|
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 04:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +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 total 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.
Why? Presumably if BLM is able to get legislation passed protecting the rights of Black people it will apply to other marginalized groups as well. Or do you really think that they would fail to support legislation designed to protect marginalized groups generally because it doesn't focus on Black people exclusively?
As for your concerns about the methods of different social justice groups I don't know what the best strategy is. However, my instinct is that raising awareness using controversial rhetoric is more effective than being polite. People rarely hear about the latter, and when they do many still react negatively. White people flipped out when Black people started kneeling during NFL games, and they flipped out when Obama observed that if he had a son he would be perceived as Black. If they are going to flip out regardless you might was well not treat them with kid gloves.
|
A look behind the curtains a little. Ryan is being put in the position to temper Trump to avoid "tragedies." There is ample evidence that Kelly thinks Trump is a dangerous moron, yet he says he will remain in his position for as long as possible. One way to reconcile that is that he sees keeping Trump fron doing something overly stupid (a "tragedy" for example) as a patriotic duty.
For me this just adds to Ryan's cowardice. He and his komrades all know Trump is a dangerous fool because they see it first hand daily. Despite that they still kowtow publicly.
|
On August 08 2018 04:39 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 04:02 Stratos_speAr wrote: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 total 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. Why? Presumably if BLM is able to get legislation passed protecting the rights of Black people it will apply to other marginalized groups as well. Or do you really think that they would fail to support legislation designed to protect marginalized groups generally because it doesn't focus on Black people exclusively? As for your concerns about the methods of different social justice groups I don't know what the best strategy is. However, my instinct is that raising awareness using controversial rhetoric is more effective than being polite. People rarely hear about the latter, and when they do many still react negatively. White people flipped out when Black people started kneeling during NFL games, and they flipped out when Obama observed that if he had a son he would be perceived as Black. If they are going to flip out regardless you might was well not treat them with kid gloves.
"Presumably...it would apply to other marginalized groups as well".
I explained, in the post that you quoted, why you can't assume that.
First, that's not how legal actions and policy work. You need to be explicit.
Second, BLM doesn't advocate for others. They only advocate for the black community. They haven't shown any evidence that they'll step up to bat for other groups.
As for methods, it's clear that disruption works better. Being polite didn't make the Civil Rights Movement successful. However, being completely antagonistic and condescending to anyone that disagrees with you in any way isn't the right way to go either. There's a balance between "civil disobedience to raise awareness" and "obnoxious self- serving virtue signaling".
|
On August 08 2018 04:42 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 04:39 Mercy13 wrote:On August 08 2018 04:02 Stratos_speAr wrote: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 total 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. Why? Presumably if BLM is able to get legislation passed protecting the rights of Black people it will apply to other marginalized groups as well. Or do you really think that they would fail to support legislation designed to protect marginalized groups generally because it doesn't focus on Black people exclusively? As for your concerns about the methods of different social justice groups I don't know what the best strategy is. However, my instinct is that raising awareness using controversial rhetoric is more effective than being polite. People rarely hear about the latter, and when they do many still react negatively. White people flipped out when Black people started kneeling during NFL games, and they flipped out when Obama observed that if he had a son he would be perceived as Black. If they are going to flip out regardless you might was well not treat them with kid gloves. "Presumably...it would apply to other marginalized groups as well". I explained, in the post that you quoted, why you can't assume that. First, that's not how legal actions and policy work. You need to be explicit. Second, BLM doesn't advocate for others. They only advocate for the black community. They haven't shown any evidence that they'll step up to bat for other groups.
You made some naked assertions about that assumption, but didn't explain them... Is your view that the pamphlet was meant to provide model legislative language? If it were I would agree with you, but it clearly is not.
For your second point you should do some googling. BLM partners with dozens of organizations, many of which advocate for different marginalized groups, including many which endorsed that pamphlet. In addition their leaders frequently discuss the importance of intersectionality between social movements.
Edit: Just saw your edit. I don't think your advice for social movements to be disruptive, but not antagonistic and condescending is very helpful. You should talk to an actual activist.
|
On August 08 2018 03:09 Mercy13 wrote:Did you see my edit? Show nested quote +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?
What about it? All lives do truly matter. Just as all Black lives do truly matter. And White lives do truly matter. And people who are neither White or Black. Their Lives do truly Matter too. But the point is different to your pamphlet.
The "Black Live Matter" phrase implies that BLM wants the level of police brutality to Black lives be equalised.
The "BLM pamphlet" you gave me explicitly states its demands for Black lives to be privileged.
BLM is a waste of the perfect branding opportunity is my opinion. That they did not do so speak volumes. If they called themselves ALM, they would have not only made themselves not stupidly vulnerable to the accusation that they only care about black lives, but they would had been able to claim that they have garnered the support of everyone irregardless of race, to fight against police brutality in the USA. BLM sounds like BLaMe, as in blame the white people, whilst ALM sounds like ALarM, as in police brutality is alarming. What a waste of an opportunity.
Which yet again leads me to the conclusion that the real aim of BLM is to galvanise the black community for political and funding ends.
Which is actually fine. There's nothing particularily wrong with galvanising the black community.
|
On August 08 2018 05:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 03:09 Mercy13 wrote: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?
What about it? All lives do truly matter. Just as all Black lives do truly matter. And White lives do truly matter. And people who are neither White or Black. Their Lives do truly Matter too. But the point is different to your pamphlet. The "Black Live Matter" phrase implies that BLM wants the level of police brutality to Black lives be equalised. The "BLM pamphlet" you gave me explicitly states its demands for Black lives to be privileged. [snip]
It is correct that "all lives matter," but it is a shitty response to someone saying "black lives matter." It's like if someone said "save the rain forests!" and you respond with "actually, all forests matter." While true, it's completely unhelpful and misses the point entirely.
I think you need to read the pamphlet a third time.
Edit: And check out the groups who contributed to and endorsed it.
|
Wow, what an arrogant response Mercy13. It doesn't matter who endorses your pamphlet. Could be the pope or The Queen of England or Obama or Trump or whoever for all I care. I've written paragraphs setting out my thoughts against multiple enquiring people, sometimes at the same time. Go argue your own points or not at all. It's just a pisstake that your response is by appeal to authority.
|
On August 08 2018 05:25 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 05:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 08 2018 03:09 Mercy13 wrote: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?
What about it? All lives do truly matter. Just as all Black lives do truly matter. And White lives do truly matter. And people who are neither White or Black. Their Lives do truly Matter too. But the point is different to your pamphlet. The "Black Live Matter" phrase implies that BLM wants the level of police brutality to Black lives be equalised. The "BLM pamphlet" you gave me explicitly states its demands for Black lives to be privileged. [snip] It is correct that "all lives matter," but it is a shitty response to someone saying "black lives matter." It's like if someone said "save the rain forests!" and you respond with "actually, all forests matter." While true, it's completely unhelpful and misses the point entirely. I think you need to read the pamphlet a third time. Edit: And check out the groups who contributed to and endorsed it.
the list of endorsin groups says little of note. most of those are minor and/or local orgs. very few of them I recognize. so it might not mean anything other than that a bunch of groups with a bunch of names agreed to say something. That's a far cry from widespread support back and forth; it could just mean a bunch of tiny 5 member orgs, many of which have overlapping members, agreed to something.
|
Not every organisation needs to advocate for every oppressed minority. It is usually pointless to do that, as it completely deludes the message to a point that nothing ever gets done. The most successful protests are those with specific grievances.
It is pretty much impossible to advocate for everyone at once, and not necessary. A group that tries to equalize the lot of some minority is a good group. They tend to ally with other groups that try to help other minorities, because their goals often overlap. But saying "Well, that group doesn't talk about jewish black disabled elderly trans people, so lets complain about that instead of actually talking about the thing that they talk about" usually comes from people who are not actually interested in helping any minority, they just want to keep everything the same. And this helps them by not having to interact with the legitimate grievances a group might have, because they can dismiss it.
And if a group actually talks about every single minority group you can imagine, they are either so vague that everyone can agree, but nothing ever gets done because no one agrees on the same thing. "Make life better for everyone!"
Or their messaging gets so confusing that no one actually knows what they are about, and you can just dismiss them as way too diffuse.
|
Simberto, the pamphlet that Mercy13 has linked to claiming to represent BLM, advocates for the privilege of Blacks. It does not advocate against oppression except as a consequence of the demand of black privilege.
|
On August 08 2018 05:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Wow, what an arrogant response Mercy13. It doesn't matter who endorses your pamphlet. Could be the pope or The Queen of England or Obama or Trump or whoever for all I care. I've written paragraphs setting out my thoughts against multiple enquiring people, sometimes at the same time. Go argue your own points or not at all. It's just a pisstake that your response is by appeal to authority.
My point in bringing up the endorsements wasn't to appeal to authority. I wanted to point out that many of them advocate for multi-racial/race neutral policies. I should have been more clear about this.
|
On August 08 2018 05:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Simberto, the pamphlet that Mercy13 has linked to claiming to represent BLM, advocates for the privilege of Blacks. It does not advocate equality for any group.
Which was my point. It is not necessary for that group to advocate for everyone. They can stay concise with their messaging, and possibly ally with other groups who bring up similar goals for other groups. But they don't have to.
A clear and exact message is much more powerful than a very diffuse one. I do not see it as a good argument against a group that they only fight for one good goal, and not for all of them at once.
|
There is way to much focus on this pamphlet by folks in this thread. The pamphlet does not represent the entity of the BLM movement. It also does not strictly advocate for privileges for blacks at the expense of other races or minatory groups.
|
On August 08 2018 04:39 On_Slaught wrote:A look behind the curtains a little. Ryan is being put in the position to temper Trump to avoid "tragedies." There is ample evidence that Kelly thinks Trump is a dangerous moron, yet he says he will remain in his position for as long as possible. One way to reconcile that is that he sees keeping Trump fron doing something overly stupid (a "tragedy" for example) as a patriotic duty. https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1026890238394810371For me this just adds to Ryan's cowardice. He and his komrades all know Trump is a dangerous fool because they see it first hand daily. Despite that they still kowtow publicly.
Perhaps Kelly and Ryan just have a very different definition of what a tragedy is.
|
In regards to the uproar from conservatives about "censorship" following Alex Jones being kicked off of social media, infowars itself offers the perfect rebuttal in its terms of service, from the section on publishing articles.
Remember: you are a guest here. It is not censorship if you violate the rules and your post is deleted. All civilizations have rules and if you violate them you can expect to be ostracized from the tribe. www.infowars.com
EDIT: It is, of course, completely obvious that infowars does not apply its terms of service, because two paragraphs above that is You will not post anything libelous, defamatory, harmful, threatening, harassing, abusive, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, racially or ethnically objectionable, or otherwise illegal.
It's still deliciously ironic to be able to quote Alex Jones to justify the action of Alex Jones being ostracized.
|
That Tulsa article from Wikipedia was disgusting. Apparently, the black community got collectively blamed for the riot in court by an all-white jury. I don't want to believe that this is only 87 years ago; to think that I met someone who was alive at the time (although they were not related to it at all) is deeply disturbing.
|
On August 07 2018 23:57 Ryzel wrote:
GH, you could just explain to Jock what MLK’s point was instead of being obtuse for the sake of...getting people riled up I guess. Although now that I put it that way, that pretty much is your MO about everything so your posting habits make a lot of sense now.
Anyway, MLKs point is that white moderates are complacent with the status quo, and that while they sympathize/pay lip-service to the plight of African-Americans, its not enough to actually help them in a meaningful way. It’s like the difference between an activist who works in a soup kitchen every weekend, and some guy who donates his old clothes/furniture to Salvation Army when there’s too much clutter. You could say both are helping the cause, but there’s a clear difference between both the intent and impact of the two people. MLKs (and now GHs) plight is to try and convert enough of the latter to the former so that a majority can be formed to create meaningful political change, but the white moderate has demonstrated strong resistance to that conversion process.
There seems to be some misunderstanding that the goal of black activism is to get those with racist far-right views to be more like white moderates. That isn’t the case. You could replace every far-right bigot with a white moderate and it wouldn’t change anything meaningful long-term for the issues the black community faces.
well...
On August 08 2018 00:35 Jockmcplop wrote:
I've had this exact conversation with GH at least twice.
I have. I've explained, quoted, and referenced it dozens of times, P6 as well. Somehow people are just thoroughly convinced that he isn't talking about them and their "be nicer to white moderates and maybe they'll get their shit together eventually" (spoiler , they don't) arguments.
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.
Black Panthers and their policy prescriptions are leaps and bounds better than Democrats then or now.
On August 08 2018 01:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2018 01:38 Plansix wrote: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.
Bruh, we gotta talk. This is not a good look. I used to buy into the propaganda that taught me this too. Please, please, please, actually learn about them. I suggest you start with the Fred Hampton documentary.
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.
Seriously, look up what Fred Hampton was doing and how the US government rewarded him for setting the example you describe.
On August 08 2018 05:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Wow, what an arrogant response Mercy13. It doesn't matter who endorses your pamphlet. Could be the pope or The Queen of England or Obama or Trump or whoever for all I care. I've written paragraphs setting out my thoughts against multiple enquiring people, sometimes at the same time. Go argue your own points or not at all. It's just a pisstake that your response is by appeal to authority.
Every post of yours on this topic has been arrogantly ignorant. You clearly have very little grasp on how your arguments have been dealt with for decades.
|
On August 08 2018 06:11 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
That Tulsa article from Wikipedia was disgusting. Apparently, the black community got collectively blamed for the riot in court by an all-white jury. I don't want to believe that this is only 87 years ago; to think that I met someone who was alive at the time (although they were not related to it at all) is deeply disturbing.
Now magnify this by a couple thousand and maybe then it becomes a little clearer why European posters are sometimes a lot more cautious about the rethoric used by {not just} extreme right wingers.
Ww2 started about 79 years ago.
Edit: oh, this is not directed at you in particular. Sorry if that didn't come across.
|
On August 08 2018 06:11 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
That Tulsa article from Wikipedia was disgusting. Apparently, the black community got collectively blamed for the riot in court by an all-white jury. I don't want to believe that this is only 87 years ago; to think that I met someone who was alive at the time (although they were not related to it at all) is deeply disturbing.
We don't teach that one in the US history because there is no happy ending. Its just a middle class white community fire bombing a black community into the ground because the black community dared to challenge them. And the challenge was black folk rushing to stop a lynching. And after all was said and done, nothing happened. We, as a nation, stayed exactly as we were.
|
On August 08 2018 06:11 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
That Tulsa article from Wikipedia was disgusting. Apparently, the black community got collectively blamed for the riot in court by an all-white jury. I don't want to believe that this is only 87 years ago; to think that I met someone who was alive at the time (although they were not related to it at all) is deeply disturbing.
yeah, lotsa bad stuff happens at times. very plausible for something like that to happen 87 years ago.
Things have been getting better over time; though of course there continue to be incidents of varying scale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
