|
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 01:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There's nothing wrong with galvanising the black community.
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 the focus on making black people a special privelige group was removed and all the special rights, funding, money, protections was simply made available to all irregardless of race.
No it isn't.
For example, the document proposes "An end to the war on Black trans, queer and gender nonconforming people including their addition to anti-discrimination civil rights protections to ensure they have full access to employment, health, housing and education."
If a law is passed which makes trans people a protected class it would go a long way toward ending said war. Your argument is that the people who drafted the policy document would oppose this law because it doesn't ONLY help Black people. That's ridiculous.
|
On August 08 2018 01:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I would also be against Irish Americans advocating for the immunity to imprisonment, financial reparations in the form of free lifetime education only, a guaranteed income, agricultural housing and land entitlements, national curriculum changes to favor Irish only, and funding for land trusts, protection and increased funding for Irish institutions including Historically Irish Colleges and Universities (HBCU’s), Irish media, and cultural, political and social formations all for only Irish Americans only as well.
|
On August 08 2018 01:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +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.
My complaint has always been that black people aren't doing it themselves. Buy corner store in the hood. Buy a nail salon. All the things you want for the black community, go do it. Bring that to the community and then talk. If you cannot gather the funds or whatever to do so, then find the help but keep it majority black owned. Then progress from there.
But in my life, all I see are those that want a helping hand out. All of these millionaire personalities in the media. And they do what for the community they supposedly love and care about? Buying clothes or sports equipment is nice. But buy a community center. But them and education. Otherwise you're paying as much lip service as the next.
And that's the problem with these pro-black movements. They're not actively doing anything to change their neighborhood. They are waiting for something or someone. Still.
|
On August 08 2018 02:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 01:58 Plansix wrote: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. I would also be against Irish Americans advocating for jails, financial reparations in the form of free lifetime education only, a guaranteed income, agricultural housing and land entitlements, national curriculum changes to favor Irishonly, and funding for land trusts, protection and increased funding for Irish institutions including Historically Irish Colleges and Universities (HBCU’s), Irish media, and cultural, political and social formations for Irish Americans only as well.
You do realize that this systems in the US(or any country, really) are not naturally fair, right? That we still live in a nation where some states are trying to screw over black people? Blacks are being purged from voter registration in some states at this moment. The court recently overturned key parts of the Voter's Rights act, which allowed states that want to stop blacks from voting to take action without fear of the federal goverment preventing them from doing so. America has people in jail per capita than any other nation in the world, and a lot of them are black men.
On August 08 2018 02:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 01:58 Plansix wrote: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. My complaint has always been that black people aren't doing it themselves. Buy corner store in the hood. Buy a nail salon. All the things you want for the black community, go do it. Bring that to the community and then talk. If you cannot gather the funds or whatever to do so, then find the help but keep it majority black owned. Then progress from there. But in my life, all I see are those that want a helping hand out. All of these millionaire personalities in the media. And they do what for the community they supposedly love and care about? Buying clothes or sports equipment is nice. But buy a community center. But them and education. Otherwise you're paying as much lip service as the next. And that's the problem with these pro-black movements. They're not actively doing anything to change their neighborhood. They are waiting for something or someone. Still.
I would argue that they are doing it themselves in a lot of ways, but its hard to strive in a system that can rip that out from under you at any point. And they do have community investment by larger than life black figures. But those people do not hold all the levers of power in the country.
I want to point folks to the Tulsa race riot to see just how badly we treated black communities in the US. This part of US history is not taught in schools. But in 1921, average US citizens destroyed a functional black community of 10,000 people. Not because they did anything specifically wrong beyond being successful in America.
It lasted days. This is the striking part of how bad it got:
Numerous eyewitnesses described airplanes carrying white assailants, who fired rifles and dropped firebombs on buildings, homes, and fleeing families. The planes, possibly including six biplane two-seater trainers left over from World War I as well as other privately-owned aircraft, were dispatched from the nearby Curtiss-Southwest Field outside Tulsa.[3][28] Law enforcement officials later stated that the planes were to provide reconnaissance and protect against a "Negro uprising".[28] Law enforcement personnel were thought to be aboard at least some flights.[3] Eyewitness accounts, such as testimony from the survivors during Commission hearings and a manuscript by eyewitness and attorney Buck Colbert Franklin discovered in 2015, said that on the morning of June 1, men in the planes dropped incendiary bombs and fired rifles at black residents on the ground.[28][15]
They fire bombed them. This was less than 100 years ago.
|
On August 08 2018 02:00 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 01:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There's nothing wrong with galvanising the black community.
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 the focus on making black people a special privelige group was removed and all the special rights, funding, money, protections was simply made available to all irregardless of race. No it isn't. For example, the document proposes " An end to the war on Black trans, queer and gender nonconforming people including their addition to anti-discrimination civil rights protections to ensure they have full access to employment, health, housing and education." If a law is passed which makes trans people a protected class it would go a long way toward ending said war. Your argument is that the people who drafted the policy document would oppose this law because it doesn't ONLY help Black people. That's ridiculous.
Like I said, the demand is only for blacks. If the demand was for all trans, queer and gender nonconforming people then I have no objection to such a demand.
If that is your example of "object of my complaints that does not refer to blacks only" then as it refers to blacks only, it isn't a valid example of such.
If you want to argue that it refers to all trans, queer and gender nonconforming people, then there would be no reason to add "Black" to the statement, it is clear that by including it, the demand for civil rights protection is solely applied to Blacks.
|
On August 08 2018 02:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 02:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 08 2018 01:58 Plansix wrote: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. I would also be against Irish Americans advocating for jails, financial reparations in the form of free lifetime education only, a guaranteed income, agricultural housing and land entitlements, national curriculum changes to favor Irishonly, and funding for land trusts, protection and increased funding for Irish institutions including Historically Irish Colleges and Universities (HBCU’s), Irish media, and cultural, political and social formations for Irish Americans only as well. You do realize that this systems in the US(or any country, really) are not naturally fair, right? That we still live in a nation where some states are trying to screw over black people? Blacks are being purged from voter registration in some states at this moment. The court recently overturned key parts of the Voter's Rights act, which allowed states that want to stop blacks from voting to take action without fear of the federal goverment preventing them from doing so. America has people in jail per capita than any other nation in the world, and a lot of them are black men.
I know you're not replying to me, but I have to interject again. Some of the issues they raise are beneficial to all races, but they are exclusive and explicit as to who should benefit the most. And that stops people from jumping on board. This isn't all lives matter bullshit, but you need to demand the same for all POC and not just blacks. Maybe blacks can be fairly compensated for the bullshit that has been going on first, but to raise it to a protected class of citizen is asinine and I believe counterproductive to what they wish to accomplish.
|
On August 08 2018 02:13 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 02:06 Plansix wrote:On August 08 2018 02:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 08 2018 01:58 Plansix wrote: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. I would also be against Irish Americans advocating for jails, financial reparations in the form of free lifetime education only, a guaranteed income, agricultural housing and land entitlements, national curriculum changes to favor Irishonly, and funding for land trusts, protection and increased funding for Irish institutions including Historically Irish Colleges and Universities (HBCU’s), Irish media, and cultural, political and social formations for Irish Americans only as well. You do realize that this systems in the US(or any country, really) are not naturally fair, right? That we still live in a nation where some states are trying to screw over black people? Blacks are being purged from voter registration in some states at this moment. The court recently overturned key parts of the Voter's Rights act, which allowed states that want to stop blacks from voting to take action without fear of the federal goverment preventing them from doing so. America has people in jail per capita than any other nation in the world, and a lot of them are black men. I know you're not replying to me, but I have to interject again. Some of the issues they raise are beneficial to all races, but they are exclusive and explicit as to who should benefit the most. And that stops people from jumping on board. This isn't all lives matter bullshit, but you need to demand the same for all POC and not just blacks. Maybe blacks can be fairly compensated for the bullshit that has been going on first, but to raise it to a protected class of citizen is asinine and I believe counterproductive to what they wish to accomplish.
Those other races are free to advocate for themselves and should. And the things I cited in that post would or did protect all citizens equally.
|
On August 08 2018 02:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 02:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 08 2018 01:58 Plansix wrote: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. I would also be against Irish Americans advocating for jails, financial reparations in the form of free lifetime education only, a guaranteed income, agricultural housing and land entitlements, national curriculum changes to favor Irishonly, and funding for land trusts, protection and increased funding for Irish institutions including Historically Irish Colleges and Universities (HBCU’s), Irish media, and cultural, political and social formations for Irish Americans only as well. You do realize that this systems in the US(or any country, really) are not naturally fair, right? That we still live in a nation where some states are trying to screw over black people? Blacks are being purged from voter registration in some states at this moment. The court recently overturned key parts of the Voter's Rights act, which allowed states that want to stop blacks from voting to take action without fear of the federal goverment preventing them from doing so. America has people in jail per capita than any other nation in the world, and a lot of them are black men.
That may be true that systems in US(or any country, really) are not naturally fair, right, but is entirely consistent with my world view that what black people need is not special priviliges, but the prevention of being purged from voter registration in some states at this moment, the reversal of overturned key parts of the Voter's Rights act, and the federal goverment preventing states that want to stop blacks from voting to take action. Nor do I believe that Black people should be immune to being in jail.
|
On August 08 2018 02:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 02:00 Mercy13 wrote:On August 08 2018 01:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There's nothing wrong with galvanising the black community.
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 the focus on making black people a special privelige group was removed and all the special rights, funding, money, protections was simply made available to all irregardless of race. No it isn't. For example, the document proposes " An end to the war on Black trans, queer and gender nonconforming people including their addition to anti-discrimination civil rights protections to ensure they have full access to employment, health, housing and education." If a law is passed which makes trans people a protected class it would go a long way toward ending said war. Your argument is that the people who drafted the policy document would oppose this law because it doesn't ONLY help Black people. That's ridiculous. Like I said, the demand is only for blacks. If the demand was for all trans, queer and gender nonconforming people then I have no objection to such a demand. If that is your example of "object of my complaints that does not refer to blacks only" then as it refers to blacks only, it isn't a valid example of such. If you want to argue that it refers to all trans, queer and gender nonconforming people, then there would be no reason to add "Black" to the statement, it is clear that by including it, the demand for civil rights protection is solely applied to Blacks.
I don't know what else to say other than to repeat that "An end to the war on Black..." means a different thing than "An end to the war only on Black..."
"Only" is a word with a meaning, and when you add it to a sentence it changes the meaning of the sentence. I don't understand why you disagree with this.
Edit: How is your argument different from the people who say "all lives matter" in response to "Black lives matter"? Or do you think that is an acceptable response?
|
On August 08 2018 02:18 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 02:06 Plansix wrote:On August 08 2018 02:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 08 2018 01:58 Plansix wrote: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. I would also be against Irish Americans advocating for jails, financial reparations in the form of free lifetime education only, a guaranteed income, agricultural housing and land entitlements, national curriculum changes to favor Irishonly, and funding for land trusts, protection and increased funding for Irish institutions including Historically Irish Colleges and Universities (HBCU’s), Irish media, and cultural, political and social formations for Irish Americans only as well. You do realize that this systems in the US(or any country, really) are not naturally fair, right? That we still live in a nation where some states are trying to screw over black people? Blacks are being purged from voter registration in some states at this moment. The court recently overturned key parts of the Voter's Rights act, which allowed states that want to stop blacks from voting to take action without fear of the federal goverment preventing them from doing so. America has people in jail per capita than any other nation in the world, and a lot of them are black men. That may or may not be true, but is entirely consistent with my world view that what black people need is not special priviliges, but the prevention of being purged from voter registration in some states at this moment, the reversal of overturned key parts of the Voter's Rights act, and the federal goverment preventing states that want to stop blacks from voting to take action. Nor do I believe that Black people should be immune to being in jail.
When did I say they should be immune to being in jail? I said the justice system was unfairly throwing massive numbers of black men in jail.
|
United States41984 Posts
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 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.
That assumes that white people didn’t receive any aid from that black people didn’t. Inter generational wealth says differently. If one side gets help and the other doesn’t it doesn’t make the other side inferior to need the same help to achieve parity. I’m not ashamed to say that I benefited very materially from the wealth and education of my parents.
|
On August 08 2018 02:20 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 02:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 08 2018 02:00 Mercy13 wrote:On August 08 2018 01:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There's nothing wrong with galvanising the black community.
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 the focus on making black people a special privelige group was removed and all the special rights, funding, money, protections was simply made available to all irregardless of race. No it isn't. For example, the document proposes " An end to the war on Black trans, queer and gender nonconforming people including their addition to anti-discrimination civil rights protections to ensure they have full access to employment, health, housing and education." If a law is passed which makes trans people a protected class it would go a long way toward ending said war. Your argument is that the people who drafted the policy document would oppose this law because it doesn't ONLY help Black people. That's ridiculous. Like I said, the demand is only for blacks. If the demand was for all trans, queer and gender nonconforming people then I have no objection to such a demand. If that is your example of "object of my complaints that does not refer to blacks only" then as it refers to blacks only, it isn't a valid example of such. If you want to argue that it refers to all trans, queer and gender nonconforming people, then there would be no reason to add "Black" to the statement, it is clear that by including it, the demand for civil rights protection is solely applied to Blacks. I don't know what else to say other than to repeat that "An end to the war on Black..." means a different thing than "An end to the war only on Black..." "Only" is a word with a meaning, and when you add it to a sentence it changes the meaning of the sentence. I don't understand why you disagree with this. Like I said, the intention is clear, especially when repeated over the entirety of the pamphlet. A person cannot be included as Black without being Black. (We will assume for the sake of argument that partially black people can be counted as Black). By writing Black, instead of omitting a word that should be extragenous, there is a conscious choice that the demand of civil rights protection extends to Blacks, to only Blacks, and solely Blacks, unless there exists a state where you can be included as being Black without being Black.
If I said civil protections should be Jew Trans, it would be clear that I am advocating for Jew Trans only, and for solely Jew Trans, otherwise I would had simply written Trans.
_____
On August 08 2018 02:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 02:18 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 08 2018 02:06 Plansix wrote:On August 08 2018 02:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 08 2018 01:58 Plansix wrote: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. I would also be against Irish Americans advocating for jails, financial reparations in the form of free lifetime education only, a guaranteed income, agricultural housing and land entitlements, national curriculum changes to favor Irishonly, and funding for land trusts, protection and increased funding for Irish institutions including Historically Irish Colleges and Universities (HBCU’s), Irish media, and cultural, political and social formations for Irish Americans only as well. You do realize that this systems in the US(or any country, really) are not naturally fair, right? That we still live in a nation where some states are trying to screw over black people? Blacks are being purged from voter registration in some states at this moment. The court recently overturned key parts of the Voter's Rights act, which allowed states that want to stop blacks from voting to take action without fear of the federal goverment preventing them from doing so. America has people in jail per capita than any other nation in the world, and a lot of them are black men. That may or may not be true, but is entirely consistent with my world view that what black people need is not special priviliges, but the prevention of being purged from voter registration in some states at this moment, the reversal of overturned key parts of the Voter's Rights act, and the federal goverment preventing states that want to stop blacks from voting to take action. Nor do I believe that Black people should be immune to being in jail. When did I say they should be immune to being in jail? I said the justice system was unfairly throwing massive numbers of black men in jail.
Indeed you did not write that. I agree that the American justice system was unfairly throwing massive numbers of black men in jail. But I am responding in response to the mission statements of the pamphlet.
The pamphlet writes:
We demand an end to the war
against Black people. Since this
country’s inception there have been
named and unnamed wars on our
communities. We demand an end
to the criminalization, incarceration,
and killing of our people.
This includes: ...
...10
Until we achieve a world where cages are no longer
used against our people we demand an immediate
change in conditions and an end to public jails,
detention centers, youth facilities and prisons as
we know them. This includes the end of solitary
confinement, the end of shackling of pregnant people,
access to quality healthcare, and effective measures
to address the needs of our youth, queer, gender
nonconforming and trans families"
Here the pamphlet argues that because there is a war against Black people that must end, including the incarceration of our people, (quite messianic this phrasing btw) the only focus is solely against Blacks. It cares not one jot for pregnant people, access to quality healthcare, and effective measures to address the needs of "our" youth, queer, gender nonconforming and trans families as long as they are not Black. My intepretation of the passage can mean that cages should not be used to jail black people, and only black people, special treatment for jailing does not extend to anyone that is not Black. But I suppose you can interpret as just messianic phrasing, so I will retract it.
___
On August 08 2018 02:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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 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. That assumes that white people didn’t receive any aid from that black people didn’t. Inter generational wealth says differently. If one side gets help and the other doesn’t it doesn’t make the other side inferior to need the same help to achieve parity. I’m not ashamed to say that I benefited very materially from the wealth and education of my parents. That may be true, but the sole requirement for aid should not be the colour of your skin. No Black born today in USA was alive when slavery ended. Should African migrants who would be born in poorer conditions, who are American citizens recieve such state privileges as free lifetime education and guaranteed income on the basis of their skin colour? It should be open to all irregardless of skin colour. It is unjustified to demand it for blacks, as if other skin colours recieve the same benefits, but blacks do not. If it is a question of Intergenerational wealth, then it should be open as a scheme to those who do not have a certain wealth irregardless of skin colour.
|
I do enjoy it when citizens from the UK/EU arrive and tell people in the US how our history with slavery and racism worked out. It is something that I really take to heart whenever I feel the urge to go talk about the history of the UK in the UK thread.
@Dangermousecatdog your objection to the phrasing of a pamphlet is noted, but the goals of groups like BLM are not so easily summed up. Furthermore, I would say that the entire pamphlet has an implied message the demand to stop the “criminalization, incarceration, and killing of our people” done solely due to the color of their skin. In a sense, don’t throw people in jail just for being black and existing in the US.
|
We could just end all unfair practices, right?
Let's start with identifying them.
And not just those that discriminate every marginalised group equally.
Whoops we ended up with many of the goals stated in the pamphlet.
You saying blm should include every marginalised group is the same as saying environmentalists should also advocate for feminism.
Those things might be strongly connected but you can always say a without having to say B.
Not supporting blacks/poc in their strife for equality because their programme doesn't encompass disabled white elderly trans men is just a fake argument
|
On August 08 2018 02:57 Plansix wrote:
I do enjoy it when citizens from the UK/EU arrive and tell people in the US how our history with slavery and racism worked out. Where did tell you how the history slavery and racism worked out in the US ? The sole reference I made to slavery was
"No Black born today in USA was alive when slavery ended."
As far as I can tell this is factually correct. If I am wrong, please tell me so. It shouldn't matter at all if I am from UK/EU. Stop that. That's racist. (This part is a joke btw)
|
On August 08 2018 03:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 02:57 Plansix wrote:
I do enjoy it when citizens from the UK/EU arrive and tell people in the US how our history with slavery and racism worked out. Where did I say that? The sole reference I made to slavery was "No Black born today in USA was alive when slavery ended." As far as I can tell this is factually correct. If I am wrong, please tell me so.
Because it implies that the playing field has been level for the slightly more than 150 years since we ended slavery. It has never been level. If it was, blacks would occupy somewhere around 20% of the positions of power in the US. They don't.
|
On August 08 2018 02:47 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 02:20 Mercy13 wrote:On August 08 2018 02:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 08 2018 02:00 Mercy13 wrote:On August 08 2018 01:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There's nothing wrong with galvanising the black community.
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 the focus on making black people a special privelige group was removed and all the special rights, funding, money, protections was simply made available to all irregardless of race. No it isn't. For example, the document proposes " An end to the war on Black trans, queer and gender nonconforming people including their addition to anti-discrimination civil rights protections to ensure they have full access to employment, health, housing and education." If a law is passed which makes trans people a protected class it would go a long way toward ending said war. Your argument is that the people who drafted the policy document would oppose this law because it doesn't ONLY help Black people. That's ridiculous. Like I said, the demand is only for blacks. If the demand was for all trans, queer and gender nonconforming people then I have no objection to such a demand. If that is your example of "object of my complaints that does not refer to blacks only" then as it refers to blacks only, it isn't a valid example of such. If you want to argue that it refers to all trans, queer and gender nonconforming people, then there would be no reason to add "Black" to the statement, it is clear that by including it, the demand for civil rights protection is solely applied to Blacks. I don't know what else to say other than to repeat that "An end to the war on Black..." means a different thing than "An end to the war only on Black..." "Only" is a word with a meaning, and when you add it to a sentence it changes the meaning of the sentence. I don't understand why you disagree with this. Like I said, the intention is clear, especially when repeated over the entirety of the pamphlet. A person cannot be included as Black without being Black. (We will assume for the sake of argument that partially black people can be counted as Black). By writing Black, instead of omitting a word that should be extragenous, there is a conscious choice that the demand of civil rights protection extends to Blacks, to only Blacks, and solely Blacks, unless there exists a state where you can be included as being Black without being Black. If I said civil protections should be Jew Trans, it would be clear that I am advocating for Jew Trans only, and for solely Jew Trans, otherwise I would had simply written Trans. _____ Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 02:21 Plansix wrote:On August 08 2018 02:18 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 08 2018 02:06 Plansix wrote:On August 08 2018 02:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 08 2018 01:58 Plansix wrote: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. I would also be against Irish Americans advocating for jails, financial reparations in the form of free lifetime education only, a guaranteed income, agricultural housing and land entitlements, national curriculum changes to favor Irishonly, and funding for land trusts, protection and increased funding for Irish institutions including Historically Irish Colleges and Universities (HBCU’s), Irish media, and cultural, political and social formations for Irish Americans only as well. You do realize that this systems in the US(or any country, really) are not naturally fair, right? That we still live in a nation where some states are trying to screw over black people? Blacks are being purged from voter registration in some states at this moment. The court recently overturned key parts of the Voter's Rights act, which allowed states that want to stop blacks from voting to take action without fear of the federal goverment preventing them from doing so. America has people in jail per capita than any other nation in the world, and a lot of them are black men. That may or may not be true, but is entirely consistent with my world view that what black people need is not special priviliges, but the prevention of being purged from voter registration in some states at this moment, the reversal of overturned key parts of the Voter's Rights act, and the federal goverment preventing states that want to stop blacks from voting to take action. Nor do I believe that Black people should be immune to being in jail. When did I say they should be immune to being in jail? I said the justice system was unfairly throwing massive numbers of black men in jail. Indeed you did not write that. I agree that the American justice system was unfairly throwing massive numbers of black men in jail. But I am responding in response to the mission statements of the pamphlet. The pamphlet writes: We demand an end to the war against Black people. Since this country’s inception there have been named and unnamed wars on our communities. We demand an end to the criminalization, incarceration, and killing of our people. This includes: ... ...10 Until we achieve a world where cages are no longer used against our people we demand an immediate change in conditions and an end to public jails, detention centers, youth facilities and prisons as we know them. This includes the end of solitary confinement, the end of shackling of pregnant people, access to quality healthcare, and effective measures to address the needs of our youth, queer, gender nonconforming and trans families" Here the pamphlet argues that because there is a war against Black people that must end, including the incarceration of our people, (quite messianic this phrasing btw) the only focus is solely against Blacks. It cares not one jot for pregnant people, access to quality healthcare, and effective measures to address the needs of "our" youth, queer, gender nonconforming and trans families as long as they are not Black. My intepretation of the passage can mean that cages should not be used to jail black people, and only black people, special treatment for jailing does not extend to anyone that is not Black. But I suppose you can interpret as just messianic phrasing, so I will retract it. ___ Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 02:31 KwarK wrote: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 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. That assumes that white people didn’t receive any aid from that black people didn’t. Inter generational wealth says differently. If one side gets help and the other doesn’t it doesn’t make the other side inferior to need the same help to achieve parity. I’m not ashamed to say that I benefited very materially from the wealth and education of my parents. That may be true, but the sole requirement for aid should not be the colour of your skin. No Black born today in USA was alive when slavery ended. Should African migrants who would be born in poorer conditions, who are American citizens recieve such state privileges as free lifetime education and guaranteed income on the basis of their skin colour? It should be open to all irregardless of skin colour. It is unjustified to demand it for blacks, as if other skin colours recieve the same benefits, but blacks do not. If it is a question of Intergenerational wealth, then it should be open as a scheme to those who do not have a certain wealth irregardless of skin colour.
Did you see my edit?
Edit: How is your argument different from the people who say "all lives matter" in response to "Black lives matter"? Or do you think that is an acceptable response?
|
I never said the playing field is level for the slightly more than 150 years since we ended slavery.
I never said that it has ever been level.
You are arguing that I have written or implied words that I have not.
Or you are reading too much into what I have written that are not there.
I agree that for the playing field is not level for the slightly more than 150 years since USA ended slavery.
I agree that it has never been level.
|
On August 08 2018 02:58 Artisreal wrote:
We could just end all unfair practices, right?
Let's start with identifying them.
And not just those that discriminate every marginalised group equally.
Whoops we ended up with many of the goals stated in the pamphlet.
You saying blm should include every marginalised group is the same as saying environmentalists should also advocate for feminism.
Those things might be strongly connected but you can always say a without having to say B.
Not supporting blacks/poc in their strife for equality because their programme doesn't encompass disabled white elderly trans men is just a fake argument
Maybe if you're trying to raise awareness of an issue.
But if you're trying to work from a concrete platform to suggest new policies, then that's not how it works.
If policymakers sat down at the table with BLM and tried to implement policies based off of their platform, in its current iteration it wouldn't include any protections for non-black minorities. Legally, this means they wouldn't have that protection. You can't just assume that if you give the black community something other communities will get it because that's not how written law works. Furthermore, you can't assume that BLM will just say "oh of course we want all minorities to have these protections" because they are a group focusing on BLACK lives and black community welfare.
Being an advocate for a certain thing doesn't preclude you from supporting another, but when you start advocating for specific policy changes, then you need to be more inclusive. Mercy13's insistent bickering over the lack of the word "only" in those statements is simply incorrect when it comes to policy and legal recourse.
This whole argument about BLM reminds me strikingly of the whole argument about how Trump won the election. The left refused to acknowledge the problem with their own candidate and party workings and how that contributed to their failures. Similarly, many social justice groups (not just BLM) refuse to acknowledge their strategic shortcomings and how some of their methods dont help their cause. They only want to be condescending to anyone that disagrees with them in any way, and this makes them no more intellectually virtuous than any of their political opponents.
|
I certainly agree that there cannot be an isolated solution policy wise. Though on a campaign level the groups I mentioned are far too heterogenous to be represented by blm. It also doesn't make any sense for blm to speak for them, as they have or do not have their own organisational bodies that represents them. (I do not know whether this is the case in the USA, lgbt people for example do have such a body here)
And this is what I was trying to say:
It does make sense for all marginalised groups to speak with one voice, it's not blm 's fault if that doesn't happen and they mainly voice their own agenda, although it might be shared by many other groups to a very high percentage.
This in a way is also a sign of appreciating the fact that oneself cannot speak for other groups as well as said group itself. Something many whites and men should appreciate and question more my opinion. (I basically criticise what I'm doing here, more or less, with a slight alteration that I'm sometimes aware of my speaking on the behalf of others without their consent. Here I feel its alright because it's clearly marked, I hope, as an interpretation of someone's thoughts/stance).
I still find it very unconvincing that poc/women should continue to suffer from their disadvantaged position because making a fuss about it annoys people who enjoy the status quo and don't want to be bothered.
I understand that the in your face attitude doesn't seem very constructive but if you think about what the other side has to endure on a daily basis, it's nothing, really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
