|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 26 2019 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah, they certainly aren't summer camps. Nazi concentration camps (the one's who apparently stole the rights to the term) didn't start all that dissimilar from ours. I'm not sure anyone has been prosecuted for the deaths, rapes, or neglect in the US camps though?
Not that I've heard, no. There was another death at one in the last day or so. I think it's up to 8 deaths now since October?
|
On July 26 2019 08:02 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2019 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah, they certainly aren't summer camps. Nazi concentration camps (the one's who apparently stole the rights to the term) didn't start all that dissimilar from ours. I'm not sure anyone has been prosecuted for the deaths, rapes, or neglect in the US camps though?
Not that I've heard, no. There was another death at one in the last day or so. I think it's up to 8 deaths now since October?
That we know of anyway, considering all the kids they lost track of and US's history of (not) reporting law enforcement violence to federal authorities (even just for statistical purposes) the count is unreliable at best.
|
On July 26 2019 03:46 ShambhalaWar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 19 2019 07:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2019 06:29 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 19 2019 05:32 IgnE wrote:On July 19 2019 04:02 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 19 2019 02:35 IgnE wrote:On July 19 2019 01:45 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 19 2019 00:05 IgnE wrote:On July 18 2019 15:29 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 18 2019 13:46 IgnE wrote:On July 18 2019 13:20 ShambhalaWar wrote: [quote]
I would say the first step, and probably the most important is simply acknowledging that I have privilege, and giving up my ignorance about my privilege.
The nature of privilege is ignorance, the privileged people don't have to consider the problems other people do. So in regard to racial privilege, in acknowledging it I would think there comes some degree of commitment in calling it out when I see rather than just letting it slide because, "I'm white and it doesn't affect me."
If I'm playing a game a CSGO and I hear the N word (happens all the time), rather than just be ok with that, I can at the very least confront them on it, and report the account. There are many different versions of that... for example is I see a nazi symbol written on a wall, I can get a pen and mark over it.
Donate to a charity organization that combats racial inequality, march for black lives matter. I haven't done these latter two things, but for a lot of my black friends growing up I apologized for not believe them when we were kids, and tell them I believe them now.
Small steps, but if all privileged people did that, the world would change. I thought there was more to privilege than that. You don't sound like someone who's given much of any thought to the subject. What's the point of your post? Are you actually curious about my experience or just want something to rail against? The post GH made that I quoted, you sound exactly like the type of person that post describes. Equality feels like oppression for you, that true for you or you just never even gave it a thought? No, I'm actually just surprised at how little privilege you actually had to relinquish. It's almost like you didn't have much power in the first place. You really stretched there, too, with the suggestion to donate to BLM. Giving away money counts as giving away power I guess. But maybe the metaphorical language doesn't really work? Why do you think this idea that giving up privilege feels like oppression resonates with you so much when your examples of giving up privilege are so lame? I can think of something else that might better describe the experience of 1) conversion to a cause, 2) spreading the good news to blasphemers, and 3) tithing — but "relinquishing power" isn't it. I'll ask again... What is the point of your post? Does Equality feel like oppression for you? And if you don't think money is power, you are incredibly naive. I am trying to decide why this “relinquish (white) power” articulation seems so off to me. Who are the kind of people you imagine when you imagine indignant whites for whom giving up privilege feels like oppression? Are they people who can actually give up “power”? What kind of power do they have and don’t have, now, in 2019? And what kind of power do you gain as a “woke” white who can preach to others? I feel obliged to point out that 1) I acknowledged that giving money might be some kind of “relinquishing power” although such language feels overwrought — I’m not sure why that would be different in kind from other charitable giving or why it would feel oppressive and 2) you said you haven’t actually given money to BLM so it seems fairly moot. As for my personal opinion, no, equality doesn’t feel like oppression to me, hence my line of questioning. Personally, I am inclined more towards the idea of “recognition.” edit: given that someone posted a Nazi talking about “race-recognition” while I was typing this post, I have to now clarify that I meant “recognition” in the sense of Hegel or Levinas: recognition of the subject. Not some scientistic recognition of race, which we want to deconstruct anyway right? You speak like someone who really doesn't understand the concept of privilege, which is really the nature of it privilege... you don't have to worry about it because it doesn't directly affect you. If you are are white, there are a host of difficulties in life you don't have to worry about... In other words, day to day, you don't have to give these difficulties a second of thought, but minorities do, because they are affected by the difficulties. For example, as a white person, when you are pulled over by the police in America, you don't have to worry about being killed in the same way an African-American does. When you get pulled over you expect to pay a speeding ticket. When an African-American gets pulled over they have to worry they might die. The privileged person doesn't have to give a seconds thought to the latter problem, that is their privilege... To walk through life worrying about other things and thinking about things other than being killed by a cop. Let's use your word... recognition. If you "recognize" your privilege, that is the first step, Yay! After you recognize it, you can do other things to be allies for minority groups, and there are varying degrees of time and effort you can put toward that. But... by virtue of "recognizing" your privilege, you are in a sense giving up some degree of your power, because you can no longer just pretend minority groups aren't being persecuted. And it's also not enough to simply now "recognize" your privilege, you have to speak out against it... or be the person who knows and does nothing. No, I understand all that quite well. What am I trying to get at here is what you meant by “relinquishing power” and the particular resonance of “when you’ve been privileged, equality feels like oppression.” Don’t you find it curious that “privilege” is usually described via its lack? People of color lack certain presumptions of innocence, people of color lack certain presumptions of competence, people of color lack safety in their dealings with police. So what are we really talking about here? Giving up those presumptions? Giving up the privilege of ignoring people? If the “power” you give up is the power to “pretend” or the power not to sympathize it seems like a rather weak form of power. If that’s all it is, it’s not exactly clear how it’s related to some white people’s complaints that they aren’t particularly privileged. You might not even begrudge some redneck in West Virginia his complaints that he also lacks such presumptions (of competence, etc.), that he might even face worse presumptions, in 2019, than an upper class person of color dressed in a well-tailored suit who gets paid a bunch of money. Ah well, fuck the rednecks. If you dress like that, and wear a rat-tail, and drive a truck, and listen to country music you probably are ignorant and incompetent anyway. So you could make the same statement about a "red-neck" and competence (this is your example), technically that would be true... and would be the argument of reverse racism. It's essentially a standpoint of some white people, that they are too the victim in this. I'm not sure if that's the point you are trying to make, but you are dancing on that edge of people interpreting you that way. The problem with that is while in some sense maybe it is true, you are focusing on the most privileged group and the ways in which the might not have privilege... Therefore ignoring essentially 90% (or more) of the issue of privilege. No it’s not reverse racism. I’m not talking about a person’s of color presumptions about rednecks or even about race at all. Their being unprivileged need not be connected to race at all. I have absolutely no idea where you pulled that “90%” number from or why you think including white redneck West Virginians in a group that is “most privileged” is an especially astute or helpful way of grouping people. The whole point of this exercise has been to point out that if you think the children of two doctors of color in 2019 who live in a major city are unambiguously less “privileged” than some white children born in West Virginia to parents who didn’t complete high school and are living in a trailer, your concept of privilege is inadequate. (To heighten the point, consider black sons of NBA players, who are vastly vastly more likely than anyone else on the planet to play in the NBA). You haven’t mentioned “intersectionality” yet, but maybe you should pick it up. Show nested quote +And for the record I still don't think you get it, but I encourage you to try a bit more to consider yourself and how much easier your life is day to day, because when you walk into a grocery store people aren't eyeing you the whole time to see if you are going to steal something. For the record, even if I thought you were a moron I wouldn’t let that opinion distract me from engaging with what you’ve actually said, and I don’t see why you should attempt to let your assumptions about me carry the argument for you either. In any case, let’s say I had never ever considered before how my experience shopping might be different than that of a person of color. Now I’ve had the epiphany: Wow! They get followed by security some times! Ok. Now what power do I have to give up to rectify that situation (even if I’m the security guard?!?)? Show nested quote +By virtue of being born white in the US you have an exponentially disproportionate lower risk of being incarcerated in your life time than and African American person. * That alone is massive privilege. If you get stuck in that system of incarceration it will chew you up and spit you out broken. Imagine if I told you today, as of today you are 5 times more likely to be locked up than prior in your life, and you knew this to be true for a fact. Do you think that would increase your daily stress? How would you feel the next time you get pulled over for speeding? How would your relationship to police officers change (would you still see them has here to help you)? How would your life change if you actually got locked up (maybe you lost your privilege to have your vote counted)? Maybe you got killed in prison... https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2018/02/the-race-gap-in-u-s-prisons-is-glaring-and-poverty-is-making-it-worse/This is just one example of the many you don't have to worry about because you are white, are you going to tell me that is a weak effect? Yeah I know all that. I don’t see what privileges I have to give up in order for this not to happen, or how anything you’ve talked about relating to your awokening bears on this beyond the fact that you are no longer ignorant of it. This also raises issues of boundary-drawing which your own source points out. How do we disentangle blackness from poverty or from even more difficult to capture factors like community cohesion, family structures, attitudes, etc.? Show nested quote +If you were born black back in the days of slavery you had a 100% chance of ending up a slave. How do you think that would have affected your life?
A weak affect? I’ve been very careful to say “in 2019” repeatedly. I wasn’t born in the days of slavery and neither were you. To your first point, privilege is directly tied to race... you cannot separate the two, this is true world wide. Race has been shown throughout human history to carry favor in regard to cultural classes. And historically/generally, people with darker skin are persecuted simply for that fact. I don't think that statement is up for debate. "Bleaching skin" to a lighter color is a cultural phenomenon in India because there simply a skin color bias. People actually attempt to stain their skin to a lighter color so they are less dark skinned. http://theconversation.com/bleached-girls-india-and-its-love-for-light-skin-80655In India, it doesn't matter if you are poor or rich, if you have lighter skin you are likely to be favored by society. The same is true in America... If you are a white redneck in West Virginia, you are going to be favored in society based simply on the fact you have white skin. That doesn't mean you won't be treated poorly based on other characteristics, such as the perception/stereotype of how people might negatively view being a "redneck," but you will for sure carry advantage in American culture for being white. That statement is also not up for debate imo. There is a huge body of research that supports it, studies in police violence, poverty, discrimination in housing, white people getting more favorable sentences in the justice system... this list goes on. In your example of a doctor with 2 black kids, you are looking very myopically at the fact their father was a doctor or an NBA player. Below is a recent example (there are more if you just research it) of an NBA player who was tazered by police for no good reason. If you consider an NBA player part of a privileged class of society (because of money), then it is a striking thing to note that he gets tazered... the conclusion many people draw is that it is because he was black. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/23/613657447/milwaukee-police-disciplined-for-tasing-arrest-of-nba-playerBelow is a black senator who states he was pulled over 6-7 times in one year, I (not a senator, or rich, but white) have been pulled over maybe 1 time in the last 4-5 years (maybe more). https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/13/politics/tim-scott-police-racial-profiling/index.htmlMy point is that despite position in class or society, African Americans face discrimination that white people don't... that occurs despite financial status. You can bet that if you are poor and African American it will happen wayyyyyy more, that if you are rich and African American. But please take your time, and find me any example in the last decade of a white NBA player who was tasered for no good reason by a cop. I just did a google search, "white man harassed by cop." Every example on the page that turned up was of a black man being harassed by police or someone harassing police. You did a great job of saying the word, "intersectionality" but don't describe at all how it contributes to your comments. Intersectionality is important, it means to not have a myopic view in considering discrimination and abuse of power. For example, not just being black in America, but also poor and how the two dynamics interact together. Or being white and poor, there you have a mix of privilege (being white), and lack of privilege (being poor). In your early statements you seem unable to consider both of these things being able to exist in the same space, in your comments about redneck people. It's as if you think, how can they be white poor and privileged... as if being poor negates any form of privilege from being white... That is exactly what intersectionality address imo... That both things can and do occur in the same space... you can be privilege in some ways and not privileged in others. I'm not making my comments as a judgement toward you, I make them because you speak like someone who in my subjective opinion doesn't understand the dynamics of privilege... as a white person I try to make an effort to help other white Americans understand what their privilege is and how it affects others, and how we can consciously work with our privilege to balance the imbalance it creates in society. I am far from the person with the most understanding or expertise in this area (many more know much more than me), but I know something and I'm trying to do something about it, rather than ignore it (even if it is just talking to you in a forum). You weren't born in a time of overt slavery, and you didn't enslave anyone... but you absolutely were born in a culture that at one point it time was ubiquitous with the practice of slavery, and because of being born white you benefitted from the cultural imbalance that was created (and was never fully corrected) from the practice of slavery so many years ago. The only reason you don't know that, is because people know what affects them. If you had dark skin, the bias of our culture would affect you daily, you would feel it... and be unable to ignore how shitty it made you feel. You would be likely feel depressed, tense, and probably have less social motility as a result. As a white person you don't even have to consider it... You don't have to spend your time doing ANYTHING about it... you just get to live your life as normal, that is privilege. African Americans don't get to do that. Their daily list of things to do includes a list of things you don't have to worry about, such as "teach my son how to talk to police in a way that doesn't get him shot." That is a conversation you would never have with your kids because it sounds insane to say to them, but for other races of American citizens it is a very sane and potentially necessary conversation to have. As far as disentangling poverty from color of skin or race, I think that is a phonemically good question. In my opinion, it's the result of decades old damage done by slavery. Look at the Native American culture and African American culture, two cultures extremely harmed by white culture... both were left in poverty, white culture basically hamstrung them by essentially murdering and enslaving them all. Slaves have nothing, you set them free, they now have freedom... but still no money or home. How do you think that affects someone's social mobility? It destroys it. How many generations do you think it takes for a culture of people that were enslaved to get to a place of equal footing with the people that enslaved them? Our racism continued past slavery, we are not too far from 200 years since the end of overt slavery and many of the dynamics are still at play, and the imbalance is certainly there. The concept of "reparations" was born out of this very problem... which is the idea of giving up your privilege/power (in the case of reparations is money) so that underprivileged groups can have equal footing in society. It's as if white people said lets run a race, then as the race starts shot the African American runner in the leg and then pretended that never happened. Then the whole race we are like, "you just aren't trying hard enough man... you got to run faster if you ever want to make it to the finish line." First step in rectifying that situation... is to own that "you" or your culture/ancestors actually shot the other runner, and that the race isn't fair... to make if fair you don't need to shoot yourself per se (which is what I think most white people fear), but you need to do something drastic. At the very least, stop the race, nurture the shot runner, feed them for months until the wounds heal, then help them to get physical therapy and strength training... Then reschedule the race and run again if they feel fit and equal. That's what you give up, the privilege of ignoring the problem... you have to actually exert yourself to correct the fuck up of your ancestors... you have to actually talk about the problem and acknowledge it, so that it somehow gets fixed. It is the responsibility of all white people to attend to the fuck ups of our ancestors.
quite simply, you are projecting
your last paragraph is totally devoid of content. it amounts to talking about talking about something: “you have to actually exert yourself [...] you have to actually talk about the problem and acknowledge it.” well, mission accomplished then. we’ve done that.
|
|
On July 26 2019 08:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2019 08:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 08:04 JimmiC wrote:I don't think Drone is picking on me, I think he is extremely reasonable. I do believe that Neb is mad at me and starting to attack me. Which he can do, all good, and I will keep responding to him. So on that note I'll use Drones post as jumping off post to new beginnings!! On July 26 2019 02:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:In my opinion the 'how' of the revolution is only really relevant once people accept the 'why' of the revolution. If people reject the why of the revolution then there's no real point in them attacking the lack of a how - they'd be opposed either way. And it is a very common theme that the people most vocally decrying the lack of a how are people who think a revolution is not necessary to fix the problems threatening our societies.  I am not attacking this position, I honestly don't know what I believe in this regard myself. But if you think incremental gradual improvement is sufficient to handle the biggest issues we face then that's where your disagreement with GH lies, not in 'how do we undertake the revolution'. Going further, you might argue that whether you support the revolution hinges on its execution, because you might share the following two sentiments at the same time :that a revolution is probably necessary to achieve the rapid societal change required to handle climate change, and that most revolutions throughout history have caused such immediate societal damage that it is difficult to estimate at what point, if any, they ended up as a net positive (and perhaps even that this point very rarely happened to be 'during my life expectancy'). However, while on the face of things I feel that to be an entirely rational point of view to take, it ends up somewhat missing a crucial element: The socialist revolution is both for and by the people. If you agree with GH that there is a need for a revolution, you should not ask him 'tell me how to go about achieving this', you should go 'I agree with your fight, let us convince more people', because that is the central element: the agreement of a significant majority of the population that the situation is sufficiently dire for more drastic measures. (Historically in violent uprising, ideally through voting for a revolutionary candidate - however then GH feels confident that a revolutionary candidate winning a vote would be unlikely to actually get to rule (which again is an opinion with significant historical foundation.  ) In a way it's not up to GH to explain how to undertake the revolution, once you agree on its necessity, it's up to you to discuss how to do it with GH. (Arguing for incremental improvement rather than revolution is of course an entirely valid course of discussion, but it's a separate one from how do we undertake the revolution.) I am on board with the revolution as long as it is not violent. What do you suggest non-violent revolutionaries do when they are targeted by the state for harassment, abuse, incarceration, and/or assassination like in the cases of MLK jr and Fred Hampton for example? (should respond in the appropriate thread imo). *posted in the appropriate thread by request. Won't that get us to the point that made you upset with me in the first point. Where you are asking me about the next steps and not focusing on the first ones? The revolution itself? I'm fine to go there as long as you are willing to go there with me and I don't think you are, so let's just stick to the first part and we have that all sorted out where everyone agrees or at least knows where everyone stands we move on. Fair?
I'm just saying they have to protect/defend themselves if/when targeted and I'm trying to understand what your opposition/alternative to that is?
|
|
On July 26 2019 08:25 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2019 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 08:14 JimmiC wrote:On July 26 2019 08:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 08:04 JimmiC wrote:I don't think Drone is picking on me, I think he is extremely reasonable. I do believe that Neb is mad at me and starting to attack me. Which he can do, all good, and I will keep responding to him. So on that note I'll use Drones post as jumping off post to new beginnings!! On July 26 2019 02:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:In my opinion the 'how' of the revolution is only really relevant once people accept the 'why' of the revolution. If people reject the why of the revolution then there's no real point in them attacking the lack of a how - they'd be opposed either way. And it is a very common theme that the people most vocally decrying the lack of a how are people who think a revolution is not necessary to fix the problems threatening our societies.  I am not attacking this position, I honestly don't know what I believe in this regard myself. But if you think incremental gradual improvement is sufficient to handle the biggest issues we face then that's where your disagreement with GH lies, not in 'how do we undertake the revolution'. Going further, you might argue that whether you support the revolution hinges on its execution, because you might share the following two sentiments at the same time :that a revolution is probably necessary to achieve the rapid societal change required to handle climate change, and that most revolutions throughout history have caused such immediate societal damage that it is difficult to estimate at what point, if any, they ended up as a net positive (and perhaps even that this point very rarely happened to be 'during my life expectancy'). However, while on the face of things I feel that to be an entirely rational point of view to take, it ends up somewhat missing a crucial element: The socialist revolution is both for and by the people. If you agree with GH that there is a need for a revolution, you should not ask him 'tell me how to go about achieving this', you should go 'I agree with your fight, let us convince more people', because that is the central element: the agreement of a significant majority of the population that the situation is sufficiently dire for more drastic measures. (Historically in violent uprising, ideally through voting for a revolutionary candidate - however then GH feels confident that a revolutionary candidate winning a vote would be unlikely to actually get to rule (which again is an opinion with significant historical foundation.  ) In a way it's not up to GH to explain how to undertake the revolution, once you agree on its necessity, it's up to you to discuss how to do it with GH. (Arguing for incremental improvement rather than revolution is of course an entirely valid course of discussion, but it's a separate one from how do we undertake the revolution.) I am on board with the revolution as long as it is not violent. What do you suggest non-violent revolutionaries do when they are targeted by the state for harassment, abuse, incarceration, and/or assassination like in the cases of MLK jr and Fred Hampton for example? (should respond in the appropriate thread imo). *posted in the appropriate thread by request. Won't that get us to the point that made you upset with me in the first point. Where you are asking me about the next steps and not focusing on the first ones? The revolution itself? I'm fine to go there as long as you are willing to go there with me and I don't think you are, so let's just stick to the first part and we have that all sorted out where everyone agrees or at least knows where everyone stands we move on. Fair? I'm just saying they have to protect/defend themselves if/when targeted and I'm trying to understand what your opposition/alternative to that is? If I go down this path with, are you willing to go down the path of either, is the violence worth it? and too do so we have to decide what is reasonable for the war we are talking about. Or what are the guarantee's that the revolution accomplishes the original goals and how will we make sure that happens? If you are happy to go down either rabbit hole with me, I'm happy to do so with you and anyone else who jumps in.
Happy? No.
We agree on revolution (at least for this exercise), you just want to avoid violence (I think you're argument doesn't recognize ongoing unaddressed massive violence required to take the more measured approach you prefer).
I'm asking you for your alternative/opposition to non-violent revolutionaries defending themselves from being targets of the state.
I mention that MLK jr shared that tag and it's pretty ubiquitously accepted that his requests of the oligarchy/white club were totally reasonable and wholly non-violent. For which there was a conspiracy to assassinate him and endless accusations, even from alleged allies, of him inciting violence.
|
26 pounds in three weeks is starvation level of weight loss if he was anywhere near a normal sized person.The numbers have to be wrong (not everyone weighs themselves often so he maybe misjudged?)...if they are a not,then a lot of the people working there should be in jail.
|
|
On July 26 2019 08:36 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: 26 pounds in three weeks is starvation level of weight loss if he was anywhere near a normal sized person.The numbers have to be wrong (not everyone weighs themselves often so he maybe misjudged?)...if they are a not,then a lot of the people working there should be in jail.
Dunno, but two things: Apparently he intended to get a soccer scholarship, which lets one assume that he is reasonably well invested in that sport. And anyone who is serious about a sport usually knows what they weigh. And even if not, that level of weight loss should be easily visible on pictures alone. Something like "This is me three weeks ago, now compare to what i look like now" should be enough to show the effect.
|
On July 26 2019 08:45 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2019 08:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 08:25 JimmiC wrote:On July 26 2019 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 08:14 JimmiC wrote:On July 26 2019 08:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 08:04 JimmiC wrote:I don't think Drone is picking on me, I think he is extremely reasonable. I do believe that Neb is mad at me and starting to attack me. Which he can do, all good, and I will keep responding to him. So on that note I'll use Drones post as jumping off post to new beginnings!! On July 26 2019 02:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:In my opinion the 'how' of the revolution is only really relevant once people accept the 'why' of the revolution. If people reject the why of the revolution then there's no real point in them attacking the lack of a how - they'd be opposed either way. And it is a very common theme that the people most vocally decrying the lack of a how are people who think a revolution is not necessary to fix the problems threatening our societies.  I am not attacking this position, I honestly don't know what I believe in this regard myself. But if you think incremental gradual improvement is sufficient to handle the biggest issues we face then that's where your disagreement with GH lies, not in 'how do we undertake the revolution'. Going further, you might argue that whether you support the revolution hinges on its execution, because you might share the following two sentiments at the same time :that a revolution is probably necessary to achieve the rapid societal change required to handle climate change, and that most revolutions throughout history have caused such immediate societal damage that it is difficult to estimate at what point, if any, they ended up as a net positive (and perhaps even that this point very rarely happened to be 'during my life expectancy'). However, while on the face of things I feel that to be an entirely rational point of view to take, it ends up somewhat missing a crucial element: The socialist revolution is both for and by the people. If you agree with GH that there is a need for a revolution, you should not ask him 'tell me how to go about achieving this', you should go 'I agree with your fight, let us convince more people', because that is the central element: the agreement of a significant majority of the population that the situation is sufficiently dire for more drastic measures. (Historically in violent uprising, ideally through voting for a revolutionary candidate - however then GH feels confident that a revolutionary candidate winning a vote would be unlikely to actually get to rule (which again is an opinion with significant historical foundation.  ) In a way it's not up to GH to explain how to undertake the revolution, once you agree on its necessity, it's up to you to discuss how to do it with GH. (Arguing for incremental improvement rather than revolution is of course an entirely valid course of discussion, but it's a separate one from how do we undertake the revolution.) I am on board with the revolution as long as it is not violent. What do you suggest non-violent revolutionaries do when they are targeted by the state for harassment, abuse, incarceration, and/or assassination like in the cases of MLK jr and Fred Hampton for example? (should respond in the appropriate thread imo). *posted in the appropriate thread by request. Won't that get us to the point that made you upset with me in the first point. Where you are asking me about the next steps and not focusing on the first ones? The revolution itself? I'm fine to go there as long as you are willing to go there with me and I don't think you are, so let's just stick to the first part and we have that all sorted out where everyone agrees or at least knows where everyone stands we move on. Fair? I'm just saying they have to protect/defend themselves if/when targeted and I'm trying to understand what your opposition/alternative to that is? If I go down this path with, are you willing to go down the path of either, is the violence worth it? and too do so we have to decide what is reasonable for the war we are talking about. Or what are the guarantee's that the revolution accomplishes the original goals and how will we make sure that happens? If you are happy to go down either rabbit hole with me, I'm happy to do so with you and anyone else who jumps in. Happy? No. We agree on revolution (at least for this exercise), you just want to avoid violence (I think you're argument doesn't recognize ongoing unaddressed massive violence required to take the more measured approach you prefer). I'm asking you for your alternative/opposition to non-violent revolutionaries defending themselves from being targets of the state. I mention that MLK jr shared that tag and it's pretty ubiquitously accepted that his requests of the oligarchy/white club were totally reasonable and wholly non-violent. For which there was a conspiracy to assassinate him and endless accusations, even from alleged allies, of him inciting violence. I’m confused because of what Drone said and what you said. I feel like we are racing towards the same issues. Where you try to disprove that peaceful revolution happening, and then me saying OK let’s agree do you think it will be worth all the violence and Death. And you saying your not wanting to talk about it and me getting accused of saying you are talking about a violent revolution and you saying that I’m mis characterizing your point.
I presume since you were mentioning PM'ing with Drone and others he's made some sort of commitment to assist in moderating this discussion. This would be the point when whoever was going to try to bridge our communication gap should step in and help us see where we're missing each other at this point.
I agree that nothing about your approach thus far indicates to me we're going to have a different result and would rather you just make a post saying whatever you think about what I post and I could choose to either address any valid/popular argument I see in it or not without directly engaging with you. That option seems to not be on the table.
As such, I'm entertaining this exercise to the best of my ability. As Drone said, the solutions aren't mine to craft alone and in your commitment to the revolution (in this exercise should it remain non-violent) you are expected to join me. So, our very first issue is the violence you want to avoid. So my question to you is:
I'm asking you for your alternative/opposition to non-violent revolutionaries defending themselves from being targets of the state.
within the context of our history in the US.
I mention that MLK jr shared that tag and it's pretty ubiquitously accepted that his requests of the oligarchy/white club were totally reasonable and wholly non-violent. For which there was a conspiracy to assassinate him and endless accusations, even from alleged allies, of him inciting violence.
and I still believe:
...[Y]ou're argument doesn't recognize ongoing unaddressed massive violence required to take the more measured approach you prefer
|
|
On July 26 2019 09:15 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2019 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 08:45 JimmiC wrote:On July 26 2019 08:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 08:25 JimmiC wrote:On July 26 2019 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 08:14 JimmiC wrote:On July 26 2019 08:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 08:04 JimmiC wrote:I don't think Drone is picking on me, I think he is extremely reasonable. I do believe that Neb is mad at me and starting to attack me. Which he can do, all good, and I will keep responding to him. So on that note I'll use Drones post as jumping off post to new beginnings!! On July 26 2019 02:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:In my opinion the 'how' of the revolution is only really relevant once people accept the 'why' of the revolution. If people reject the why of the revolution then there's no real point in them attacking the lack of a how - they'd be opposed either way. And it is a very common theme that the people most vocally decrying the lack of a how are people who think a revolution is not necessary to fix the problems threatening our societies.  I am not attacking this position, I honestly don't know what I believe in this regard myself. But if you think incremental gradual improvement is sufficient to handle the biggest issues we face then that's where your disagreement with GH lies, not in 'how do we undertake the revolution'. Going further, you might argue that whether you support the revolution hinges on its execution, because you might share the following two sentiments at the same time :that a revolution is probably necessary to achieve the rapid societal change required to handle climate change, and that most revolutions throughout history have caused such immediate societal damage that it is difficult to estimate at what point, if any, they ended up as a net positive (and perhaps even that this point very rarely happened to be 'during my life expectancy'). However, while on the face of things I feel that to be an entirely rational point of view to take, it ends up somewhat missing a crucial element: The socialist revolution is both for and by the people. If you agree with GH that there is a need for a revolution, you should not ask him 'tell me how to go about achieving this', you should go 'I agree with your fight, let us convince more people', because that is the central element: the agreement of a significant majority of the population that the situation is sufficiently dire for more drastic measures. (Historically in violent uprising, ideally through voting for a revolutionary candidate - however then GH feels confident that a revolutionary candidate winning a vote would be unlikely to actually get to rule (which again is an opinion with significant historical foundation.  ) In a way it's not up to GH to explain how to undertake the revolution, once you agree on its necessity, it's up to you to discuss how to do it with GH. (Arguing for incremental improvement rather than revolution is of course an entirely valid course of discussion, but it's a separate one from how do we undertake the revolution.) I am on board with the revolution as long as it is not violent. What do you suggest non-violent revolutionaries do when they are targeted by the state for harassment, abuse, incarceration, and/or assassination like in the cases of MLK jr and Fred Hampton for example? (should respond in the appropriate thread imo). *posted in the appropriate thread by request. Won't that get us to the point that made you upset with me in the first point. Where you are asking me about the next steps and not focusing on the first ones? The revolution itself? I'm fine to go there as long as you are willing to go there with me and I don't think you are, so let's just stick to the first part and we have that all sorted out where everyone agrees or at least knows where everyone stands we move on. Fair? I'm just saying they have to protect/defend themselves if/when targeted and I'm trying to understand what your opposition/alternative to that is? If I go down this path with, are you willing to go down the path of either, is the violence worth it? and too do so we have to decide what is reasonable for the war we are talking about. Or what are the guarantee's that the revolution accomplishes the original goals and how will we make sure that happens? If you are happy to go down either rabbit hole with me, I'm happy to do so with you and anyone else who jumps in. Happy? No. We agree on revolution (at least for this exercise), you just want to avoid violence (I think you're argument doesn't recognize ongoing unaddressed massive violence required to take the more measured approach you prefer). I'm asking you for your alternative/opposition to non-violent revolutionaries defending themselves from being targets of the state. I mention that MLK jr shared that tag and it's pretty ubiquitously accepted that his requests of the oligarchy/white club were totally reasonable and wholly non-violent. For which there was a conspiracy to assassinate him and endless accusations, even from alleged allies, of him inciting violence. I’m confused because of what Drone said and what you said. I feel like we are racing towards the same issues. Where you try to disprove that peaceful revolution happening, and then me saying OK let’s agree do you think it will be worth all the violence and Death. And you saying your not wanting to talk about it and me getting accused of saying you are talking about a violent revolution and you saying that I’m mis characterizing your point. I presume since you were mentioning PM'ing with Drone and others he's made some sort of commitment to assist in moderating this discussion. This would be the point when whoever was going to try to bridge our communication gap should step in and help us see where we're missing each other at this point. I agree that nothing about your approach thus far indicates to me we're going to have a different result and would rather you just make a post saying whatever you think about what I post and I could choose to either address any valid/popular argument I see in it or not without directly engaging with you. That option seems to not be on the table. As such, I'm entertaining this exercise to the best of my ability. As Drone said, the solutions aren't mine to craft alone and in your commitment to the revolution (in this exercise should it remain non-violent) you are expected to join me. So, our very first issue is the violence you want to avoid. So my question to you is: I'm asking you for your alternative/opposition to non-violent revolutionaries defending themselves from being targets of the state. within the context of our history in the US. I mention that MLK jr shared that tag and it's pretty ubiquitously accepted that his requests of the oligarchy/white club were totally reasonable and wholly non-violent. For which there was a conspiracy to assassinate him and endless accusations, even from alleged allies, of him inciting violence. and I still believe: ...[Y]ou're argument doesn't recognize ongoing unaddressed massive violence required to take the more measured approach you prefer As I mentioned, I'm more then willing to get into it. But if we come to a point where we can't agree, or worse where we do agree that violence and a bloody revolution is a must are you willing to discuss the next logical point which is, how many people will die, what will be the cost to the environment and therefore should we have the revolution or look for another solution?
I'll go as long as I have to, do you not remember I'm not allowed to not answer your direct questions?
|
This dude who was detained needs to be on every single channel 24/7. This is a complete fucking abomination and I am so mad. Shit like this is what makes people get violent. I'd say we are past that point. Straight up attacks on these facilities need to be seriously considered at some point.
Its actually fascinating watching myself and others slowly become more and more radicalized by Trump's presidency.
|
United States41984 Posts
On July 26 2019 09:23 Mohdoo wrote: This dude who was detained needs to be on every single channel 24/7. This is a complete fucking abomination and I am so mad. Shit like this is what makes people get violent. I'd say we are past that point. Straight up attacks on these facilities need to be seriously considered at some point. It's odd that your objection isn't to the horrifying conditions of the camps but rather that an American (born to Mexican parents, is he somehow less deserving of that treatment than the rest of his family) was subjected to them. What protects him from inhumane treatment shouldn't be a piece of paper that says that he's a special individual exempted from inhumane treatment, it should be that he's human.
|
On July 26 2019 09:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2019 09:23 Mohdoo wrote: This dude who was detained needs to be on every single channel 24/7. This is a complete fucking abomination and I am so mad. Shit like this is what makes people get violent. I'd say we are past that point. Straight up attacks on these facilities need to be seriously considered at some point. It's odd that your objection isn't to the horrifying conditions of the camps but rather that an American (born to Mexican parents, is he somehow less deserving of that treatment than the rest of his family) was subjected to them.
Great contribution, I'm so glad you took the time to add to the conversation.
Terrible conditions with sketchy details and less confirmation than this. We see this and see that, but for this guy to lose 23 pounds in 3 weeks means downright starvation that would kill a great number of children. I am saying that I am now assuming lots of kids are being starved to death and its all just a giant fucked up cover up.
Edit: And I've been saying these camps are a national embarrassment on par with the Japanese stuff this whole time. It's not like I've been saying the camps are good or something. Your bullshit snark is totally inappropriate here. I'm saying we are now at a point where violence isn't unreasonable.
|
On July 26 2019 08:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2019 08:02 Ben... wrote:On July 26 2019 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah, they certainly aren't summer camps. Nazi concentration camps (the one's who apparently stole the rights to the term) didn't start all that dissimilar from ours. I'm not sure anyone has been prosecuted for the deaths, rapes, or neglect in the US camps though?
Not that I've heard, no. There was another death at one in the last day or so. I think it's up to 8 deaths now since October? That we know of anyway, considering all the kids they lost track of and US's history of (not) reporting law enforcement violence to federal authorities (even just for statistical purposes) the count is unreliable at best. Yup. Trusting any number put out by ICE, the DHS, ORR, or any related group at this point is not a reasonable thing to do. They lowballed the number of separated children by thousands. With the conditions described by those that have visited the facilities, it's reasonable to think that the number of deaths might be higher, or at the very least some people in the facilities have sustained enough damage to their health from being sick and untreated that it could negatively impact their health in the future.
|
If we kept prisoners of war in conditions such that they lose 23 pounds in 3 weeks, that is considered a war crime, right? Aren't there regulations around how you need to treat a prisoner?
Violence would just enable these people to continue doing fucked up shit, so it feels like the best way to handle this is legally. But we need to win 2020 first. Is this enough to throw directors of ICE etc in prison once a democrat is elected?
|
On July 26 2019 09:54 Mohdoo wrote: If we kept prisoners of war in conditions such that they lose 23 pounds in 3 weeks, that is considered a war crime, right? Aren't there regulations around how you need to treat a prisoner?
Violence would just enable these people to continue doing fucked up shit, so it feels like the best way to handle this is legally. But we need to win 2020 first. Is this enough to throw directors of ICE etc in prison once a democrat is elected?
Depends on whether you believe the Pentagon when they tell you the conditions at Guantanamo are/were compliant with the Geneva Convention or not?
EDIT: The Bush administration argued they didn't have to, Supreme Court disagreed, Bush, Obama, and now Trump have all essentially refused to acknowledge this (unless you believe the Pentagon when they say it is compliant with the Geneva Conventions, even then it's a stretch).
Why are the detainees’ rights so different from those accorded by our constitution and international law? The Bush administration took the position that laws of war and humanitarian law under the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 did not apply to the armed conflict the United States was engaged in with al-Qaeda in the US invasion of Afghanistan. The Bush policy was that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to “unlawful enemy combatants,” such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the US Supreme Court disagreed, finding that Article 3, common to all the Geneva Conventions, did apply to all individuals in the conflict, providing minimum guarantees of fair and humane treatment. The court found that Article 3 requires fair trials for all detainees, prohibits torture and indefinite detention, and binds both the United States and Afghanistan. This is the overwhelming consensus under international law of the applicability of the Geneva Conventions.
UN and international bodies, including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, have consistently stated that the four Geneva Conventions apply to the Guantanamo prisoners as well as international human rights treaties. These prohibit torture, cruel and inhuman treatment, and indefinite detention without trial, and require prompt and fair trials for all prisoners before impartial tribunals. The problem is not the law; it is that both the Bush and Obama administrations have failed to apply the substantial body of law that does apply to the Guantanamo prisoners.
www.bu.edu
|
The government has ongoing investigations of as-yet-uncharged individuals that have some sort of connection to the Jeffrey Epstein case. Its gonna be kept under wraps for now, but hopefully will blow up in the not too distant future.
|
|
|
|