disparate impact is not and should not be considered the same thing as racism. Shitty policing is a universal issue that can and should be dealt with on a race-neutral basis. No, it should not. Not even by a long shot. Stop trying to separate things so that you feel better about talking about them/avoiding them. We would not be talking about police brutality if not for these protests and blacks PoC bringing them up. We'd be back to the era before social media. Also, no one in here is calling 48% of the country racist. But you make it hard not to paint everyone with a broad brush. You haven't been around enough long enough to make this pronouncement. A number of liberal posters have made this charge. Kwark immediately comes to mind, and I could very easily find others if I was so inclined. Their not all racists per say, many of them are tho. And the rest are enablers. People who don't care enough about others being oppressed that they keep supporting the people doing the oppressing. History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.
-Martin Luther King, Jr So are you willing to differentiate between the two when you talk about people being racist or do you want to just continue the issue and call those 48% racist? I have in the past commented on the distinction. But its also hard to separate the 2 cleanly because the racists are rarely open about their racist beliefs. Even many happy enablers get a little uncomfortable when someone calls black people vermin for example. So you admit that you are probably labeling some people racist wrongly but your excuse is that its hard to tell the difference? Commenting on the distinction in passing doesn't help anyone when you never mention it in regular conversation. I don't believe I have called 48% (or whatever) of Americans racist. I've called them stupid tho. And they deserve that for voting for Trump. I have remarked on how many Republicans are racists or racist enablers based on Trump approval rating among Republicans in recent months. On September 26 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:56 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:46 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:42 xDaunt wrote:
And where's the MLK quote where he says that the path to get good people to stop being silent is to defame them? Maybe right wing white people should be less fragile? I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are things I do which help propagate structural, systemic racism against black people, because that's what structural racism. I am a racist in that respect. I don't think that makes me a bad person so maybe people on the right need to stop being such snowflakes. So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural racism, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, racist. Damn, with thoughts like these, you're ready to teach a master class on negotiation. Lesson 1: How to call someone a cunt and still close the deal. Not really analogous, given that I'm not trying to close a deal or negotiate anything. Oh, it absolutely is a negotiation. Y'all aren't calling us racists for shits and giggles. Y'all want justice! Y'all want change! Y'all need racist whitey to help you pass legislation! That looks like a negotiation to me. Don't worry, this thread gave up long long ago on trying to convince you or danglers. You get wrapped up in identify games where you call the GOP racists then half the country stupid when it ends up you're just calling half the country racist and stupid. I don't know if this is a separation between our two countries but just being apart of a party in america doesn't mean you share all or even most of the parties values, just more then you would the other party. I'm not making an argument for the sake of political expediency, I'm making an argument that is true . Danglers and xDaunt seem much more upset about the prospect that they may be racist than the prospect racism still exists. It is not wrong and bad to call people who propagate racism racists. I don't really understand your substituting racism with poverty still.
This problem exists in more people than just Danglars and Xdaunt. I used to feel this way. If someone was talking about racism in the US, I had to make sure I wasn't counted among the bad white people who are racist. And the concept of "whiteness" racially charged and divisive. But at some point I didn't want to be counted along side the people really pushing that argument and started listening to black people about race.
|
Canada11279 Posts
On September 26 2017 08:25 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 08:17 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 08:04 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:02 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:57 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:52 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:46 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:42 xDaunt wrote:
And where's the MLK quote where he says that the path to get good people to stop being silent is to defame them? Maybe right wing white people should be less fragile? I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are things I do which help propagate structural, systemic racism against black people, because that's what structural racism. I am a racist in that respect. I don't think that makes me a bad person so maybe people on the right need to stop being such snowflakes. So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural poverty, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, poor. I italicized the words I changed. I'm sure I can change those words to go in a few different directions but I think you understand what I'm trying to say with this. Sorry I might be being dense but could you expand or explain yourself, I don't get really what you're saying. I didn't want to input slurs into it but make the same post but change the terms to either mean Muslims, poor people. and really any other group that gets offended when you label them something that they're not. It doesn't make it right in a special case when they're "wrong". Its still shitty to tell people that they're bad and they should accept that they're bad. Its shitty but what's MORE shitty is racism and racial oppression. Given the two shitty situations, the one that doesn't involve racism seems the preferable one. What Danglers xdaunt and me have been trying to reach you with is that calling everyone racists isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You need to change the opinions of the Racist enablers in the country in order to get them to stop enabling racism in its structural forms. Thats how change always has happened. The civil rights era didn't succeed because white people got tired of being called racist it succeeded because it divided the most racist parts of the country and the less racist parts of the country. Thats its wrong and just bad in any other situation should show you how bad and wrong it is in this one. On September 26 2017 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:59 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:37 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 03:33 Nebuchad wrote:
French news just had a piece on Kaepernick and they went with "to protest the murders of african american people by police". I just like that they went with that word over something more neutral like "deaths", it caught me off guard when I heard it. Because in many of these cases, under french law the police would be committing murder? Remember, the threshold for use of lethal force by the police on a civilian, armed or unarmed, is 'I felt threatened.' No physical threat of any kind is required, just a statement after the fact about their feelings. On September 26 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 03:40 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 26 2017 03:34 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Again, disparate impact is not and should not be considered the same thing as racism. Shitty policing is a universal issue that can and should be dealt with on a race-neutral basis. No, it should not. Not even by a long shot. Stop trying to separate things so that you feel better about talking about them/avoiding them. We would not be talking about police brutality if not for these protests and blacks PoC bringing them up. We'd be back to the era before social media. Also, no one in here is calling 48% of the country racist. But you make it hard not to paint everyone with a broad brush. You haven't been around enough long enough to make this pronouncement. A number of liberal posters have made this charge. Kwark immediately comes to mind, and I could very easily find others if I was so inclined. Their not all racists per say, many of them are tho. And the rest are enablers. People who don't care enough about others being oppressed that they keep supporting the people doing the oppressing. History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.
-Martin Luther King, Jr So are you willing to differentiate between the two when you talk about people being racist or do you want to just continue the issue and call those 48% racist? I have in the past commented on the distinction. But its also hard to separate the 2 cleanly because the racists are rarely open about their racist beliefs. Even many happy enablers get a little uncomfortable when someone calls black people vermin for example. So you admit that you are probably labeling some people racist wrongly but your excuse is that its hard to tell the difference? Commenting on the distinction in passing doesn't help anyone when you never mention it in regular conversation. I don't believe I have called 48% (or whatever) of Americans racist. I've called them stupid tho. And they deserve that for voting for Trump. I have remarked on how many Republicans are racists or racist enablers based on Trump approval rating among Republicans in recent months. On September 26 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:56 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:46 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:42 xDaunt wrote:
And where's the MLK quote where he says that the path to get good people to stop being silent is to defame them? Maybe right wing white people should be less fragile? I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are things I do which help propagate structural, systemic racism against black people, because that's what structural racism. I am a racist in that respect. I don't think that makes me a bad person so maybe people on the right need to stop being such snowflakes. So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural racism, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, racist. Damn, with thoughts like these, you're ready to teach a master class on negotiation. Lesson 1: How to call someone a cunt and still close the deal. Not really analogous, given that I'm not trying to close a deal or negotiate anything. Oh, it absolutely is a negotiation. Y'all aren't calling us racists for shits and giggles. Y'all want justice! Y'all want change! Y'all need racist whitey to help you pass legislation! That looks like a negotiation to me. Don't worry, this thread gave up long long ago on trying to convince you or danglers. You get wrapped up in identify games where you call the GOP racists then half the country stupid when it ends up you're just calling half the country racist and stupid. I don't know if this is a separation between our two countries but just being apart of a party in america doesn't mean you share all or even most of the parties values, just more then you would the other party. I'm not making an argument for the sake of political expediency, I'm making an argument that is true. Danglers and xDaunt seem much more upset about the prospect that they may be racist than the prospect racism still exists. It is not wrong and bad to call people who propagate racism racists. I don't really understand your substituting racism with poverty still.
I suspect they may be more upset that charges of racism are overly broad so as to include not-racists within the category of racists. Racism still exists, but it does matter if we've actually identified the right people for the right reasons. Again a truth statement beyond political expediency.
|
On September 26 2017 08:32 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 08:25 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:17 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 08:04 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 08:02 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:57 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:52 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:46 kollin wrote:
[quote]
Maybe right wing white people should be less fragile? I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are things I do which help propagate structural, systemic racism against black people, because that's what structural racism. I am a racist in that respect. I don't think that makes me a bad person so maybe people on the right need to stop being such snowflakes. So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural poverty, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, poor. I italicized the words I changed. I'm sure I can change those words to go in a few different directions but I think you understand what I'm trying to say with this. Sorry I might be being dense but could you expand or explain yourself, I don't get really what you're saying. I didn't want to input slurs into it but make the same post but change the terms to either mean Muslims, poor people. and really any other group that gets offended when you label them something that they're not. It doesn't make it right in a special case when they're "wrong". Its still shitty to tell people that they're bad and they should accept that they're bad. Its shitty but what's MORE shitty is racism and racial oppression. Given the two shitty situations, the one that doesn't involve racism seems the preferable one. What Danglers xdaunt and me have been trying to reach you with is that calling everyone racists isn't going to get anyone anywhere. You need to change the opinions of the Racist enablers in the country in order to get them to stop enabling racism in its structural forms. Thats how change always has happened. The civil rights era didn't succeed because white people got tired of being called racist it succeeded because it divided the most racist parts of the country and the less racist parts of the country. Thats its wrong and just bad in any other situation should show you how bad and wrong it is in this one. On September 26 2017 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:59 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 07:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:37 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 03:33 Nebuchad wrote:
French news just had a piece on Kaepernick and they went with "to protest the murders of african american people by police". I just like that they went with that word over something more neutral like "deaths", it caught me off guard when I heard it. Because in many of these cases, under french law the police would be committing murder? Remember, the threshold for use of lethal force by the police on a civilian, armed or unarmed, is 'I felt threatened.' No physical threat of any kind is required, just a statement after the fact about their feelings. On September 26 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 03:40 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
No, it should not. Not even by a long shot. Stop trying to separate things so that you feel better about talking about them/avoiding them. We would not be talking about police brutality if not for these protests and blacks PoC bringing them up. We'd be back to the era before social media.
Also, no one in here is calling 48% of the country racist. But you make it hard not to paint everyone with a broad brush. You haven't been around enough long enough to make this pronouncement. A number of liberal posters have made this charge. Kwark immediately comes to mind, and I could very easily find others if I was so inclined. Their not all racists per say, many of them are tho. And the rest are enablers. People who don't care enough about others being oppressed that they keep supporting the people doing the oppressing. History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.
-Martin Luther King, Jr So are you willing to differentiate between the two when you talk about people being racist or do you want to just continue the issue and call those 48% racist? I have in the past commented on the distinction. But its also hard to separate the 2 cleanly because the racists are rarely open about their racist beliefs. Even many happy enablers get a little uncomfortable when someone calls black people vermin for example. So you admit that you are probably labeling some people racist wrongly but your excuse is that its hard to tell the difference? Commenting on the distinction in passing doesn't help anyone when you never mention it in regular conversation. I don't believe I have called 48% (or whatever) of Americans racist. I've called them stupid tho. And they deserve that for voting for Trump. I have remarked on how many Republicans are racists or racist enablers based on Trump approval rating among Republicans in recent months. On September 26 2017 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:56 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 26 2017 07:47 Sermokala wrote:On September 26 2017 07:46 kollin wrote:
[quote]
Maybe right wing white people should be less fragile? I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are things I do which help propagate structural, systemic racism against black people, because that's what structural racism. I am a racist in that respect. I don't think that makes me a bad person so maybe people on the right need to stop being such snowflakes. So your argument is that because something doesn't offend you or make you feel bad then other people wouldn't be offended or feel bad when they are told they are the same thing? My argument is their offence, at the end of the day, doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Why should I care if they're offended? What matters is whether or not there is structural racism, and what they can do to help reduce it. Crying over terms is just another way to take the focus of what matters, which actually just lends credence to the idea that they are, in fact, racist. Damn, with thoughts like these, you're ready to teach a master class on negotiation. Lesson 1: How to call someone a cunt and still close the deal. Not really analogous, given that I'm not trying to close a deal or negotiate anything. Oh, it absolutely is a negotiation. Y'all aren't calling us racists for shits and giggles. Y'all want justice! Y'all want change! Y'all need racist whitey to help you pass legislation! That looks like a negotiation to me. Don't worry, this thread gave up long long ago on trying to convince you or danglers. You get wrapped up in identify games where you call the GOP racists then half the country stupid when it ends up you're just calling half the country racist and stupid. I don't know if this is a separation between our two countries but just being apart of a party in america doesn't mean you share all or even most of the parties values, just more then you would the other party. I'm not making an argument for the sake of political expediency, I'm making an argument that is true. Danglers and xDaunt seem much more upset about the prospect that they may be racist than the prospect racism still exists. It is not wrong and bad to call people who propagate racism racists. I don't really understand your substituting racism with poverty still. I suspect they may be more upset that charges of racism are overly broad so as to include not-racists within the category of racists. Racism still exists, but it does matter if we've actually identified the right people for the right reasons. Again a truth statement beyond political expediency.
Why does it matter that we identity the right people as racist? Racism can be purely accidental.
|
|
|
United States41991 Posts
On September 26 2017 02:21 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 02:17 brian wrote:On September 26 2017 02:14 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 26 2017 02:11 brian wrote:On September 26 2017 01:43 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 26 2017 01:32 brian wrote:On September 26 2017 01:31 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 26 2017 01:26 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2017 01:24 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 26 2017 01:18 brian wrote:
[quote]
please, don’t avoid the question. and what an absurd reply. that doesn’t mean i can come here and tell you you’re an ignorant flame baiter and say it’s Congress’s fault for xyz reason and back pedal all day claiming ‘it’s congress and this is the us politics thread ok?’ Unless you are just here specifically to mischaracterize people that that criticize extremists, please don't cherry pick. I was responding to: "You're clearly trolling at this point. Bring national pride back? When did it ever leave? When we elected a black president? Did it leave then? I must have been asleep when national pride was lost. And each president has stood up to NK. They just never threatened them with unilateral war because...reasons?" At that point, it stopped being about the NFL, it became about Trump uniting the country and making examples of people trying to divide it. A man wanting equal rights for his race is now dividing the country by wanting everyone to be united in their rights. Thats some backwards ass logic right there. Clearly said that at that point, it stopped being about the NFL/flag issues. That's some irrelevant ass response right there. except you specifically called out the kneelers as being divisive in your second post. i’ll leave it to you to re-evaluate its relevance. for your reference, lest you accuse me of mischaracterization again: On September 25 2017 23:25 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 25 2017 23:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 25 2017 23:17 RealityIsKing wrote:
Come on people, stop with the identity politics. That's why dems lost 2016. The issue of race is why they began kneeling in the first place. Also brought more divisiveness into the country, which is bad. Then he should quote those instead instead of a totally irrelevant one if he so wishes me to respond, but then again people can just backtrack not too far to see my explanation of the unnecessarily flag/anthem protest if you TRULY want to have a clear discussion instead of randomly quoting me to simply just be insulting. ok so, having done that, you have no explanation to offer? again, specifically, how a man kneeling against racial inequality is to blame for divisiveness? You can read my explanation on post #176463. On September 26 2017 01:02 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 26 2017 00:53 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On September 26 2017 00:11 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 26 2017 00:10 zlefin wrote:On September 26 2017 00:07 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 26 2017 00:02 NewSunshine wrote:On September 25 2017 23:58 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 25 2017 23:52 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
You're clearly trolling at this point. Bring national pride back? When did it ever leave? When we elected a black president? Did it leave then? I must have been asleep when national pride was lost. And each president has stood up to NK. They just never threatened them with unilateral war because...reasons? Dude you are putting words into people's mouth and that's not cool. It temporarily left during the election (or even prior to that as dems was carefully setting up for a Hillary win, but failed) when dems played identity politics by pitting LGBT/PoC/women against white heterosexual males. It was basically identity politics vs economical nationalism in 2016 and we all know what decision people came to. So I know you and others like to say "identity politics" like it's some kind of filthy word, but what would you have discriminated peoples do? All the systemic racism PoC face, the rights continuously being contested/denied for LGBT folk, and even the sexism that women put up with, you just want them to keep quiet and not rock the boat? Identity politics is real politics. Because when you're constantly treated like shit because of how you look or how you live, your existence has been made political by the people doing it. Plain and simple. You can clearly protest without painting one subset of the nation into horrible monsters. And using violent manners in shutting down dissenting thoughts in various platforms is DEFINITELY NOT helping. Instead it would be much more efficient to be to nice to dissenting voices and present them with provable facts (none of that wage gap/rape epidemic bs) first instead of going at it w/ "You are racists/sexists/(insert your favorite buzzword here) if you are not with us!". Plain and simple. you're not presenting us with provable facts to support your arguments. I'm presenting you with logic and reason. This is the problem. You are not. How is it logical to say the president is trying to unite the country? Almost none of his actions ever have had that effect. His number one way to respond to questions is blaming someone else or saying 'but what about this other person he/she is worse than me'. He holds grudges against those who don't agree with him and constantly flames them instead of trying to understand their reasoning. He is rude and calls people names. There is no way to logically conclude from this that he is trying to unite a nation. Just none. I like this response because there are at least some reasoning involved. He is specifically saying that one shouldn't be disrespectful of the flag and respect the national anthem. If you are smart and want to unite the nation while using NFL as a political platforms. You could totally simultaneously use the stadium's sound system to express your thoughts while saluting the flag/standing for the national anthem. so the kneeler has caused the divisiveness by choosing silent kneeling over somehow commandeering the stadiums sound system and telling everyone how he feels? and that instead, in your opinion, would ease the divisiveness? Yes because that's not disrespectful to one of the few symbols that unite us together and would be straight forward instead of reactive.
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
