|
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 August 08 2018 00:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The more I read GH, the more I think that "we" aren't his targeted audience. It seems that his intended purpose, rather like in the manner of the BLM movement isn't to raise awareness or solve problems, but to galvanise the "black" community of USA itself.
It'll never happen. His methods, like blm, don't have teeth. They seek annoyance and in the moment activism, instead of seeking better solutions. Like rap music, his brand of politics is popcorn, meant to be consumed immediately and then forgotten. No substance nor longevity. Just in the moment.
|
I mean, GH has stated multiple times he views this thread as “debate practice” (my paraphrase, not his quote) as well as entertainment. The only poster I have seen him really respect recently is IgnE. He’s stated he’s an activist IRL and probably cares a lot more about that then any discussion on here.
|
I've had this exact conversation with GH at least twice. What a waste of everyone's time.
|
United States41983 Posts
On August 07 2018 23:35 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 23:18 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Russia is the global leader in exporting asbestos. Coincidence or just another crazy random connection? Maybe we'll have a nostalgia trip mesothelioma commercial in some years as well. Iirc, Trump has been a big asbestos defender for decades. It's just another one of the weird quirks about him. Kinda like his anti vaccine shit.
He’s in real estate. Asbestos remediation costs a fortune. Also it’s a really good material if you ignore the fact that it kills people whenever it’s disturbed. My understanding is that as long as it stays where it should be you’re fine, it just means you can never tear that building down.
|
On August 08 2018 00:09 Ryzel wrote:
I mean, GH has stated multiple times he views this thread as “debate practice” (my paraphrase, not his quote) as well as entertainment. The only poster I have seen him really respect recently is IgnE. He’s stated he’s an activist IRL and probably cares a lot more about that then any discussion on here.
Well, to be good at debating doesn’t mean aggravating the hell out of people who are the closest ideologically, or you are quite a shitty activist. The goal of a debate is to convince people of your ideas, whether the one you directly speak with or the ones observing the debate.
I would say that the easiest people to convince are people who have the same goals and ideals than you but disagree on the method. You are never going to face inner resistance than you would with people who have opposite core beliefs.
I can’t believe I say that but I think I would agree with basically all of GH ideological background. But I never discussed with anyone in my whole life who managed with such virtuosity to push me away from any common ground I have with him.
I mean, as I said to someone earlier, with ennemies like that, the far right doesn’t need friends really.
|
On August 08 2018 00:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The more I read GH, the more I think that "we" aren't his targeted audience. It seems that his intended purpose, rather like in the manner of the BLM movement isn't to raise awareness or solve problems, but to galvanise the "black" community of USA itself.
BLM groups have several concrete policy goals. There is a lot here so I'm not going to try to summarize it:
policy.m4bl.org
Many people say that BLM's tactics prevent their policy goals from being realized, which is a good way to identify the people who are the problem.
|
On August 08 2018 00:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 00:09 Ryzel wrote:
I mean, GH has stated multiple times he views this thread as “debate practice” (my paraphrase, not his quote) as well as entertainment. The only poster I have seen him really respect recently is IgnE. He’s stated he’s an activist IRL and probably cares a lot more about that then any discussion on here. Well, to be good at debating doesn’t mean aggravating the hell out of people who are the closest ideologically, or you are quite a shitty activist. The goal of a debate is to convince people of your ideas, whether the one you directly speak with or the ones observing the debate. I would say that the easiest people to convince are people who have the same goals and ideals than you but disagree on the method. You are never going to face inner resistance than you would with people who have opposite core beliefs. I can’t believe I say that but I think I would agree with basically all of GH ideological background. But I never discussed with anyone in my whole life who managed with such virtuosity to push me away from any common ground I have with him. I mean, as I said to someone earlier, with ennemies like that, the far right doesn’t need friends really.
I totally appreciate the importance of cleaning your own house first. We already know what the right is about, and I think you underestimate the importance of the stark divisions and ideological battle currently happening on the left. The real battle for the left is with moderates/centrists. We need to take control of the narrative and obtain the platform for our ideas, which only happens by defeating the neoliberals in control of the party and reps in Congress. Fighting the right is the second phase once we are actually in a position to do so. This guy breaks it down pretty well if you want an example of some insights of a progressive point of view:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
The ideological battles on the left are healthily, but there needs to be enough surviving good will to govern going forward. Some part section moderate democrats will continue to exist, so both they and the left will need to bury the hatchet at some point.
|
If that's the actual policy goals they have then the BLM group is a joke. Everything is couched in terms of blacks vs everyone else. Jews, Koreans, Indians, Iranians they are not worthy of notice. They do not exist. only Black vs White. They are essentially asking to make blacks a privileged group in the same manner that lords and church ministry.
Actually 50% of what they write is agreeable to me, except the parts like an end to jails, financial reparations in the form of free lifetime education to blacks only, a guaranteed income to blacks only, agricultural housing and land entitlements to blacks only, national curriculum changes to favor blacks only, and funding for land trusts for blacks only, protection and increased funding for Black institutions including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU’s), Black media, and cultural, political and social formations.
Even issues like women, queer, trans, femmes, gender nonconforming, Muslim, formerly and currently incarcerated, cash poor and working class, differently-abled, undocumented, and immigrant nonconforming, women and intersex people, special protections for queer and trans students is black only.
Reading that confirmed my suspicion from conversing with GH, that the BLM movement is targeted to galvanise the black community of USA.
Either that or whoever are behind the policy genuinely want to make black people a privileged group which is entirely possible. Afterall, if you work for black political and social formations, you will be happy if the aim of getting access to special funding was achieved.
And yes, before you ask, I read the whole thing. Twice.
|
On August 08 2018 00:57 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 00:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The more I read GH, the more I think that "we" aren't his targeted audience. It seems that his intended purpose, rather like in the manner of the BLM movement isn't to raise awareness or solve problems, but to galvanise the "black" community of USA itself. BLM groups have several concrete policy goals. There is a lot here so I'm not going to try to summarize it: policy.m4bl.orgMany people say that BLM's tactics prevent their policy goals from being realized, which is a good way to identify the people who are the problem.
All that amounted to was a modernization of the black panthers policies.
|
On August 08 2018 00:57 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 00:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The more I read GH, the more I think that "we" aren't his targeted audience. It seems that his intended purpose, rather like in the manner of the BLM movement isn't to raise awareness or solve problems, but to galvanise the "black" community of USA itself. BLM groups have several concrete policy goals. There is a lot here so I'm not going to try to summarize it: policy.m4bl.orgMany people say that BLM's tactics prevent their policy goals from being realized, which is a good way to identify the people who are the problem.
which blm group(s) were involved in that?
as I understand it; blm isn't one organization, it's an umbrella term which a lot of groups have adopted. So I'm wondering which ones were involved in the creation of that pamphlet/list of goals. Or if there was some sort of conclave of blm groups that assembled to build a platform. I didn't see anything obvious skimming through it.
|
On August 08 2018 01:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 00:57 Mercy13 wrote:On August 08 2018 00:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The more I read GH, the more I think that "we" aren't his targeted audience. It seems that his intended purpose, rather like in the manner of the BLM movement isn't to raise awareness or solve problems, but to galvanise the "black" community of USA itself. BLM groups have several concrete policy goals. There is a lot here so I'm not going to try to summarize it: policy.m4bl.orgMany people say that BLM's tactics prevent their policy goals from being realized, which is a good way to identify the people who are the problem. All that amounted to was a modernization of the black panthers policies.
That black panthers were not nearly as bad they are made out to be. People gloss over that they set up community services, like an ambulance service that would go to black communities when the white ambulances wouldn't. BLM is nothing more than group of black activists with varying viewpoints on how address the problems facing black communities.
|
On August 08 2018 01:26 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
If that's the actual policy goals they have then the BLM group is a joke. Everything is couched in terms of blacks vs everyone else. Jews, Koreans, Indians, Iranians they are not worthy of notice. They do not exist. only Black vs White. They are essentially asking to make blacks a privileged group in the same manner that lords and church ministry.
Actually 50% of what they write is agreeable to me, except the parts like an end to jails, financial reparations in the form of free lifetime education to blacks only, a guaranteed income to blacks only, agricultural housing and land entitlements to blacks only, national curriculum changes to favor blacks only, and funding for land trusts for blacks only, protection and increased funding for Black institutions including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU’s), Black media, and cultural, political and social formations.
Even issues like women, queer, trans, femmes, gender nonconforming, Muslim, formerly and currently incarcerated, cash poor and working class, differently-abled, undocumented, and immigrant nonconforming, women and intersex people, special protections for queer and trans students is black only.
Reading that confirmed my suspicion from conversing with GH, that the BLM movement is targeted to galvanise the black community of USA.
Either that or whoever are behind the policy genuinely want to make black people a privileged group which is entirely possible. Afterall, if you work for black political and social formations, you will be happy if the aim of getting access to special funding was achieved.
And yes, before you ask, I read the whole thing. Twice.
What's wrong with galvanizing the black community? Regardless the document doesn't say "Blacks only" anything. Your response is the same as the people who respond to "Black lives matter" with "all lives matter."
On August 08 2018 01:29 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 00:57 Mercy13 wrote:On August 08 2018 00:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The more I read GH, the more I think that "we" aren't his targeted audience. It seems that his intended purpose, rather like in the manner of the BLM movement isn't to raise awareness or solve problems, but to galvanise the "black" community of USA itself. BLM groups have several concrete policy goals. There is a lot here so I'm not going to try to summarize it: policy.m4bl.orgMany people say that BLM's tactics prevent their policy goals from being realized, which is a good way to identify the people who are the problem. which blm group(s) were involved in that? as I understand it; blm isn't one organization, it's an umbrella term which a lot of groups have adopted. So I'm wondering which ones were involved in the creation of that pamphlet/list of goals. Or if there was some sort of conclave of blm groups that assembled to build a platform. I didn't see anything obvious skimming through it.
The organizations which participated are listed here:
https://policy.m4bl.org/about/
|
On August 08 2018 01:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 01:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 08 2018 00:57 Mercy13 wrote:On August 08 2018 00:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The more I read GH, the more I think that "we" aren't his targeted audience. It seems that his intended purpose, rather like in the manner of the BLM movement isn't to raise awareness or solve problems, but to galvanise the "black" community of USA itself. BLM groups have several concrete policy goals. There is a lot here so I'm not going to try to summarize it: policy.m4bl.orgMany people say that BLM's tactics prevent their policy goals from being realized, which is a good way to identify the people who are the problem. All that amounted to was a modernization of the black panthers policies. That black panthers were not nearly as bad they are made out to be. People gloss over that they set up community services, like an ambulance service that would go to black communities when the white ambulances wouldn't. BLM is nothing more than group of black activists with varying viewpoints on how address the problems facing black communities.
Such a weird glitch. Anyway, yeah. I didn't say they were bad. Just saying that they are advocating for the same thing with today's language. They seem to not only want to galvanize the black community, but to also elevate it above all others, at the expense of others. They have to go into the black communities and start there.
|
ok; hmmm.
that's a rather long and vague list, hard to tell how much each of those orgs cared about it. Most of those orgs are things I haven't heard of, and could be very tiny. Nor does it really say to what extent other chapters of blm nationwide agree with this particular platform. So it's still very unclear to what extent these proposals are favored by blm in general, or just this particular blm group.
I don't see an endorsement from the NAACP on there; at least not on any significant level; just one random county's naacp chapter.
at any rate; skimming the pamphlet; some decent stuff, and some nonsense, pretty much like what I'd expect. A decent exemplar of some particular policy proposals that some believe in.
|
There's nothing wrong with galvanising the black community.
The problem is that it feels like when GH posts, it feels he brings in unrelated topics that are tenuously related to use as a sounding board.
The document doesn't say "blacks only" it says "black people" or "all black people" which is effectively the same as "blacks only", unless there are people who aren't black, yet are black people. (I am assuming that mixed race can be included as black, though the pamphlet does not make it clear.) The demands are for only blacks. Even environmental issues are under the heading of "black people".
Can you point to even one of the object of my complaints that does not refer to blacks only? Every single objection I have points to special privileges to blacks only.
The funny thing is, I would approve, and I suspect most people would approve, if indeed those are the aims of the BLM group, if the focus on making black people a special privilege group was removed and all the special rights, funding, money, protections was simply made available to all irregardless of race.
|
It comes down to whether or not you believe that the black race requires exclusive aid to “bring it up” to the level of other races, so to speak. For example, do you believe in the idea of financial reparations for slavery?
|
If the black race (that is to say the Americans of slave descent in USA, as related to slavery reparations as opposed to those who have Black skin from the Sub-Saharan Africa) require exclusive aid to “bring it up” to the level of other races, then they are inherently inferior. I beleive they are not, so they do not require it.
|
On August 08 2018 01:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There's nothing wrong with galvanising the black community.
The problem is that it feels like when GH posts, it feels he brings in unrelated topics that are tenuously related to use as a sounding board.
The document doesn't say "blacks only" it says "black people" or "all black people" which is effectively the same as "blacks only", unless there are people who aren't black, yet are black people. (I am assuming that mixed race can be included as black, though the pamphlet does not make it clear.) The demands are for only blacks. Even environmental issues are under the heading of "black people".
Can you point to even one of the object of my complaints that does not refer to blacks only? Every single objection I have points to special privileges to blacks only.
The funny thing is, I would approve, and I suspect most people would approve, if indeed those are the aims of the BLM group, if the focus on making black people a special privilege group was removed and all the special rights, funding, money, protections was simply made available to all irregardless of race.
I have to disagree with this assessment. It is not effectively saying "blacks only", but advocating for the black communities in the US. It is no different that Irish Americans advocating for themselves back when they were getting the short end of the stick. Or construction workers joining a union to protect construction workers. It is just a group of people with common issues they want addressed.
On August 08 2018 01:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
If the black race (that is to say the Americans of slave descent in USA, as related to slave reparations) require exclusive aid to “bring it up” to the level of other races, then they are inherently inferior. I beleive they are not, so they do not require it.
My guy, we repressed them for like 200 years and only desegregated a generation ago. And it didn't take, because we are more segregated now than we were in the 1980s. Poor black communities need aid because we have sent decades stripping them of services. If you look into how Now Child Left Behind was used to close down "under preforming schools" you will find a lot of those schools were in minority communities, mostly black ones. We are still trying to repress them.
|
On August 08 2018 01:54 Ryzel wrote:
It comes down to whether or not you believe that the black race requires exclusive aid to “bring it up” to the level of other races, so to speak. For example, do you believe in the idea of financial reparations for slavery?
I think reparations for slavery are just if it's within a wider framework of shifting power and wealth to those who are worse off. It's obvious that black people have been disadvantaged by slavery, Jim Crow, zonal housing segregation etc - but the idea that the solution is therefore to bring them into the capitalist system via reparations, rather than changing the system that enabled that (and also enables the oppression of poor and working class people of all colours) isn't one I support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
