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 09:11 LegalLord wrote: And what's with the fetish for discomfort anyways? It's not like something being uncomfortable makes it in any way productive. And you know, when everyone's racist, no one is.
I don't get it either. So far we've established that saying everyone's racist is: 1: Inaccurate (ie untrue) 2: unproductive - I would say counter productive 3: Substandard compared to using the correct language.
The only responses I get are vague ideas about it somehow being right because its uncomfortable. I get the feeling its out of a moral sense that saying the thing that the good guys say is good regardless of whether or not it is true, accurate, helpful, or in any way useful.
On September 26 2017 09:11 LegalLord wrote: And what's with the fetish for discomfort anyways? It's not like something being uncomfortable makes it in any way productive. And you know, when everyone's racist, no one is.
I don't get it either. So far we've established that saying everyone's racist is: 1: Inaccurate (ie untrue) 2: unproductive - I would say counter productive 3: Substandard compared to using the correct language.
The only responses I get are vague ideas about it somehow being right because its uncomfortable. I get the feeling its out of a moral sense that saying the thing that the good guys say is good regardless of whether or not it is true, accurate, helpful, or in any way useful.
Yep. That response by MLK jr. pretty much indirectly addresses my point pretty well. I don't see him as some infallible Godlike figure though. Having said that, I'll concede that it seems to be a fairly reasonable point.
However, I don't understand how trying to make an enemy of the moderates by calling them racist, whilst claiming that being racist is the worst thing you can be, could possibly lead out of the transition he speaks of into a positive peace - moreso than using more accurate language that doesn't alienate the people you will one day hope to make positive peace with.
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.
Usually if you spot and label injustice, some part of you wants to fix it. That made me wonder why you didn't want to change legislation or negotiate change.
Your link isn't working. Do you unsegregate faster by calling not racists, racists?
Is the person who pushes to stop low income housing in their neighborhood is a racist?
No. Or at least not intrinsically, unless one believes that the black man genetically destined to live in poverty. I do not. If the person advocating for low income housing believes blacks will always be poor because of their race and doesn't want anything to do with the blacks, and then blocks low income housing as away to keep the blacks away, then that would indeed be racist. But the jokes on him when a well-to-do black family moves in next door.
But if the only reason to not want low income housing is economic considerations- lower property value or crime- poverty is a pretty good predictor crime, all of these are not racist reasons. That black primarily would use those low income housing is incidental, if that same person would have the same resistance if it was poor whites that would be guaranteed to use those same low income housing.
So then, it follow that rallying the community behind it to stop, would also not be racist, nor their plan. But if blacks are genetically destined for poverty, then going after low income housing would always be a racist act, sure. But it isn't true, and so we need to look at actual motivations of actual people.
edit The MLK quote is quite good. But we're making a category error when bringing his quote into the present. MLK rightly points out that the people on the sidelines are worse than useless- that they are a greater hindrance to the cause than the racists. Okay, that's a very concise and insightful argument. That's a very understandable and clear argument. He's identifying two separate problems, and he's even identifying which one is worse, rather than conflating one into a giant category of Racist. And by clearly defining the problems, there are clearer paths forward to solve them.
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.
I really hope you're not wasting your breath here.
On September 26 2017 08:32 Falling wrote: [quote] 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.
Because if you don't care about whether you are being accurate you might as well not say anything at all because the words become meaningless.
So the accuracy is more important than the potential racism?
Is there some reason we have to be inaccurate to be able to start solving racism?
It seems to be the number one concern of some people in the thread. The racism is bad, but first we need to make sure that non-racists are not blamed for the racism. It is the number one topic every single time racism is discussed in this thread.
There's a reason for that. I know some in here can't come round to this, but I genuinely think the way racism is being talked about is wrong. Its stupid and wrong, because in addition to failing to solve the problem - and if anything exacerbates it - it is linguistically and logically incorrect in quite a fundamental way (see falling's comment above - he explains this well). There is absolutely no reason, as I've said twice now to no response, not to word things in a more correct way if it is more productive.
I wouldn't need to come around to your way of thinking, I used to hold that opinion. I don't any more. Discussions of racism are not focused making me feel comfortable with them. My discomfort was my views being challenged. That I needed to give up the position that I had benefited for two centuries of racism.
Driving your car into a wall is uncomfortable too, but it doesn't get you where you want to go either.
Allow MLK Jr., the guy we're to emulate, explain it.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the [country] is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which [Black people] passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
So your MO is that it's important to exacerbate and draw attention to the problem so that the moderates say, "you're right, this really does need to be resolved!" Is that correct?
Edit: looking back, this looks ever so slightly aggressive; forgive me if it does, that is not by design.
without considering the more complex reality of hte situation. It's more of a gradation really.
Well, I think that's part of the problem. Some of the words we use are pretty binary. X is a racist. That's pretty binary category of racist/ not-racist. But it's weird because you'll have people talking about how bad racism is (and agreed, it is bad), but they'll simultaneously argue that you should just admit to being a racist because it's not that bad and basically every white person is a little. ....well, unless you are certain lecturers and then white people are 'devils and not really human.' But ignoring those anomalies it doesn't seem very consistent to see racism argued as one of the worst things ever, but don't worry about falling under racist category, everyone is and any resistance to the label... that's just you being fragile. Maybe it's resistance due to fragility. But how do you discern the difference between resistance due to fragility versus resistance to an untruthful statement. The outworkings could look pretty similar. But we can go nuevo-Freud on your unconscious biases now and counter your resistance to the accusation.
the word is only binary if it's used that way; it can be used in a non-binary way just fine; some people just don't, and others refuse to listen to the qualifiers that make it so. Many people aren't even used to non-binary truth values for things. It's not in my power to establish a more uniform and clear system of communication; if I was in power, I'd try to standardize the discussion some, but it'd like fail, it's hard to impose order on how people use language (but it wouldn't cost much to come up with a system)
mostly I just wanted to make the point that I had made because i'ts useful; i'm not otherwise interested in the discussion, cuz it's involving plansix and GH.
On September 26 2017 09:11 LegalLord wrote: And what's with the fetish for discomfort anyways? It's not like something being uncomfortable makes it in any way productive. And you know, when everyone's racist, no one is.
I don't get it either. So far we've established that saying everyone's racist is: 1: Inaccurate (ie untrue) 2: unproductive - I would say counter productive 3: Substandard compared to using the correct language.
The only responses I get are vague ideas about it somehow being right because its uncomfortable. I get the feeling its out of a moral sense that saying the thing that the good guys say is good regardless of whether or not it is true, accurate, helpful, or in any way useful.
Yep. That response by MLK jr. pretty much indirectly addresses my point pretty well. I don't see him as some infallible Godlike figure though. Having said that, I'll concede that it seems to be a fairly reasonable point.
However, I don't understand how trying to make an enemy of the moderates by calling them racist, whilst claiming that being racist is the worst thing you can be, could possibly lead out of the transition he speaks of into a positive peace - moreso than using more accurate language that doesn't alienate the people you will one day hope to make positive peace with.
Most people are not calling moderates racists. People want to talk about systematic racism. The problem comes up when systematic racism happens to line up with something that a bunch of moderates want. Like my previous example of opposing building low income housing is richer parts of Boston. That isn't overtly racist, but keeping all low income housing in poor communities is a big part of systematic racism.
Also, protesting is never popular. Ever. From the founding of this nation to the gay pride marches, no protest has ever seen as anything but divisive.
On September 26 2017 09:11 LegalLord wrote: And what's with the fetish for discomfort anyways? It's not like something being uncomfortable makes it in any way productive. And you know, when everyone's racist, no one is.
I don't get it either. So far we've established that saying everyone's racist is: 1: Inaccurate (ie untrue) 2: unproductive - I would say counter productive 3: Substandard compared to using the correct language.
The only responses I get are vague ideas about it somehow being right because its uncomfortable. I get the feeling its out of a moral sense that saying the thing that the good guys say is good regardless of whether or not it is true, accurate, helpful, or in any way useful.
Yep. That response by MLK jr. pretty much indirectly addresses my point pretty well. I don't see him as some infallible Godlike figure though. Having said that, I'll concede that it seems to be a fairly reasonable point.
However, I don't understand how trying to make an enemy of the moderates by calling them racist, whilst claiming that being racist is the worst thing you can be, could possibly lead out of the transition he speaks of into a positive peace - moreso than using more accurate language that doesn't alienate the people you will one day hope to make positive peace with.
I don't think people think being racist is the worst thing you can be. Pretty sure that's a white people perception thing. I mean being racist is bad, but there are worse things to be.
But people making the argument you're making are a larger obstacle than the KKK in MLK Jr's eyes and many others. We can't repeat enough times that the language isn't the problem, it's the people we're talking to refusing to act right.
One person was killed and seven others were wounded after a gunman opened fire on Sunday at a church in Antioch, Tenn., near Nashville, officials said. The police said the gunman, who shot himself, was in custody.
About 50 people were in the church at the time of the shooting, which was reported at 11:15 a.m. local time as services were ending, the police said. Robert Engle, an usher at the church, the Burnette Chapel Church of Christ, was pistol-whipped when he confronted the gunman.
Mr. Engle, 22, then ran to his car, got his gun and returned to ensure “the gunman didn’t make any more movements until police arrived,” Don Aaron, a police spokesman, said at a news conference. The police described Mr. Engle as an “extraordinarily brave individual.”
Chief Steve Anderson of the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department said Mr. Engle’s actions helped end the shooting.
“He’s the hero,” Chief Anderson said at a news conference. “He’s the person that stopped this madness, and we’re very, very grateful to him.”
Mr. Engle late on Sunday issued a statement asking people to pray for the victims, their families and the church community as well as the gunman and his family and friends, who “are hurting as well.”
“I do not want to be labeled a hero,” said Mr. Engle, who the police said sustained a “significant injury” to his head. “The real heroes are the police, first responders, and medical staff and doctors who have helped me and everyone affected.”
The gunman was identified as Emanuel K. Samson, 25, of Rutherford County, Tenn. After being released from the hospital, he was taken to jail and was to be charged with murder and attempted murder, the police said on Sunday night.
On September 26 2017 09:11 LegalLord wrote: And what's with the fetish for discomfort anyways? It's not like something being uncomfortable makes it in any way productive. And you know, when everyone's racist, no one is.
I don't get it either. So far we've established that saying everyone's racist is: 1: Inaccurate (ie untrue) 2: unproductive - I would say counter productive 3: Substandard compared to using the correct language.
The only responses I get are vague ideas about it somehow being right because its uncomfortable. I get the feeling its out of a moral sense that saying the thing that the good guys say is good regardless of whether or not it is true, accurate, helpful, or in any way useful.
Yep. That response by MLK jr. pretty much indirectly addresses my point pretty well. I don't see him as some infallible Godlike figure though. Having said that, I'll concede that it seems to be a fairly reasonable point.
However, I don't understand how trying to make an enemy of the moderates by calling them racist, whilst claiming that being racist is the worst thing you can be, could possibly lead out of the transition he speaks of into a positive peace - moreso than using more accurate language that doesn't alienate the people you will one day hope to make positive peace with.
I don't think people think being racist is the worst thing you can be. Pretty sure that's a white people perception thing. I mean being racist is bad, but there are worse things to be.
But people making the argument you're making are a larger obstacle than the KKK in MLK Jr's eyes and many others. We can't repeat enough times that the language isn't the problem, it's the people we're talking to refusing to act right.
MLK didn't have a language problem. Its a pretty new thing: this inability to use the word that doesn't start a twitter fight and have a small chance of going viral (systemic - or whatever).
Before I go on, I going to make clear exactly my position here. I fully support direct action against the horrible systemic racism and unconscious racism that America is still waking up to. I fully support all of the cultural figures who are trying to make this problem more visible to the parts of white America that don't want to see it. This is far more important than the discussion we keep having about language. The reason that keeps coming up is because it is contentious.
The issue I'm talking about is small on its own terms but has huge consequences. Trump is a direct consequence of this language issue and racism has become more overt in the US around the time Trump took over. If i'm reading into this correctly,I would guess that you would prefer overt racism to covert racism (hence the MLK jr quote). The spotlight is thoroughly being shone on racism right now all over the US because of Trump. Is there some master plan here that I never saw before? Drive the racists into power so we can see how racist they are? That would be some kind of stroke of genius.
I'm more of an obstacle than a racist because I insist on calling things what they are instead of what they are not? That just seems like another way to say "Don't criticize me, I'm doing what's right." Maybe people could do what's right, but better. Wouldn't the outcome probably be better that way?
On September 26 2017 09:11 LegalLord wrote: And what's with the fetish for discomfort anyways? It's not like something being uncomfortable makes it in any way productive. And you know, when everyone's racist, no one is.
I don't get it either. So far we've established that saying everyone's racist is: 1: Inaccurate (ie untrue) 2: unproductive - I would say counter productive 3: Substandard compared to using the correct language.
The only responses I get are vague ideas about it somehow being right because its uncomfortable. I get the feeling its out of a moral sense that saying the thing that the good guys say is good regardless of whether or not it is true, accurate, helpful, or in any way useful.
Yep. That response by MLK jr. pretty much indirectly addresses my point pretty well. I don't see him as some infallible Godlike figure though. Having said that, I'll concede that it seems to be a fairly reasonable point.
However, I don't understand how trying to make an enemy of the moderates by calling them racist, whilst claiming that being racist is the worst thing you can be, could possibly lead out of the transition he speaks of into a positive peace - moreso than using more accurate language that doesn't alienate the people you will one day hope to make positive peace with.
I don't think people think being racist is the worst thing you can be. Pretty sure that's a white people perception thing. I mean being racist is bad, but there are worse things to be.
But people making the argument you're making are a larger obstacle than the KKK in MLK Jr's eyes and many others. We can't repeat enough times that the language isn't the problem, it's the people we're talking to refusing to act right.
MLK didn't have a language problem. Its a pretty new thing: this inability to use the word that doesn't start a twitter fight and have a small chance of going viral (systemic - or whatever).
Before I go on, I going to make clear exactly my position here. I fully support direct action against the horrible systemic racism and unconscious racism that America is still waking up to. I fully support all of the cultural figures who are trying to make this problem more visible to the parts of white America that don't want to see it.
I wished you left it at that, because the rest of this undermines the previous part. Just stick with this part and drop the rest.
The issue I'm talking about is small on its own terms but has huge consequences. Trump is a direct consequence of this language issue and racism has become more overt in the US around the time Trump took over. If i'm reading into this correctly,I would guess that you would prefer overt racism to covert racism (hence the MLK jr quote). The spotlight is thoroughly being shone on racism right now all over the US because of Trump. Is there some master plan here that I never saw before? Drive the racists into power so we can see how racist they are? That would be some kind of stroke of genius.
I'm more of an obstacle than a racist because I insist on calling things what they are instead of what they are not? That just seems like another way to say "Don't criticize me, I'm doing what's right." Maybe people could do what's right, but better.
On September 26 2017 01:26 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] 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: [quote] 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: [quote] 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.
I am truly baffled by the reasoning behind this. I am having trouble forming the words to discuss this with you, because none on if it based on this reality. You commandeer the sound system (hijack) to broadcast your message and you think that player is going to have a job still? You're creating a larger martyr by doing that. You're also rendering his entire message moot because no one will take him serious. How does that get his message across?
How do you function day to day? There is so much wrong with this that I can't begin to follow your train of thought on the matter.
Sometime it takes a bit of bravery to stand for w/e you believe in.
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: [quote]
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: [quote] 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.
I am truly baffled by the reasoning behind this. I am having trouble forming the words to discuss this with you, because none on if it based on this reality. You commandeer the sound system (hijack) to broadcast your message and you think that player is going to have a job still? You're creating a larger martyr by doing that. You're also rendering his entire message moot because no one will take him serious. How does that get his message across?
How do you function day to day? There is so much wrong with this that I can't begin to follow your train of thought on the matter.
Sometime it takes a bit of bravery to stand for w/e you believe in.
So... you're advocating for them to be more disruptive by going out on loudspeaker?
I'm for all sides coming together to solve any actual problems asap with the cleanest solution.
And then once solved, people involved goes back to their merry ways and not open up industries of victimhood, which is what we have right now.
I don't think people think being racist is the worst thing you can be. Pretty sure that's a white people perception thing. I mean being racist is bad, but there are worse things to be.
Regardless of how terrible or innocuous the stigma is, if there is a category whose central tenants one is fundamentally opposed to, I think most people would like the option to be outside that category. It's simply definitional.
On September 26 2017 09:44 Jockmcplop wrote: The issue I'm talking about is small on its own terms but has huge consequences. Trump is a direct consequence of this language issue and racism has become more overt in the US around the time Trump took over. If i'm reading into this correctly,I would guess that you would prefer overt racism to covert racism (hence the MLK jr quote). The spotlight is thoroughly being shone on racism right now all over the US because of Trump. Is there some master plan here that I never saw before? Drive the racists into power so we can see how racist they are? That would be some kind of stroke of genius.
I think you've hit upon the plan. Well, the plan after Hillary failed. We win with Hillary, or we politicize everything before sweeping back into power.
Hey, would you look at some positive developments!
I don't think people think being racist is the worst thing you can be. Pretty sure that's a white people perception thing. I mean being racist is bad, but there are worse things to be.
Regardless of how terrible or innocuous the stigma is, if there is a category whose central tenants one is fundamentally opposed to, I think most people would like the option to be outside that category. It's simply definitional.
Yeah, they want their cake and to eat it too. They want the definition to morph in such a way they can continue to advance white supremacist beliefs without having to own that's what they are doing by burying it in process, decorum, and patience.
MLK was over it in his day, we're way past politely accepting it.
On September 26 2017 09:11 LegalLord wrote: And what's with the fetish for discomfort anyways? It's not like something being uncomfortable makes it in any way productive. And you know, when everyone's racist, no one is.
I don't get it either. So far we've established that saying everyone's racist is: 1: Inaccurate (ie untrue) 2: unproductive - I would say counter productive 3: Substandard compared to using the correct language.
The only responses I get are vague ideas about it somehow being right because its uncomfortable. I get the feeling its out of a moral sense that saying the thing that the good guys say is good regardless of whether or not it is true, accurate, helpful, or in any way useful.
Yep. That response by MLK jr. pretty much indirectly addresses my point pretty well. I don't see him as some infallible Godlike figure though. Having said that, I'll concede that it seems to be a fairly reasonable point.
However, I don't understand how trying to make an enemy of the moderates by calling them racist, whilst claiming that being racist is the worst thing you can be, could possibly lead out of the transition he speaks of into a positive peace - moreso than using more accurate language that doesn't alienate the people you will one day hope to make positive peace with.
I don't think people think being racist is the worst thing you can be. Pretty sure that's a white people perception thing. I mean being racist is bad, but there are worse things to be.
But people making the argument you're making are a larger obstacle than the KKK in MLK Jr's eyes and many others. We can't repeat enough times that the language isn't the problem, it's the people we're talking to refusing to act right.
MLK didn't have a language problem. Its a pretty new thing: this inability to use the word that doesn't start a twitter fight and have a small chance of going viral (systemic - or whatever).
Before I go on, I going to make clear exactly my position here. I fully support direct action against the horrible systemic racism and unconscious racism that America is still waking up to. I fully support all of the cultural figures who are trying to make this problem more visible to the parts of white America that don't want to see it.
I wished you left it at that, because the rest of this undermines the previous part. Just stick with this part and drop the rest.
The issue I'm talking about is small on its own terms but has huge consequences. Trump is a direct consequence of this language issue and racism has become more overt in the US around the time Trump took over. If i'm reading into this correctly,I would guess that you would prefer overt racism to covert racism (hence the MLK jr quote). The spotlight is thoroughly being shone on racism right now all over the US because of Trump. Is there some master plan here that I never saw before? Drive the racists into power so we can see how racist they are? That would be some kind of stroke of genius.
I'm more of an obstacle than a racist because I insist on calling things what they are instead of what they are not? That just seems like another way to say "Don't criticize me, I'm doing what's right." Maybe people could do what's right, but better.
I disagree, because you can support a movement and be fully behind it whilst criticizing something as small as a language error that has developed. The second part of this doesn't undermine the first (ie both can be completely true simultaneously). Feel free to reply but I'm out its stupid late over here.
On September 26 2017 09:11 LegalLord wrote: And what's with the fetish for discomfort anyways? It's not like something being uncomfortable makes it in any way productive. And you know, when everyone's racist, no one is.
I don't get it either. So far we've established that saying everyone's racist is: 1: Inaccurate (ie untrue) 2: unproductive - I would say counter productive 3: Substandard compared to using the correct language.
The only responses I get are vague ideas about it somehow being right because its uncomfortable. I get the feeling its out of a moral sense that saying the thing that the good guys say is good regardless of whether or not it is true, accurate, helpful, or in any way useful.
Yep. That response by MLK jr. pretty much indirectly addresses my point pretty well. I don't see him as some infallible Godlike figure though. Having said that, I'll concede that it seems to be a fairly reasonable point.
However, I don't understand how trying to make an enemy of the moderates by calling them racist, whilst claiming that being racist is the worst thing you can be, could possibly lead out of the transition he speaks of into a positive peace - moreso than using more accurate language that doesn't alienate the people you will one day hope to make positive peace with.
I don't think people think being racist is the worst thing you can be. Pretty sure that's a white people perception thing. I mean being racist is bad, but there are worse things to be.
But people making the argument you're making are a larger obstacle than the KKK in MLK Jr's eyes and many others. We can't repeat enough times that the language isn't the problem, it's the people we're talking to refusing to act right.
MLK didn't have a language problem. Its a pretty new thing: this inability to use the word that doesn't start a twitter fight and have a small chance of going viral (systemic - or whatever).
Before I go on, I going to make clear exactly my position here. I fully support direct action against the horrible systemic racism and unconscious racism that America is still waking up to. I fully support all of the cultural figures who are trying to make this problem more visible to the parts of white America that don't want to see it.
I wished you left it at that, because the rest of this undermines the previous part. Just stick with this part and drop the rest.
The issue I'm talking about is small on its own terms but has huge consequences. Trump is a direct consequence of this language issue and racism has become more overt in the US around the time Trump took over. If i'm reading into this correctly,I would guess that you would prefer overt racism to covert racism (hence the MLK jr quote). The spotlight is thoroughly being shone on racism right now all over the US because of Trump. Is there some master plan here that I never saw before? Drive the racists into power so we can see how racist they are? That would be some kind of stroke of genius.
I'm more of an obstacle than a racist because I insist on calling things what they are instead of what they are not? That just seems like another way to say "Don't criticize me, I'm doing what's right." Maybe people could do what's right, but better.
I disagree, because you can support a movement and be fully behind it whilst criticizing something as small as a language error that has developed. The second part of this doesn't undermine the first (ie both can be completely true simultaneously). Feel free to reply but I'm out its stupid late over here.
It took P6 a long time (and I'm sure it's still hard sometimes, I know it is for myself) to figure out why you're wrong, but you are. You'll be surprised how liberating it is when you acknowledge what's wrong with the second part and why you should stick with the first part.
i imagine graham and cassidy aren't making an appeal to the millions of americans, but really just 4 individuals named murkowski, collins, mccain and paul.
EPT
