|
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 June 03 2020 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2020 13:16 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 12:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 12:27 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 11:56 NewSunshine wrote:No one's pretending the movement is a monolith. But most of the folks here understand the historical contexts and motivations at play here. When you say "but we can do it peacefully and without riots, we just need to vote", you're presented with politicians on record saying they don't care about making any change happen. What's more, the position is just ignorant in a fundamental way. Peaceful protests and demonstrations are what people have been doing. You don't hear about it, and nothing comes of it, because people just ignore it and don't have to give a shit. Black people continue to be disproportionately murdered by police. Politicians continue to not effect the change that they need to. Protests need to be inconvenient, almost necessarily. If someone who doesn't want to hear your message can turn a dial and tune you out completely, what do you expect to accomplish? Black folks have to live their lives constantly aware that they have extra entries in the police murder lottery, and you're asking them to be civil and play by the rules? The rules were written to fuck them over from the start. It's morally wrong to call them cheaters when they actually try to do something about it. On June 03 2020 12:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 11:44 puppykiller wrote:
Personify any contention as the voice of an outsider. Make sure only the most radical voice is heard. Stop pretending you speak for the entire movement.
Unity is great, but a lot of people disagree, they just shoot a few posts and give up. I'm sticking in this to counterbalance the people I think are crazy, to show that the movement isn't a monolith.
Sorry bro. I guess you didn't post here before so it's not entirely unreasonable for you to not realize that the people pointing out the absurdity of your position are people that used to take it. Feel like most of them mentioned it recently though. I've had my own character arc, for sure. Trying to give a bit of space for that. I respect your perspective and the effort you put into articulating it. Perhaps if I understand history the way you do, I would agree with your take, perhaps if you have seen what I am seeing in Minneapolis right now, you would agree with my take. Over the last few pages I've posted a bit to show the Minneapolis side of things, if you source some well written rhetoric that your understanding of history is based on, I will read it (assuming it is written efficiently).Thank you for your civility. I understand their are many with strong feelings right now, and this is a very touchy subject. Give me liberty or give me death? Not surprised to see that the rhetoric you follow is one liners. All my responses are thought out, well written, to the point, and continually calibrated to people's responses. You seem unable to do the same. If you can contribute a real source to the discussion that you ascribe to, I can take you seriously as an individual with some basis for his opinion. Otherwise I'll have to go back to treating you like a troll. You asked for efficient? You can address the position or not but it's certainly well established as a salient argument. The rhetoric's primary purpose was to rally support for the casus belli to birth the nation. It culminated in the revolutionary war. I'd argue my responses are thought out, well written, to the point, and continually calibrated to people's responses. I don't know what you mean by "real", but the letter from Birmingham is something I've presented here several times going back years. Your interpretation of me being a troll is largely based on your apparent novice awareness of the subject (despite your described rearing and proximity to the most recent catalyst).
I would imagine that if you subscribe to "by any means necessary" that sourcing something of value is the least you can do. I would like to see you do it just to prove you are capable. I haven't seen you do it once in this thread since I've joined. If you would like you can link me to the previous pages in the thread where you have sourced things.
|
On June 03 2020 13:24 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2020 13:22 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 13:19 Erasme wrote:On June 03 2020 13:12 puppykiller wrote:Thank you for stepping up and contributing to the discussion. I will read it. If I have any thoughts I will post them. For those of you speaking about the efficacy of the rioting... I think you should address Gahlo's post. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Yes, and if you had read it you'd understand that protesting works since it forces the institution to change. I did read it... you read it and only took that out of it. The article is more balanced than that and references more than one study. Read about each study so you can understand the full article. Aight. There are protests in every single states in the US. There has been countless of those incidents. I'm fairly certain the minorities getting oppressed by the police don't give a flying fuck if you agree with it or not, as long as it leads to change. You seem to believe that somehow coming back to the statue quo will fix things, but clearly it doesn't. So if you go back and read my post, you can notice the subtle implication that forcing the institution to change has more priority than how you and others view the protest.
I think it is in the interest of those protesting to care if people agree or not, as that is instrumental in change.
I never said going back to the status quo will fix things. I have referenced voting yes, that is a tool, that is not the same as going back to the status quo.
Please read the full article again. Note the study documenting movements from the last hundred years. What are your thoughts on that?
|
On June 03 2020 13:34 puppykiller wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2020 13:24 Erasme wrote:On June 03 2020 13:22 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 13:19 Erasme wrote:On June 03 2020 13:12 puppykiller wrote:Thank you for stepping up and contributing to the discussion. I will read it. If I have any thoughts I will post them. For those of you speaking about the efficacy of the rioting... I think you should address Gahlo's post. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Yes, and if you had read it you'd understand that protesting works since it forces the institution to change. I did read it... you read it and only took that out of it. The article is more balanced than that and references more than one study. Read about each study so you can understand the full article. Aight. There are protests in every single states in the US. There has been countless of those incidents. I'm fairly certain the minorities getting oppressed by the police don't give a flying fuck if you agree with it or not, as long as it leads to change. You seem to believe that somehow coming back to the statue quo will fix things, but clearly it doesn't. So if you go back and read my post, you can notice the subtle implication that forcing the institution to change has more priority than how you and others view the protest. I think it is in the interest of those protesting to care if people agree or not, as that is instrumental in change. I never said going back to the status quo will fix things. I have referenced voting yes, that is a tool, that is not the same as going back to the status quo. Please read the full article again. Note the study documenting movements from the last hundred years. What are your thoughts on that?
From news.harvard.edu
The fourth thing is that when campaigns are repressed — which is basically inevitable for those calling for major changes — they don’t either descend into chaos or opt for using violence themselves. If campaigns allow their repression to throw the movement into total disarray or they use it as a pretext to militarize their campaign, then they’re essentially co-signing what the regime wants — for the resisters to play on its own playing field. And they’re probably going to get totally crushed.
The "use of violence" described is picking up weapons. I haven't seen many protesters shooting at the police while the opposite is definitly true. So you might be looking at a peaceful protest over a violent one. 
|
On June 03 2020 13:31 puppykiller wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2020 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 13:16 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 12:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 12:27 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 11:56 NewSunshine wrote:No one's pretending the movement is a monolith. But most of the folks here understand the historical contexts and motivations at play here. When you say "but we can do it peacefully and without riots, we just need to vote", you're presented with politicians on record saying they don't care about making any change happen. What's more, the position is just ignorant in a fundamental way. Peaceful protests and demonstrations are what people have been doing. You don't hear about it, and nothing comes of it, because people just ignore it and don't have to give a shit. Black people continue to be disproportionately murdered by police. Politicians continue to not effect the change that they need to. Protests need to be inconvenient, almost necessarily. If someone who doesn't want to hear your message can turn a dial and tune you out completely, what do you expect to accomplish? Black folks have to live their lives constantly aware that they have extra entries in the police murder lottery, and you're asking them to be civil and play by the rules? The rules were written to fuck them over from the start. It's morally wrong to call them cheaters when they actually try to do something about it. On June 03 2020 12:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 11:44 puppykiller wrote:
Personify any contention as the voice of an outsider. Make sure only the most radical voice is heard. Stop pretending you speak for the entire movement.
Unity is great, but a lot of people disagree, they just shoot a few posts and give up. I'm sticking in this to counterbalance the people I think are crazy, to show that the movement isn't a monolith.
Sorry bro. I guess you didn't post here before so it's not entirely unreasonable for you to not realize that the people pointing out the absurdity of your position are people that used to take it. Feel like most of them mentioned it recently though. I've had my own character arc, for sure. Trying to give a bit of space for that. I respect your perspective and the effort you put into articulating it. Perhaps if I understand history the way you do, I would agree with your take, perhaps if you have seen what I am seeing in Minneapolis right now, you would agree with my take. Over the last few pages I've posted a bit to show the Minneapolis side of things, if you source some well written rhetoric that your understanding of history is based on, I will read it (assuming it is written efficiently).Thank you for your civility. I understand their are many with strong feelings right now, and this is a very touchy subject. Give me liberty or give me death? Not surprised to see that the rhetoric you follow is one liners. All my responses are thought out, well written, to the point, and continually calibrated to people's responses. You seem unable to do the same. If you can contribute a real source to the discussion that you ascribe to, I can take you seriously as an individual with some basis for his opinion. Otherwise I'll have to go back to treating you like a troll. You asked for efficient? You can address the position or not but it's certainly well established as a salient argument. The rhetoric's primary purpose was to rally support for the casus belli to birth the nation. It culminated in the revolutionary war. I'd argue my responses are thought out, well written, to the point, and continually calibrated to people's responses. I don't know what you mean by "real", but the letter from Birmingham is something I've presented here several times going back years. Your interpretation of me being a troll is largely based on your apparent novice awareness of the subject (despite your described rearing and proximity to the most recent catalyst). I would imagine that if you subscribe to "by any means necessary" that sourcing something of value is the least you can do. I would like to see you do it just to prove you are capable.
I just did? I quoted the most famous and efficient one. The value I thought self-apparent, but just in case mentioned its historically documented position as critical in rallying people to join in violent rebellion. A violent rebellion that literally created the nation.
I haven't seen you do it once in this thread since I've joined. If you would like you can link me to the previous pages in the thread where you have sourced things.
This is a pervasive problem (borne of white privilege usually imo) that assumes because you as an individual are oblivious, it must be reasonable to be so aggressively ignorant and demand evidence to the contrary.
Here's me referencing the letter a few years ago (which could easily be obtained through a simple search of a keyword) though because coddling is still expected.
|
On June 03 2020 13:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2020 13:31 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 13:16 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 12:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 12:27 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 11:56 NewSunshine wrote:No one's pretending the movement is a monolith. But most of the folks here understand the historical contexts and motivations at play here. When you say "but we can do it peacefully and without riots, we just need to vote", you're presented with politicians on record saying they don't care about making any change happen. What's more, the position is just ignorant in a fundamental way. Peaceful protests and demonstrations are what people have been doing. You don't hear about it, and nothing comes of it, because people just ignore it and don't have to give a shit. Black people continue to be disproportionately murdered by police. Politicians continue to not effect the change that they need to. Protests need to be inconvenient, almost necessarily. If someone who doesn't want to hear your message can turn a dial and tune you out completely, what do you expect to accomplish? Black folks have to live their lives constantly aware that they have extra entries in the police murder lottery, and you're asking them to be civil and play by the rules? The rules were written to fuck them over from the start. It's morally wrong to call them cheaters when they actually try to do something about it. On June 03 2020 12:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 11:44 puppykiller wrote:
Personify any contention as the voice of an outsider. Make sure only the most radical voice is heard. Stop pretending you speak for the entire movement.
Unity is great, but a lot of people disagree, they just shoot a few posts and give up. I'm sticking in this to counterbalance the people I think are crazy, to show that the movement isn't a monolith.
Sorry bro. I guess you didn't post here before so it's not entirely unreasonable for you to not realize that the people pointing out the absurdity of your position are people that used to take it. Feel like most of them mentioned it recently though. I've had my own character arc, for sure. Trying to give a bit of space for that. I respect your perspective and the effort you put into articulating it. Perhaps if I understand history the way you do, I would agree with your take, perhaps if you have seen what I am seeing in Minneapolis right now, you would agree with my take. Over the last few pages I've posted a bit to show the Minneapolis side of things, if you source some well written rhetoric that your understanding of history is based on, I will read it (assuming it is written efficiently).Thank you for your civility. I understand their are many with strong feelings right now, and this is a very touchy subject. Give me liberty or give me death? Not surprised to see that the rhetoric you follow is one liners. All my responses are thought out, well written, to the point, and continually calibrated to people's responses. You seem unable to do the same. If you can contribute a real source to the discussion that you ascribe to, I can take you seriously as an individual with some basis for his opinion. Otherwise I'll have to go back to treating you like a troll. You asked for efficient? You can address the position or not but it's certainly well established as a salient argument. The rhetoric's primary purpose was to rally support for the casus belli to birth the nation. It culminated in the revolutionary war. I'd argue my responses are thought out, well written, to the point, and continually calibrated to people's responses. I don't know what you mean by "real", but the letter from Birmingham is something I've presented here several times going back years. Your interpretation of me being a troll is largely based on your apparent novice awareness of the subject (despite your described rearing and proximity to the most recent catalyst). I would imagine that if you subscribe to "by any means necessary" that sourcing something of value is the least you can do. I would like to see you do it just to prove you are capable. I just did? I quoted the most famous and efficient one. The value I thought self-apparent, but just in case mentioned its historically documented position as critical in rallying people to join in violent rebellion. A violent rebellion that literally created the nation. Show nested quote +I haven't seen you do it once in this thread since I've joined. If you would like you can link me to the previous pages in the thread where you have sourced things. This is a pervasive problem (borne of white privilege usually imo) that assumes because you as an individual are oblivious, it must be reasonable to be so aggressively ignorant and demand evidence to the contrary. Here's me referencing the letter a few years ago (which could easily be obtained through a simple search of a keyword) though because coddling is still expected.
Thank you for taking the time to find your post. I will read it.
If you want quality white allies, I think you will do best being patient, and centering your argument around quality sources, rather than white guilt tactics and public shaming. Think of how much I am annoying you in this thread right now. Now imagine that force on your side. You can deny it all you want now, but I think you would enjoy that very much. :p
|
On June 03 2020 13:52 puppykiller wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2020 13:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 13:31 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 13:16 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 12:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 12:27 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 11:56 NewSunshine wrote:No one's pretending the movement is a monolith. But most of the folks here understand the historical contexts and motivations at play here. When you say "but we can do it peacefully and without riots, we just need to vote", you're presented with politicians on record saying they don't care about making any change happen. What's more, the position is just ignorant in a fundamental way. Peaceful protests and demonstrations are what people have been doing. You don't hear about it, and nothing comes of it, because people just ignore it and don't have to give a shit. Black people continue to be disproportionately murdered by police. Politicians continue to not effect the change that they need to. Protests need to be inconvenient, almost necessarily. If someone who doesn't want to hear your message can turn a dial and tune you out completely, what do you expect to accomplish? Black folks have to live their lives constantly aware that they have extra entries in the police murder lottery, and you're asking them to be civil and play by the rules? The rules were written to fuck them over from the start. It's morally wrong to call them cheaters when they actually try to do something about it. On June 03 2020 12:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 11:44 puppykiller wrote:
Personify any contention as the voice of an outsider. Make sure only the most radical voice is heard. Stop pretending you speak for the entire movement.
Unity is great, but a lot of people disagree, they just shoot a few posts and give up. I'm sticking in this to counterbalance the people I think are crazy, to show that the movement isn't a monolith.
Sorry bro. I guess you didn't post here before so it's not entirely unreasonable for you to not realize that the people pointing out the absurdity of your position are people that used to take it. Feel like most of them mentioned it recently though. I've had my own character arc, for sure. Trying to give a bit of space for that. I respect your perspective and the effort you put into articulating it. Perhaps if I understand history the way you do, I would agree with your take, perhaps if you have seen what I am seeing in Minneapolis right now, you would agree with my take. Over the last few pages I've posted a bit to show the Minneapolis side of things, if you source some well written rhetoric that your understanding of history is based on, I will read it (assuming it is written efficiently).Thank you for your civility. I understand their are many with strong feelings right now, and this is a very touchy subject. Give me liberty or give me death? Not surprised to see that the rhetoric you follow is one liners. All my responses are thought out, well written, to the point, and continually calibrated to people's responses. You seem unable to do the same. If you can contribute a real source to the discussion that you ascribe to, I can take you seriously as an individual with some basis for his opinion. Otherwise I'll have to go back to treating you like a troll. You asked for efficient? You can address the position or not but it's certainly well established as a salient argument. The rhetoric's primary purpose was to rally support for the casus belli to birth the nation. It culminated in the revolutionary war. I'd argue my responses are thought out, well written, to the point, and continually calibrated to people's responses. I don't know what you mean by "real", but the letter from Birmingham is something I've presented here several times going back years. Your interpretation of me being a troll is largely based on your apparent novice awareness of the subject (despite your described rearing and proximity to the most recent catalyst). I would imagine that if you subscribe to "by any means necessary" that sourcing something of value is the least you can do. I would like to see you do it just to prove you are capable. I just did? I quoted the most famous and efficient one. The value I thought self-apparent, but just in case mentioned its historically documented position as critical in rallying people to join in violent rebellion. A violent rebellion that literally created the nation. I haven't seen you do it once in this thread since I've joined. If you would like you can link me to the previous pages in the thread where you have sourced things. This is a pervasive problem (borne of white privilege usually imo) that assumes because you as an individual are oblivious, it must be reasonable to be so aggressively ignorant and demand evidence to the contrary. Here's me referencing the letter a few years ago (which could easily be obtained through a simple search of a keyword) though because coddling is still expected. Thank you for your post. I will read it. If you want quality white allies, I think you will do best being patient, and centering your argument around quality sources, rather than white guilt tactics and public shaming. Think of how much I am annoying you in this thread right now. Now imagine that force on your side. You can deny it all you want now, but I think you would enjoy that very much. :p
I'm not into white saviors. Act right or don't, that's on you. (also see my sig)
As the Baldwin video I most recently linked said
There's no question of you liberating me. Because you can't liberate yoursel[f].
|
On June 03 2020 13:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2020 13:52 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 13:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 13:31 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 13:16 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 12:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 12:27 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 11:56 NewSunshine wrote:No one's pretending the movement is a monolith. But most of the folks here understand the historical contexts and motivations at play here. When you say "but we can do it peacefully and without riots, we just need to vote", you're presented with politicians on record saying they don't care about making any change happen. What's more, the position is just ignorant in a fundamental way. Peaceful protests and demonstrations are what people have been doing. You don't hear about it, and nothing comes of it, because people just ignore it and don't have to give a shit. Black people continue to be disproportionately murdered by police. Politicians continue to not effect the change that they need to. Protests need to be inconvenient, almost necessarily. If someone who doesn't want to hear your message can turn a dial and tune you out completely, what do you expect to accomplish? Black folks have to live their lives constantly aware that they have extra entries in the police murder lottery, and you're asking them to be civil and play by the rules? The rules were written to fuck them over from the start. It's morally wrong to call them cheaters when they actually try to do something about it. On June 03 2020 12:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I guess you didn't post here before so it's not entirely unreasonable for you to not realize that the people pointing out the absurdity of your position are people that used to take it. Feel like most of them mentioned it recently though. I've had my own character arc, for sure. Trying to give a bit of space for that. I respect your perspective and the effort you put into articulating it. Perhaps if I understand history the way you do, I would agree with your take, perhaps if you have seen what I am seeing in Minneapolis right now, you would agree with my take. Over the last few pages I've posted a bit to show the Minneapolis side of things, if you source some well written rhetoric that your understanding of history is based on, I will read it (assuming it is written efficiently).Thank you for your civility. I understand their are many with strong feelings right now, and this is a very touchy subject. Give me liberty or give me death? Not surprised to see that the rhetoric you follow is one liners. All my responses are thought out, well written, to the point, and continually calibrated to people's responses. You seem unable to do the same. If you can contribute a real source to the discussion that you ascribe to, I can take you seriously as an individual with some basis for his opinion. Otherwise I'll have to go back to treating you like a troll. You asked for efficient? You can address the position or not but it's certainly well established as a salient argument. The rhetoric's primary purpose was to rally support for the casus belli to birth the nation. It culminated in the revolutionary war. I'd argue my responses are thought out, well written, to the point, and continually calibrated to people's responses. I don't know what you mean by "real", but the letter from Birmingham is something I've presented here several times going back years. Your interpretation of me being a troll is largely based on your apparent novice awareness of the subject (despite your described rearing and proximity to the most recent catalyst). I would imagine that if you subscribe to "by any means necessary" that sourcing something of value is the least you can do. I would like to see you do it just to prove you are capable. I just did? I quoted the most famous and efficient one. The value I thought self-apparent, but just in case mentioned its historically documented position as critical in rallying people to join in violent rebellion. A violent rebellion that literally created the nation. I haven't seen you do it once in this thread since I've joined. If you would like you can link me to the previous pages in the thread where you have sourced things. This is a pervasive problem (borne of white privilege usually imo) that assumes because you as an individual are oblivious, it must be reasonable to be so aggressively ignorant and demand evidence to the contrary. Here's me referencing the letter a few years ago (which could easily be obtained through a simple search of a keyword) though because coddling is still expected. Thank you for your post. I will read it. If you want quality white allies, I think you will do best being patient, and centering your argument around quality sources, rather than white guilt tactics and public shaming. Think of how much I am annoying you in this thread right now. Now imagine that force on your side. You can deny it all you want now, but I think you would enjoy that very much. :p I'm not into white saviors. Act right or don't, that's on you. (also see my sig) As the Baldwin video I most recently linked said Show nested quote +There's no question of you liberating me. Because you can't liberate yoursel[f].
Well if that's how you see it, you keep doing you I'll keep doing me then. Can't say I didn't try though.
|
On June 03 2020 14:22 puppykiller wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2020 13:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 13:52 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 13:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 13:31 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 13:16 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 12:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 12:27 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 11:56 NewSunshine wrote:
No one's pretending the movement is a monolith. But most of the folks here understand the historical contexts and motivations at play here. When you say "but we can do it peacefully and without riots, we just need to vote", you're presented with politicians on record saying they don't care about making any change happen. What's more, the position is just ignorant in a fundamental way. Peaceful protests and demonstrations are what people have been doing. You don't hear about it, and nothing comes of it, because people just ignore it and don't have to give a shit.
Black people continue to be disproportionately murdered by police. Politicians continue to not effect the change that they need to. Protests need to be inconvenient, almost necessarily. If someone who doesn't want to hear your message can turn a dial and tune you out completely, what do you expect to accomplish? Black folks have to live their lives constantly aware that they have extra entries in the police murder lottery, and you're asking them to be civil and play by the rules? The rules were written to fuck them over from the start. It's morally wrong to call them cheaters when they actually try to do something about it.
[quote]
I've had my own character arc, for sure. Trying to give a bit of space for that. I respect your perspective and the effort you put into articulating it. Perhaps if I understand history the way you do, I would agree with your take, perhaps if you have seen what I am seeing in Minneapolis right now, you would agree with my take. Over the last few pages I've posted a bit to show the Minneapolis side of things, if you source some well written rhetoric that your understanding of history is based on, I will read it (assuming it is written efficiently).Thank you for your civility. I understand their are many with strong feelings right now, and this is a very touchy subject. Give me liberty or give me death? Not surprised to see that the rhetoric you follow is one liners. All my responses are thought out, well written, to the point, and continually calibrated to people's responses. You seem unable to do the same. If you can contribute a real source to the discussion that you ascribe to, I can take you seriously as an individual with some basis for his opinion. Otherwise I'll have to go back to treating you like a troll. You asked for efficient? You can address the position or not but it's certainly well established as a salient argument. The rhetoric's primary purpose was to rally support for the casus belli to birth the nation. It culminated in the revolutionary war. I'd argue my responses are thought out, well written, to the point, and continually calibrated to people's responses. I don't know what you mean by "real", but the letter from Birmingham is something I've presented here several times going back years. Your interpretation of me being a troll is largely based on your apparent novice awareness of the subject (despite your described rearing and proximity to the most recent catalyst). I would imagine that if you subscribe to "by any means necessary" that sourcing something of value is the least you can do. I would like to see you do it just to prove you are capable. I just did? I quoted the most famous and efficient one. The value I thought self-apparent, but just in case mentioned its historically documented position as critical in rallying people to join in violent rebellion. A violent rebellion that literally created the nation. I haven't seen you do it once in this thread since I've joined. If you would like you can link me to the previous pages in the thread where you have sourced things. This is a pervasive problem (borne of white privilege usually imo) that assumes because you as an individual are oblivious, it must be reasonable to be so aggressively ignorant and demand evidence to the contrary. Here's me referencing the letter a few years ago (which could easily be obtained through a simple search of a keyword) though because coddling is still expected. Thank you for your post. I will read it. If you want quality white allies, I think you will do best being patient, and centering your argument around quality sources, rather than white guilt tactics and public shaming. Think of how much I am annoying you in this thread right now. Now imagine that force on your side. You can deny it all you want now, but I think you would enjoy that very much. :p I'm not into white saviors. Act right or don't, that's on you. (also see my sig) As the Baldwin video I most recently linked said There's no question of you liberating me. Because you can't liberate yoursel[f]. Well if that's how you see it, you keep doing you I'll keep doing me then. Can't say I didn't try though.
It is what it is. Not my first rodeo. You're advocating the positions of the white moderate MLK was referencing in the post I linked you to.
Should probably read the one before it too.
|
idk man this isn't exactly the same as the 50s and 60s is it? but it seems like everyone is convinced that it is. i have this weird feeling that even though i totally agree that militarized police are a bad thing and that many police departments are rotten everyone else seems to be working on different assumptions about the levers of power, about the realities of 2020, as if this were an out-of-joint echo through time that has entranced everyone. and when the spell breaks everyone will wonder why things are still so bad even after we've dealt with the wound of racism said to be poisoning our nation.
|
On June 03 2020 15:29 IgnE wrote:
idk man this isn't exactly the same as the 50s and 60s is it? that's a givenbut it seems like everyone is convinced that it is. No?
i have this weird feeling that even though i totally agree that militarized police are a bad thing and that many police departments are rotten everyone else seems to be working on different assumptions about the levers of power, about the realities of 2020, as if this were an out-of-joint echo through time that has entranced everyone. and when the spell breaks everyone will wonder why things are still so bad even after we've dealt with the wound of racism said to be poisoning our nation.
A lot of people at various stages but there's still general inequality motivating a lot of the people taking to the streets. I'd say it's also (along with racism) motivating the brownshirt brigades we see popping up.
|
If puppykiller hasn't understood it yet: it's not about getting (white) allies on the (white) allies' terms. You get to talk from a perspective of comfort, many PoE don't.
I think South Park did a nice job in that one episode when Stan finally had to admit to Token that he didn't get it.
@GH: many people want to help but can't/won't leave their comfort zone because why would they, people are beings that don't just abandon those kind of positions (we're all selfish that way). How can those people help? That is to say, can they even do anything you consider as helping, in your opinion?
|
On June 03 2020 17:08 Uldridge wrote:
If puppykiller hasn't understood it yet: it's not about getting (white) allies on the (white) allies' terms. You get to talk from a perspective of comfort, many PoE don't.
I think South Park did a nice job in that one episode when Stan finally had to admit to Token that he didn't get it.
@GH: many people want to help but can't/won't leave their comfort zone because why would they, people are beings that don't just abandon those kind of positions (we're all selfish that way). How can those people help? That is to say, can they even do anything you consider as helping, in your opinion?
Not kidding about white history week.
I'd suggest people learn how centrists and social democrats were key to Hitler's rise to power. Then think about whether they want to get out of their comfort zone now or or later, unless they are comfortable being complicit. See sig.
Trump's not Hitler and the US isn't Germany, but the clear path to fascism is in front of us (I say as watching a man pepper sprayed in his home for shouting at officers).
|
On June 03 2020 13:52 puppykiller wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2020 13:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 13:31 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 13:16 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 12:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 12:27 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 11:56 NewSunshine wrote:No one's pretending the movement is a monolith. But most of the folks here understand the historical contexts and motivations at play here. When you say "but we can do it peacefully and without riots, we just need to vote", you're presented with politicians on record saying they don't care about making any change happen. What's more, the position is just ignorant in a fundamental way. Peaceful protests and demonstrations are what people have been doing. You don't hear about it, and nothing comes of it, because people just ignore it and don't have to give a shit. Black people continue to be disproportionately murdered by police. Politicians continue to not effect the change that they need to. Protests need to be inconvenient, almost necessarily. If someone who doesn't want to hear your message can turn a dial and tune you out completely, what do you expect to accomplish? Black folks have to live their lives constantly aware that they have extra entries in the police murder lottery, and you're asking them to be civil and play by the rules? The rules were written to fuck them over from the start. It's morally wrong to call them cheaters when they actually try to do something about it. On June 03 2020 12:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 11:44 puppykiller wrote:
Personify any contention as the voice of an outsider. Make sure only the most radical voice is heard. Stop pretending you speak for the entire movement.
Unity is great, but a lot of people disagree, they just shoot a few posts and give up. I'm sticking in this to counterbalance the people I think are crazy, to show that the movement isn't a monolith.
Sorry bro. I guess you didn't post here before so it's not entirely unreasonable for you to not realize that the people pointing out the absurdity of your position are people that used to take it. Feel like most of them mentioned it recently though. I've had my own character arc, for sure. Trying to give a bit of space for that. I respect your perspective and the effort you put into articulating it. Perhaps if I understand history the way you do, I would agree with your take, perhaps if you have seen what I am seeing in Minneapolis right now, you would agree with my take. Over the last few pages I've posted a bit to show the Minneapolis side of things, if you source some well written rhetoric that your understanding of history is based on, I will read it (assuming it is written efficiently).Thank you for your civility. I understand their are many with strong feelings right now, and this is a very touchy subject. Give me liberty or give me death? Not surprised to see that the rhetoric you follow is one liners. All my responses are thought out, well written, to the point, and continually calibrated to people's responses. You seem unable to do the same. If you can contribute a real source to the discussion that you ascribe to, I can take you seriously as an individual with some basis for his opinion. Otherwise I'll have to go back to treating you like a troll. You asked for efficient? You can address the position or not but it's certainly well established as a salient argument. The rhetoric's primary purpose was to rally support for the casus belli to birth the nation. It culminated in the revolutionary war. I'd argue my responses are thought out, well written, to the point, and continually calibrated to people's responses. I don't know what you mean by "real", but the letter from Birmingham is something I've presented here several times going back years. Your interpretation of me being a troll is largely based on your apparent novice awareness of the subject (despite your described rearing and proximity to the most recent catalyst). I would imagine that if you subscribe to "by any means necessary" that sourcing something of value is the least you can do. I would like to see you do it just to prove you are capable. I just did? I quoted the most famous and efficient one. The value I thought self-apparent, but just in case mentioned its historically documented position as critical in rallying people to join in violent rebellion. A violent rebellion that literally created the nation. I haven't seen you do it once in this thread since I've joined. If you would like you can link me to the previous pages in the thread where you have sourced things. This is a pervasive problem (borne of white privilege usually imo) that assumes because you as an individual are oblivious, it must be reasonable to be so aggressively ignorant and demand evidence to the contrary. Here's me referencing the letter a few years ago (which could easily be obtained through a simple search of a keyword) though because coddling is still expected. Thank you for taking the time to find your post. I will read it. If you want quality white allies, I think you will do best being patient, and centering your argument around quality sources, rather than white guilt tactics and public shaming. Think of how much I am annoying you in this thread right now. Now imagine that force on your side. You can deny it all you want now, but I think you would enjoy that very much. :p
I really think you are rating yourself a tad too high these past few posts. And the burden is on you, when you join a discussion that has been ongoing for years, to find out what happened and if GH is serious and sources himself, or a troll. Please get off your high horse a little bit and do the work instead of demanding it, the resources are here in this thread and the previous one. I'm quite amazed with the patience and restraint some are showing when engaging in a reply.
|
On June 03 2020 17:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2020 17:08 Uldridge wrote:
If puppykiller hasn't understood it yet: it's not about getting (white) allies on the (white) allies' terms. You get to talk from a perspective of comfort, many PoE don't.
I think South Park did a nice job in that one episode when Stan finally had to admit to Token that he didn't get it.
@GH: many people want to help but can't/won't leave their comfort zone because why would they, people are beings that don't just abandon those kind of positions (we're all selfish that way). How can those people help? That is to say, can they even do anything you consider as helping, in your opinion? Not kidding about white history week. I'd suggest people learn how centrists and social democrats were key to Hitler's rise to power. Then think about whether they want to get out of their comfort zone now or or later, unless they are comfortable being complicit. See sig. Trump's not Hitler and the US isn't Germany, but the clear path to fascism is in front of us (I say as watching a man pepper sprayed in his home for shouting at officers).
What exactly are you referring to with "social democrats being key to Hitler's rise to power"? Because that does not fit anything i know about German history. In fact, the second he could, Hitler outlawed the SPD and imprisoned and/or killed as many of them as he could.
Social democrats were the only party present who voted against the enabling act giving Hitler dictatorial power in '33, despite being surrounded by SA people.
|
On June 03 2020 17:55 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2020 17:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 17:08 Uldridge wrote:
If puppykiller hasn't understood it yet: it's not about getting (white) allies on the (white) allies' terms. You get to talk from a perspective of comfort, many PoE don't.
I think South Park did a nice job in that one episode when Stan finally had to admit to Token that he didn't get it.
@GH: many people want to help but can't/won't leave their comfort zone because why would they, people are beings that don't just abandon those kind of positions (we're all selfish that way). How can those people help? That is to say, can they even do anything you consider as helping, in your opinion? Not kidding about white history week. I'd suggest people learn how centrists and social democrats were key to Hitler's rise to power. Then think about whether they want to get out of their comfort zone now or or later, unless they are comfortable being complicit. See sig. Trump's not Hitler and the US isn't Germany, but the clear path to fascism is in front of us (I say as watching a man pepper sprayed in his home for shouting at officers). What exactly are you referring to with "social democrats being key to Hitler's rise to power"? Because that does not fit anything i know about German history. In fact, the second he could, Hitler outlawed the SPD and imprisoned and/or killed as many of them as he could. Social democrats were the only party present who voted against the enabling act giving Hitler dictatorial power in '33, despite being surrounded by SA people.
Long story short, while SPD and centrists were playing nice with the nazis banking on process and institutions, communists and antifa's early manifestations were outlawed and suppressed. When the economy collapsed and no one was able to offer adequate relief Hitler capitalized and his brownshirts suppressed the remaining resistance in the street.
Hitler's appointed chancellor. Calls to dissolve the Reichstag, there's the famous fire. Hitler blames communists and has them all rounded up and many executed. With SPD being the farthest left party still legal/viable they failed to stop the Enabling Act giving Hitler legitimacy and then he has them arrested, banished, killed, etc anyway.
A lot of that happened in the span of about 3 months btw
EDIT: I feel like SPD KPD drama is both out of my depth and a bit in the weeds here.
EDIT2: Honest question: Do people not know the "first they came for" quote starts with communists over there too? In the long UK version Jewish people are 4th/penultimate!
|
Okay, I am going to sidestep that discussion because i don't think it is on topic here.
Back to the US. What i kind of don't understand is the perspective of the people who are okay with the current state of the police system. Even if you are white, and don't care about black people at all, you should still not be okay with this. Because US police also kills a lot of white people (proportionally less than black people, but still way too many), and that should be troubling to you.
I kinda feel like almost everyone should be on board here that the police killing people is bad and should be reduced as much as possible. Police being held responsible for crimes they commit also sounds like an absolute no-brainer to me.
I have problems imagining a rational position which is against this. This is what is weirding me out so much about this. Ignoring all the distractions about rioting or not rioting, why are so many people against solving the core issue?
|
On June 03 2020 18:19 Simberto wrote:
Okay, I am going to sidestep that discussion because i don't think it is on topic here.
Back to the US. What i kind of don't understand is the perspective of the people who are okay with the current state of the police system. Even if you are white, and don't care about black people at all, you should still not be okay with this. Because US police also kills a lot of white people (proportionally less than black people, but still way too many), and that should be troubling to you.
I kinda feel like almost everyone should be on board here that the police killing people is bad and should be reduced as much as possible. Police being held responsible for crimes they commit also sounds like an absolute no-brainer to me.
I have problems imagining a rational position which is against this. This is what is weirding me out so much about this. Ignoring all the distractions about rioting or not rioting, why are so many people against solving the core issue?
Well... If you literally sidestep the explanation you're going to have a hard time understanding. Why would people be okay with brownshirts if they are suppressing people (sorta) like them? Because they aren't communist, socialist, unionists, Jewish whatever boogyman but the people being suppressed/killed are (whether they are any of those things or not).
I feel compelled to spell out the link to Trump's attempt to label ANTIFA a terrorist organization and the villianization of "violent protesters" amid brutal state repression (now with what appears to be support from groups like Blackwater [Acadimi] and vigilante citizens).
|
|
|
On June 03 2020 13:52 puppykiller wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2020 13:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 13:31 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 13:16 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 12:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 12:27 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 11:56 NewSunshine wrote:No one's pretending the movement is a monolith. But most of the folks here understand the historical contexts and motivations at play here. When you say "but we can do it peacefully and without riots, we just need to vote", you're presented with politicians on record saying they don't care about making any change happen. What's more, the position is just ignorant in a fundamental way. Peaceful protests and demonstrations are what people have been doing. You don't hear about it, and nothing comes of it, because people just ignore it and don't have to give a shit. Black people continue to be disproportionately murdered by police. Politicians continue to not effect the change that they need to. Protests need to be inconvenient, almost necessarily. If someone who doesn't want to hear your message can turn a dial and tune you out completely, what do you expect to accomplish? Black folks have to live their lives constantly aware that they have extra entries in the police murder lottery, and you're asking them to be civil and play by the rules? The rules were written to fuck them over from the start. It's morally wrong to call them cheaters when they actually try to do something about it. On June 03 2020 12:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 11:44 puppykiller wrote:
Personify any contention as the voice of an outsider. Make sure only the most radical voice is heard. Stop pretending you speak for the entire movement.
Unity is great, but a lot of people disagree, they just shoot a few posts and give up. I'm sticking in this to counterbalance the people I think are crazy, to show that the movement isn't a monolith.
Sorry bro. I guess you didn't post here before so it's not entirely unreasonable for you to not realize that the people pointing out the absurdity of your position are people that used to take it. Feel like most of them mentioned it recently though. I've had my own character arc, for sure. Trying to give a bit of space for that. I respect your perspective and the effort you put into articulating it. Perhaps if I understand history the way you do, I would agree with your take, perhaps if you have seen what I am seeing in Minneapolis right now, you would agree with my take. Over the last few pages I've posted a bit to show the Minneapolis side of things, if you source some well written rhetoric that your understanding of history is based on, I will read it (assuming it is written efficiently).Thank you for your civility. I understand their are many with strong feelings right now, and this is a very touchy subject. Give me liberty or give me death? Not surprised to see that the rhetoric you follow is one liners. All my responses are thought out, well written, to the point, and continually calibrated to people's responses. You seem unable to do the same. If you can contribute a real source to the discussion that you ascribe to, I can take you seriously as an individual with some basis for his opinion. Otherwise I'll have to go back to treating you like a troll. You asked for efficient? You can address the position or not but it's certainly well established as a salient argument. The rhetoric's primary purpose was to rally support for the casus belli to birth the nation. It culminated in the revolutionary war. I'd argue my responses are thought out, well written, to the point, and continually calibrated to people's responses. I don't know what you mean by "real", but the letter from Birmingham is something I've presented here several times going back years. Your interpretation of me being a troll is largely based on your apparent novice awareness of the subject (despite your described rearing and proximity to the most recent catalyst). I would imagine that if you subscribe to "by any means necessary" that sourcing something of value is the least you can do. I would like to see you do it just to prove you are capable. I just did? I quoted the most famous and efficient one. The value I thought self-apparent, but just in case mentioned its historically documented position as critical in rallying people to join in violent rebellion. A violent rebellion that literally created the nation. I haven't seen you do it once in this thread since I've joined. If you would like you can link me to the previous pages in the thread where you have sourced things. This is a pervasive problem (borne of white privilege usually imo) that assumes because you as an individual are oblivious, it must be reasonable to be so aggressively ignorant and demand evidence to the contrary. Here's me referencing the letter a few years ago (which could easily be obtained through a simple search of a keyword) though because coddling is still expected. Thank you for taking the time to find your post. I will read it. If you want quality white allies, I think you will do best being patient, and centering your argument around quality sources, rather than white guilt tactics and public shaming. Think of how much I am annoying you in this thread right now. Now imagine that force on your side. You can deny it all you want now, but I think you would enjoy that very much. :p
My hope is that you can at some point reflect on the tone of this post and appreciate how paternal, condescending and stereotypically white it is. And I'm afraid to say you're not annoying GH much at all. He's almost purely dismissive of you because you're the exact example of a 'white ally' who's worse than useless. Your posting so far fits - as he's already said - very neatly into things famous black speakers have been talking about for decades. You're milquetoast in your support and insist on it only being offered if approached and courted on your terms. Like they need to come to you hat in hand and beg for your support, you don't want to hear it if they're angry.
The entire problem here is - in fact - that you think you're trying and you're not.
On June 03 2020 18:19 Simberto wrote:
Okay, I am going to sidestep that discussion because i don't think it is on topic here.
Back to the US. What i kind of don't understand is the perspective of the people who are okay with the current state of the police system. Even if you are white, and don't care about black people at all, you should still not be okay with this. Because US police also kills a lot of white people (proportionally less than black people, but still way too many), and that should be troubling to you.
I kinda feel like almost everyone should be on board here that the police killing people is bad and should be reduced as much as possible. Police being held responsible for crimes they commit also sounds like an absolute no-brainer to me.
I have problems imagining a rational position which is against this. This is what is weirding me out so much about this. Ignoring all the distractions about rioting or not rioting, why are so many people against solving the core issue?
You have to accept that a lot of people don't think there are problems with the police system. America still has a really strong idea that 'a good man with a gun' is the solution to most problems. And to a lot of people, the cops are by definition the good guys. And they have guns. So they're a solution, not a problem. A lot of people believe that every death is justified. I've seen defenses of almost every single death no matter how egregious. Just look at how Faux News span some of them for an example. You might think 'but that's Faux News, nobody really believes that, even they don't', but people do.
Everyone here is on board with it, but we're all pretty well-educated, politically interested people who actively read up on this stuff. I'd say most people who are active in the thread have probably read at least one book from a major political thinker and/or read up on the underlying principles of at least one major political theory.
That's light years ahead of the average joe who doesn't really care and only interacts with politics at the polling booth, the water cooler, and on the news.
If I wasn't politically interested and didn't read up on this stuff, why wouldn't I believe the cops are the good guys? In my entire life I have never had an encounter with the police. Period. As far as I can tell, with the evidence of mine own eyes, they're doing great. It's only because I read up that I know about the various scandals and abuses that have happened even in the UK (albeit very few come close to the insanity in the US).
|
On June 03 2020 19:13 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2020 13:52 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 13:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 13:31 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 13:16 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 12:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 12:27 puppykiller wrote:On June 03 2020 11:56 NewSunshine wrote:No one's pretending the movement is a monolith. But most of the folks here understand the historical contexts and motivations at play here. When you say "but we can do it peacefully and without riots, we just need to vote", you're presented with politicians on record saying they don't care about making any change happen. What's more, the position is just ignorant in a fundamental way. Peaceful protests and demonstrations are what people have been doing. You don't hear about it, and nothing comes of it, because people just ignore it and don't have to give a shit. Black people continue to be disproportionately murdered by police. Politicians continue to not effect the change that they need to. Protests need to be inconvenient, almost necessarily. If someone who doesn't want to hear your message can turn a dial and tune you out completely, what do you expect to accomplish? Black folks have to live their lives constantly aware that they have extra entries in the police murder lottery, and you're asking them to be civil and play by the rules? The rules were written to fuck them over from the start. It's morally wrong to call them cheaters when they actually try to do something about it. On June 03 2020 12:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I guess you didn't post here before so it's not entirely unreasonable for you to not realize that the people pointing out the absurdity of your position are people that used to take it. Feel like most of them mentioned it recently though. I've had my own character arc, for sure. Trying to give a bit of space for that. I respect your perspective and the effort you put into articulating it. Perhaps if I understand history the way you do, I would agree with your take, perhaps if you have seen what I am seeing in Minneapolis right now, you would agree with my take. Over the last few pages I've posted a bit to show the Minneapolis side of things, if you source some well written rhetoric that your understanding of history is based on, I will read it (assuming it is written efficiently).Thank you for your civility. I understand their are many with strong feelings right now, and this is a very touchy subject. Give me liberty or give me death? Not surprised to see that the rhetoric you follow is one liners. All my responses are thought out, well written, to the point, and continually calibrated to people's responses. You seem unable to do the same. If you can contribute a real source to the discussion that you ascribe to, I can take you seriously as an individual with some basis for his opinion. Otherwise I'll have to go back to treating you like a troll. You asked for efficient? You can address the position or not but it's certainly well established as a salient argument. The rhetoric's primary purpose was to rally support for the casus belli to birth the nation. It culminated in the revolutionary war. I'd argue my responses are thought out, well written, to the point, and continually calibrated to people's responses. I don't know what you mean by "real", but the letter from Birmingham is something I've presented here several times going back years. Your interpretation of me being a troll is largely based on your apparent novice awareness of the subject (despite your described rearing and proximity to the most recent catalyst). I would imagine that if you subscribe to "by any means necessary" that sourcing something of value is the least you can do. I would like to see you do it just to prove you are capable. I just did? I quoted the most famous and efficient one. The value I thought self-apparent, but just in case mentioned its historically documented position as critical in rallying people to join in violent rebellion. A violent rebellion that literally created the nation. I haven't seen you do it once in this thread since I've joined. If you would like you can link me to the previous pages in the thread where you have sourced things. This is a pervasive problem (borne of white privilege usually imo) that assumes because you as an individual are oblivious, it must be reasonable to be so aggressively ignorant and demand evidence to the contrary. Here's me referencing the letter a few years ago (which could easily be obtained through a simple search of a keyword) though because coddling is still expected. Thank you for taking the time to find your post. I will read it. If you want quality white allies, I think you will do best being patient, and centering your argument around quality sources, rather than white guilt tactics and public shaming. Think of how much I am annoying you in this thread right now. Now imagine that force on your side. You can deny it all you want now, but I think you would enjoy that very much. :p My hope is that you can at some point reflect on the tone of this post and appreciate how paternal, condescending and stereotypically white it is. And I'm afraid to say you're not annoying GH much at all. He's almost purely dismissive of you because you're the exact example of a 'white ally' who's worse than useless. Your posting so far fits - as he's already said - very neatly into things famous black speakers have been talking about for decades. You're milquetoast in your support and insist on it only being offered if approached and courted on your terms. Like they need to come to you hat in hand and beg for your support, you don't want to hear it if they're angry. The entire problem here is - in fact - that you think you're trying and you're not.
Couldn’t agree more, it’s embarrassing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
