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 re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On July 14 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote: I feel like this shouldn't really need saying but whatever. Inequality didn't disappear with the end of slavery.
Never said it did. However, if a black student performs well at their HS, we have relaxed admissions standards for minorities that should help in college admissions to make up for the worse education that blacks receive on average. There's also the issue of probable dual causality in why the schools in AA communities are usually worse in the first place: 1) They have worse funding (should be fixed) 2) Teachers can't teach because the schools are chaos and students don't care about learning.
How do you propose to solve problem (2) without reforming black culture?
EDIT: More directly, social mobility is still alive and well in most of America. Inequality isn't limited to AAs.
More positive images of blacks succeeding in life outside of sports. Show them there are other avenues to pursue than sports or rap. But when you already know you're gonna be selling drugs at 14 for the rest of your life, you kinda resign to your fate and say fuck school. :/
I agree 100%. The Democrats should be spending money to inspire the AA youth that they can indeed rise of poverty. That will make a much larger impact than BLM, and returning fathers from prison isn't going to fix problems when children have the issues you stated even when their dads are around.
On July 14 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote: I feel like this shouldn't really need saying but whatever. Inequality didn't disappear with the end of slavery.
Never said it did. However, if a black student performs well at their HS, we have relaxed admissions standards for minorities that should help in college admissions to make up for the worse education that blacks receive on average. There's also the issue of probable dual causality in why the schools in AA communities are usually worse in the first place: 1) They have worse funding (should be fixed) 2) Teachers can't teach because the schools are chaos and students don't care about learning.
How do you propose to solve problem (2) without reforming black culture?
More positive images of blacks succeeding in life outside of sports. Show them there are other avenues to pursue than sports or rap. But when you already know you're gonna be selling drugs at 14 for the rest of your life, you kinda resign to your fate and say fuck school. :/
On July 13 2017 10:25 KwarK wrote: Are we forgetting that the Trump voters actually didn't like Obama because he was black? Or are we just not supposed to talk about that? Birtherism didn't happen in a vacuum.
::Dems have problems convincing poor families struggling to get by that they're members of the privileged class and didn't like Obama because he was black or Hillary because she was a woman Kwark: Trump voters actually didn't like Obama because he was black.
There we have it, gentlemen. The ultimate perpetuating loop of rationalizing the division and justifying it. Please have some consultant in the Democrat's 2020 campaign that likes "You're all racists. No, really, I can prove it to you!"
You'll have to do a better job hiding the fact that you detest Republican voters and a vote against Obama was partially motivated by Obama's race.
On July 13 2017 10:30 zlefin wrote:
On July 13 2017 10:19 Danglars wrote:
On July 13 2017 09:53 rageprotosscheesy wrote: [quote]
And that's really the problem. If the Republicans were somewhat sensible and consistent, it'd be something. But they're clearly not, a lot of their opinions shift dramatically just because Fox News drum up some narrative. The majority of opinion polls show a dramatic shift in opinion towards Russia/Putin the minute Fox News started drumming up support for Trump. Similarly with regards to things like the the current state of the economy that can't realistically change in a matter of months.
Republicans, unlike China, aren't remotely ideologically consistent at this point, outside of certain social issues like supporting Confederate monuments, cutting taxes and abolishing abortion.
You're missing the reactionary element. It's very consistent to oppose the group of people that despise who you are and what you do. Dems are great if you're a poor Democrat voter or a minority. If you're white, or poor but oppose their poverty ideas, or middle class, you're resented or hated. They made it a little too obvious with the "deplorables" comment from Hillary and the constant drum beat of "Trump voters are racist."
If Democrats concealed their message of disunity and dislike of uneducated flyover voters, they'd have a better shot at winning elections. Now, they're basically stuck pandering to their coastal base and firing jabs at Trump (makes himself an easy target, obviously) and talking about how dumb everybody is with their ideological inconsistencies. This script--convincing poor families struggling to get by that they're members of the privileged class and didn't like Obama because he was black or Hillary because she was a woman--will take years to rewrite.
Current plan seems to be doubling down on the widespread electoral disasters of the last seven years.
odd; then why does the Republican message of disunity and their open numerous insults to many Americans, and their dislike of people who live in cities/coasts, succeed? it's a mirror of the same thing; so why does it work for one and not the other?
Care to elaborate? Reactionary doesn't presume that this is the first cause-effect go-around.
what's to elaborate on? the republicans use a message of disunity, and show open dislike of the people living in cities/coasts. you say the Dems have a message of disunity and dislike of uneducated flyover voters. and that that hurts their chances. why does the strategy work for republicans, yet not work for democrats? this isn't really relevant to the reactionary part. it's a simple question of why does a strategy work for one side and not the other.
What's the message and why do you think it's one of disunity?
that's not an answer to my question. can you please answer the question asked?
as to your questoin: if I'm going to accept for purposes of this discussion your claim that the dems have a message of disunity and dislike of flyover voters; it seems reasonable for you to accept my claim that reps have a message of disunity and a dislike of urban/coastal voters. why would you doubt it given how often some republicans rant about those exact voter groups? I don't see the republican message as being inclusive to all americans, it clearly is unfriendly toward some. thus, disunity. it's also an utterly typical political tactics, so i'd expect to see if found everywhere on all sides. you might claim the message isn't one of disunity, just as I might claim the dems isn't one of disunity. it's not that hard to spin the messages so they look good/bad, not with so much partisanship flying around.
@danglars this musta gotten missed in the overnight transition; I'd still like to hear your answer.
I detailed what I thought was divisive; you just took for granted some opposite message without explanation. I'm not in the mood to indulge in hypotheticals or see you moan about both sides doing the same thing. If you'll remember, I responded to a post about the ideological consistency of Republican views and focused on a reactionary spirit, which you may read again in the quote train if you forgot.
So it's cool to criticize Democrats, but it's not cool to recognize that Republicans are worthy of similar criticism. Am I reading this right?
Nah, you're doing it wrong. It isn't sufficient to assume both sides do x without evidence after I got done showing the three or so examples that fit my argument. You actually got to tell me what you're talking about.
On July 13 2017 10:25 KwarK wrote: Are we forgetting that the Trump voters actually didn't like Obama because he was black? Or are we just not supposed to talk about that? Birtherism didn't happen in a vacuum.
::Dems have problems convincing poor families struggling to get by that they're members of the privileged class and didn't like Obama because he was black or Hillary because she was a woman Kwark: Trump voters actually didn't like Obama because he was black.
There we have it, gentlemen. The ultimate perpetuating loop of rationalizing the division and justifying it. Please have some consultant in the Democrat's 2020 campaign that likes "You're all racists. No, really, I can prove it to you!"
You'll have to do a better job hiding the fact that you detest Republican voters and a vote against Obama was partially motivated by Obama's race.
On July 13 2017 10:30 zlefin wrote:
On July 13 2017 10:19 Danglars wrote:
On July 13 2017 09:53 rageprotosscheesy wrote: [quote]
And that's really the problem. If the Republicans were somewhat sensible and consistent, it'd be something. But they're clearly not, a lot of their opinions shift dramatically just because Fox News drum up some narrative. The majority of opinion polls show a dramatic shift in opinion towards Russia/Putin the minute Fox News started drumming up support for Trump. Similarly with regards to things like the the current state of the economy that can't realistically change in a matter of months.
Republicans, unlike China, aren't remotely ideologically consistent at this point, outside of certain social issues like supporting Confederate monuments, cutting taxes and abolishing abortion.
You're missing the reactionary element. It's very consistent to oppose the group of people that despise who you are and what you do. Dems are great if you're a poor Democrat voter or a minority. If you're white, or poor but oppose their poverty ideas, or middle class, you're resented or hated. They made it a little too obvious with the "deplorables" comment from Hillary and the constant drum beat of "Trump voters are racist."
If Democrats concealed their message of disunity and dislike of uneducated flyover voters, they'd have a better shot at winning elections. Now, they're basically stuck pandering to their coastal base and firing jabs at Trump (makes himself an easy target, obviously) and talking about how dumb everybody is with their ideological inconsistencies. This script--convincing poor families struggling to get by that they're members of the privileged class and didn't like Obama because he was black or Hillary because she was a woman--will take years to rewrite.
Current plan seems to be doubling down on the widespread electoral disasters of the last seven years.
odd; then why does the Republican message of disunity and their open numerous insults to many Americans, and their dislike of people who live in cities/coasts, succeed? it's a mirror of the same thing; so why does it work for one and not the other?
Care to elaborate? Reactionary doesn't presume that this is the first cause-effect go-around.
what's to elaborate on? the republicans use a message of disunity, and show open dislike of the people living in cities/coasts. you say the Dems have a message of disunity and dislike of uneducated flyover voters. and that that hurts their chances. why does the strategy work for republicans, yet not work for democrats? this isn't really relevant to the reactionary part. it's a simple question of why does a strategy work for one side and not the other.
What's the message and why do you think it's one of disunity?
that's not an answer to my question. can you please answer the question asked?
as to your questoin: if I'm going to accept for purposes of this discussion your claim that the dems have a message of disunity and dislike of flyover voters; it seems reasonable for you to accept my claim that reps have a message of disunity and a dislike of urban/coastal voters. why would you doubt it given how often some republicans rant about those exact voter groups? I don't see the republican message as being inclusive to all americans, it clearly is unfriendly toward some. thus, disunity. it's also an utterly typical political tactics, so i'd expect to see if found everywhere on all sides. you might claim the message isn't one of disunity, just as I might claim the dems isn't one of disunity. it's not that hard to spin the messages so they look good/bad, not with so much partisanship flying around.
@danglars this musta gotten missed in the overnight transition; I'd still like to hear your answer.
I detailed what I thought was divisive; you just took for granted some opposite message without explanation. I'm not in the mood to indulge in hypotheticals or see you moan about both sides doing the same thing. If you'll remember, I responded to a post about the ideological consistency of Republican views and focused on a reactionary spirit, which you may read again in the quote train if you forgot.
ok, I'll take that to mean you're arguing in bad faith, as you refuse to answer an eminently reasonable question, and I did explain it sufficiently, you're simply unwilling to admit the basic fact that the republicans (as with the democrats) sometimes use messages that are disunited and disparage various groups of americans, I need not cite specific ones for it to be abundantly clear that such things occur. I indulged in your hypothetical, and you refused to indulge in mine. Whatever you responded to initially doesn't change the validity of my point. Attacking an outgroup, which mostly consists of the other sides' voters (or people outside the country), is a very basic political tactic since forever. as such I will disregard your complaints about dem's lack of unity, as you're unwilling to look at the exact same problems as they occur from your side, and thus display high levels of bias.
I take it you just want to assume everything Democrats do that is bad, divisive, or whatever is equally true about Republicans and simply alleging they do the same is enough to demand I defend it. It's total poppycock. I named the messages, I named the connection, and I named its relevance. You're arguing in absentia "sometimes it happens duhh" without the least bit of honesty. I'm risking repeating myself just to get you familiar with the central problem: the reactionary backlash to Democrats use of identity politics and open disdain for middle America and rust belt issues. If all you got is "but but Republicans are guilty of the same" and won't put it in words your comparison and establish relevance to my point, you have no point and you're better off responding "No" when I ask you to elaborate.
On July 14 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote: I feel like this shouldn't really need saying but whatever. Inequality didn't disappear with the end of slavery.
Never said it did. However, if a black student performs well at their HS, we have relaxed admissions standards for minorities that should help in college admissions to make up for the worse education that blacks receive on average. There's also the issue of probable dual causality in why the schools in AA communities are usually worse in the first place: 1) They have worse funding (should be fixed) 2) Teachers can't teach because the schools are chaos and students don't care about learning.
How do you propose to solve problem (2) without reforming black culture?
More positive images of blacks succeeding in life outside of sports. Show them there are other avenues to pursue than sports or rap. But when you already know you're gonna be selling drugs at 14 for the rest of your life, you kinda resign to your fate and say fuck school. :/
I agree 100%. The Democrats should be spending money to inspire the AA youth that they can indeed rise of poverty. That will make a much larger impact than BLM, and returning fathers from prison isn't going to fix problems when children have the issues you stated even when their dads are around.
I don't think we should assign a party to this at all. Both major parties need to be held accountable for uplifting all Americans as best they can from abject poverty. Small steps can be taken to make life more bearable and worth living.
On July 13 2017 10:25 KwarK wrote: Are we forgetting that the Trump voters actually didn't like Obama because he was black? Or are we just not supposed to talk about that? Birtherism didn't happen in a vacuum.
::Dems have problems convincing poor families struggling to get by that they're members of the privileged class and didn't like Obama because he was black or Hillary because she was a woman Kwark: Trump voters actually didn't like Obama because he was black.
There we have it, gentlemen. The ultimate perpetuating loop of rationalizing the division and justifying it. Please have some consultant in the Democrat's 2020 campaign that likes "You're all racists. No, really, I can prove it to you!"
You'll have to do a better job hiding the fact that you detest Republican voters and a vote against Obama was partially motivated by Obama's race.
On July 13 2017 10:30 zlefin wrote:
On July 13 2017 10:19 Danglars wrote: [quote] You're missing the reactionary element. It's very consistent to oppose the group of people that despise who you are and what you do. Dems are great if you're a poor Democrat voter or a minority. If you're white, or poor but oppose their poverty ideas, or middle class, you're resented or hated. They made it a little too obvious with the "deplorables" comment from Hillary and the constant drum beat of "Trump voters are racist."
If Democrats concealed their message of disunity and dislike of uneducated flyover voters, they'd have a better shot at winning elections. Now, they're basically stuck pandering to their coastal base and firing jabs at Trump (makes himself an easy target, obviously) and talking about how dumb everybody is with their ideological inconsistencies. This script--convincing poor families struggling to get by that they're members of the privileged class and didn't like Obama because he was black or Hillary because she was a woman--will take years to rewrite.
Current plan seems to be doubling down on the widespread electoral disasters of the last seven years.
odd; then why does the Republican message of disunity and their open numerous insults to many Americans, and their dislike of people who live in cities/coasts, succeed? it's a mirror of the same thing; so why does it work for one and not the other?
Care to elaborate? Reactionary doesn't presume that this is the first cause-effect go-around.
what's to elaborate on? the republicans use a message of disunity, and show open dislike of the people living in cities/coasts. you say the Dems have a message of disunity and dislike of uneducated flyover voters. and that that hurts their chances. why does the strategy work for republicans, yet not work for democrats? this isn't really relevant to the reactionary part. it's a simple question of why does a strategy work for one side and not the other.
What's the message and why do you think it's one of disunity?
that's not an answer to my question. can you please answer the question asked?
as to your questoin: if I'm going to accept for purposes of this discussion your claim that the dems have a message of disunity and dislike of flyover voters; it seems reasonable for you to accept my claim that reps have a message of disunity and a dislike of urban/coastal voters. why would you doubt it given how often some republicans rant about those exact voter groups? I don't see the republican message as being inclusive to all americans, it clearly is unfriendly toward some. thus, disunity. it's also an utterly typical political tactics, so i'd expect to see if found everywhere on all sides. you might claim the message isn't one of disunity, just as I might claim the dems isn't one of disunity. it's not that hard to spin the messages so they look good/bad, not with so much partisanship flying around.
@danglars this musta gotten missed in the overnight transition; I'd still like to hear your answer.
I detailed what I thought was divisive; you just took for granted some opposite message without explanation. I'm not in the mood to indulge in hypotheticals or see you moan about both sides doing the same thing. If you'll remember, I responded to a post about the ideological consistency of Republican views and focused on a reactionary spirit, which you may read again in the quote train if you forgot.
ok, I'll take that to mean you're arguing in bad faith, as you refuse to answer an eminently reasonable question, and I did explain it sufficiently, you're simply unwilling to admit the basic fact that the republicans (as with the democrats) sometimes use messages that are disunited and disparage various groups of americans, I need not cite specific ones for it to be abundantly clear that such things occur. I indulged in your hypothetical, and you refused to indulge in mine. Whatever you responded to initially doesn't change the validity of my point. Attacking an outgroup, which mostly consists of the other sides' voters (or people outside the country), is a very basic political tactic since forever. as such I will disregard your complaints about dem's lack of unity, as you're unwilling to look at the exact same problems as they occur from your side, and thus display high levels of bias.
I take it you just want to assume everything Democrats do that is bad, divisive, or whatever is equally true about Republicans and simply alleging they do the same is enough to demand I defend it. It's total poppycock. I named the messages, I named the connection, and I named its relevance. You're arguing in absentia "sometimes it happens duhh" without the least bit of honesty. I'm risking repeating myself just to get you familiar with the central problem: the reactionary backlash to Democrats use of identity politics and open disdain for middle America and rust belt issues. If all you got is "but but Republicans are guilty of the same" and won't put it in words your comparison and establish relevance to my point, you have no point and you're better off responding "No" when I ask you to elaborate.
yes, you're arguing in bad faith, I get it. here's the thing: I assume you're vaguely aware of american politics, and if you were, you'd have heard of such things happening, since you haven't, you clearly are not aware of anything in american politics. second, once I post the examples of divisiveness, you're going to claim they're not divisive using some lame excuse, constantly quibble on that point, and perpetually dodge answering my actual question. you also continue to lie by claiming the dems show open disdain for rust belt issues; they've done plenty of work to try to fix the issues, and more work than the republicans have. you want me to bring in GH to argue that the republicans show a disdain for issues that black americans face? I'd think anyone in the thread would have heard about it by now. you deny that some republicans show open disdain for the "coastal elites and city-folk"
you also lie by saying I assume it's equally true simply because; I say it's true because I've seen it, it's easy to see when the other side does it, it's less visible to a person when it's your side donig it. being on the more dem-ish side, I've seen plenty of divisive republican rhetoric. also, you continue to lie with the farce about identity politics while refusing to admit that republicans ENGAGE in identity politics to a great deal, that identity being christian, with also some white and male parts. thus proving again you're not acting in good faith, by claiming some nebulous "identity politics" and refusing to admit to your own side's equal use of it.
I also didn't ask you to "defend" it, I asked you why it worked for one side and not the other.
On July 13 2017 10:25 KwarK wrote: Are we forgetting that the Trump voters actually didn't like Obama because he was black? Or are we just not supposed to talk about that? Birtherism didn't happen in a vacuum.
::Dems have problems convincing poor families struggling to get by that they're members of the privileged class and didn't like Obama because he was black or Hillary because she was a woman Kwark: Trump voters actually didn't like Obama because he was black.
There we have it, gentlemen. The ultimate perpetuating loop of rationalizing the division and justifying it. Please have some consultant in the Democrat's 2020 campaign that likes "You're all racists. No, really, I can prove it to you!"
You'll have to do a better job hiding the fact that you detest Republican voters and a vote against Obama was partially motivated by Obama's race.
On July 13 2017 10:30 zlefin wrote:
On July 13 2017 10:19 Danglars wrote: [quote] You're missing the reactionary element. It's very consistent to oppose the group of people that despise who you are and what you do. Dems are great if you're a poor Democrat voter or a minority. If you're white, or poor but oppose their poverty ideas, or middle class, you're resented or hated. They made it a little too obvious with the "deplorables" comment from Hillary and the constant drum beat of "Trump voters are racist."
If Democrats concealed their message of disunity and dislike of uneducated flyover voters, they'd have a better shot at winning elections. Now, they're basically stuck pandering to their coastal base and firing jabs at Trump (makes himself an easy target, obviously) and talking about how dumb everybody is with their ideological inconsistencies. This script--convincing poor families struggling to get by that they're members of the privileged class and didn't like Obama because he was black or Hillary because she was a woman--will take years to rewrite.
Current plan seems to be doubling down on the widespread electoral disasters of the last seven years.
odd; then why does the Republican message of disunity and their open numerous insults to many Americans, and their dislike of people who live in cities/coasts, succeed? it's a mirror of the same thing; so why does it work for one and not the other?
Care to elaborate? Reactionary doesn't presume that this is the first cause-effect go-around.
what's to elaborate on? the republicans use a message of disunity, and show open dislike of the people living in cities/coasts. you say the Dems have a message of disunity and dislike of uneducated flyover voters. and that that hurts their chances. why does the strategy work for republicans, yet not work for democrats? this isn't really relevant to the reactionary part. it's a simple question of why does a strategy work for one side and not the other.
What's the message and why do you think it's one of disunity?
that's not an answer to my question. can you please answer the question asked?
as to your questoin: if I'm going to accept for purposes of this discussion your claim that the dems have a message of disunity and dislike of flyover voters; it seems reasonable for you to accept my claim that reps have a message of disunity and a dislike of urban/coastal voters. why would you doubt it given how often some republicans rant about those exact voter groups? I don't see the republican message as being inclusive to all americans, it clearly is unfriendly toward some. thus, disunity. it's also an utterly typical political tactics, so i'd expect to see if found everywhere on all sides. you might claim the message isn't one of disunity, just as I might claim the dems isn't one of disunity. it's not that hard to spin the messages so they look good/bad, not with so much partisanship flying around.
@danglars this musta gotten missed in the overnight transition; I'd still like to hear your answer.
I detailed what I thought was divisive; you just took for granted some opposite message without explanation. I'm not in the mood to indulge in hypotheticals or see you moan about both sides doing the same thing. If you'll remember, I responded to a post about the ideological consistency of Republican views and focused on a reactionary spirit, which you may read again in the quote train if you forgot.
So it's cool to criticize Democrats, but it's not cool to recognize that Republicans are worthy of similar criticism. Am I reading this right?
Nah, you're doing it wrong. It isn't sufficient to assume both sides do x without evidence after I got done showing the three or so examples that fit my argument. You actually got to tell me what you're talking about.
Well seeing as it wasn't my argument I'm not going to throw myself into things, I just thought I'd point out your willingness to criticize Democrats, but not Republicans. And if you really think Republicans don't also do what you accuse Democrats of, might I suggest you reread any number of old articles detailing predominant partisan electoral strategies. You seem to like telling people to go and read up on the subject yourself.
So your whole argument boils down to "well I don't have to do anything beacuse I know what you'll say" and you say hes arguing in bad faith? You're trying to act all high and mightly as if you're the one playing 4d chess and you want us all to know how the next 4 moves are going to happen.
Thats not how arguments work thats just how insults work zelfin.
On July 13 2017 10:25 KwarK wrote: Are we forgetting that the Trump voters actually didn't like Obama because he was black? Or are we just not supposed to talk about that? Birtherism didn't happen in a vacuum.
::Dems have problems convincing poor families struggling to get by that they're members of the privileged class and didn't like Obama because he was black or Hillary because she was a woman Kwark: Trump voters actually didn't like Obama because he was black.
There we have it, gentlemen. The ultimate perpetuating loop of rationalizing the division and justifying it. Please have some consultant in the Democrat's 2020 campaign that likes "You're all racists. No, really, I can prove it to you!"
You'll have to do a better job hiding the fact that you detest Republican voters and a vote against Obama was partially motivated by Obama's race.
On July 13 2017 10:30 zlefin wrote: [quote] odd; then why does the Republican message of disunity and their open numerous insults to many Americans, and their dislike of people who live in cities/coasts, succeed? it's a mirror of the same thing; so why does it work for one and not the other?
Care to elaborate? Reactionary doesn't presume that this is the first cause-effect go-around.
what's to elaborate on? the republicans use a message of disunity, and show open dislike of the people living in cities/coasts. you say the Dems have a message of disunity and dislike of uneducated flyover voters. and that that hurts their chances. why does the strategy work for republicans, yet not work for democrats? this isn't really relevant to the reactionary part. it's a simple question of why does a strategy work for one side and not the other.
What's the message and why do you think it's one of disunity?
that's not an answer to my question. can you please answer the question asked?
as to your questoin: if I'm going to accept for purposes of this discussion your claim that the dems have a message of disunity and dislike of flyover voters; it seems reasonable for you to accept my claim that reps have a message of disunity and a dislike of urban/coastal voters. why would you doubt it given how often some republicans rant about those exact voter groups? I don't see the republican message as being inclusive to all americans, it clearly is unfriendly toward some. thus, disunity. it's also an utterly typical political tactics, so i'd expect to see if found everywhere on all sides. you might claim the message isn't one of disunity, just as I might claim the dems isn't one of disunity. it's not that hard to spin the messages so they look good/bad, not with so much partisanship flying around.
@danglars this musta gotten missed in the overnight transition; I'd still like to hear your answer.
I detailed what I thought was divisive; you just took for granted some opposite message without explanation. I'm not in the mood to indulge in hypotheticals or see you moan about both sides doing the same thing. If you'll remember, I responded to a post about the ideological consistency of Republican views and focused on a reactionary spirit, which you may read again in the quote train if you forgot.
So it's cool to criticize Democrats, but it's not cool to recognize that Republicans are worthy of similar criticism. Am I reading this right?
Nah, you're doing it wrong. It isn't sufficient to assume both sides do x without evidence after I got done showing the three or so examples that fit my argument. You actually got to tell me what you're talking about.
Well seeing as it wasn't my argument I'm not going to throw myself into things, I just thought I'd point out your willingness to criticize Democrats, but not Republicans. And if you really think Republicans don't also do what you accuse Democrats of, might I suggest you reread any number of old articles detailing predominant partisan electoral strategies. You seem to like telling people to go and read up on the subject yourself.
I've seen danglers critize republicans a lot. You're the one thats refusing to respond to any of his posts without anything more then "trust me I know more then you".
That's a...pretty dumb view of history you have there.
"Asia" is not a culture any more than "Africa" is. And Asia as a whole had very long periods of war, conquest and violence across the thousands of cultures that spanned even more years, and mostly reached some forms of stability and nationhood because there were clear winners over significant periods of time.
Same as Europe, really.
Both continents were just "fortunate" enough to have their periods of war and conquest contained within their convenient continental labels. And, of course, to have reached some level of nationhood, stability and nationhood before other parts of the world reached them.
(Which also completely ignores the regions in Asia that were conquered by European nations)
You completely ignored my point and made a veiled accusation of ignorance/ethnocentrism. I'm actually extremely familiar with Asian history, but it wasn't relevant to my point.
East Asia culture is heavily influenced by Confucianism, which places social value on the characteristics I listed: "culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability." That is entirely noncontroversial, and based on historical flows of culture and information. Furthermore, the discussion is based on the present-day, where East Asia usually refers to Korea, Japan, and China. I'm not talking about hundreds of cultures from history.
If you had read carefully, you'd have noticed I never listed anything that says that East Asians are any less violent between states than Europeans. So next time please read what I said instead of assuming my ignorance on an off-topic point and giving me a lecture about it.
Your point just sucks then.
North American culture is heavily influenced by Christian religion, which places social value on the same things. African-Americans are a part of North American culture. Therefore African-Americans are peaceful, QED or something.
I'd recommend not trying to broad-stroke the entirety of China, or Korea, or Japan, as a comparison point.
It's not even relevant to my point that Confucianism influenced all three cultures. I only mentioned Confucianism to justify why I grouped the three together for a point about what academics agree are Confucian values held in the culture of all three countries. Not to mention, my reference to Asia was a subpoint in a larger argument that you've totally ignored. Your posts have literally served no purpose other than to play overzealous and misguided "PC Police." Sorry you're butthurt that you got embarrassingly caught in your game of "Grandstand the Ignorant Ethnocentrist!"
The point is that Korea, Japan, and China share the cultural values of "work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability." I didn't make cultural any claims beyond that, and you haven't even denied that those countries' cultures do share those traits. That claim isn't even remotely controversial, which is why your outrage is so silly and immature. All you've done is obstinately object that I dare try to group the three together for any cultural reason whatsoever, and tell me "your point just sucks then." You've added nothing of value to this discussion. Go troll somewhere else.
In fact, let me expand my "broad-stroke" and say that you can include Taiwan along with Korea, Japan, and China for the purposes of this discussion.
To quote the entire post I responded to:
Lots of cultures throughout the world have been as poor/poorer than the African American community and managed to raise themselves out of poverty. See Asia. The difference is that the Asians (despite their own issues with racism and other problems) have a culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability, etc.
Poverty doesn't necessarily lead to violence. Figuring out to change black culture to be less self-destructive would be a much more productive use of time than accusing whites of privilege and microaggressions.
I mean, you literally say here that the African American community can raise itself out of poverty because Asia did it. And Asians did it because they have a better culture than African Americans.
If you don't want to be called out on bad posts, don't make bad posts.
I was clearly referring to economically successful countries in Asia by the context. Which would imply... drum roll... Taiwan, Japan, Korea, China. Those countries share certain traits in their culture, which I listed explicitly and is a fact that you still haven't denied is true because common knowledge.
I'm done responding to a grandstanding troll. Come back if you want to have a real discussion. You're literally doing nothing but saying "You grouped Asia together" when it was clear from context and my following posts that it wasn't my attention. I've made several long posts with at least plausible logic and ideas going back several pages. That's a lot more effort than this troll sequence from you where you've done nothing but say "but but but you grouped 'Asia'", so maybe do some self-reflection before criticizing my posting.
Yes, so Taiwan, Japan, Korea and China are all nations, comparable to the United States.
Each of those countries have their own regions, varying in economic prosperity and poverty, with multiple mingling cultures that are fairly distinct from one another.
And yes, some of those cultural groups can be separated into "haves" and "have nots", and the latter could be comparable to African-Americans in the US.
So I don't see why you're comparing the African-American community to China. Or Japan. Or any sovereign nation.
Fine, continue to believe that an emphasis on education, family values, and non-violence in the community won't help the African-American community. After all, they're obviously doing so well with a culture where missing fathers are rampant, education levels are horrible, and violence is rampant. I'm sure arguing about privilege, microagressions, and BLM are going to fix those any day now.
EDIT: To more directly answer your point, while there are "haves" and "have not" groups in every society, the "haves" between societies tend to share common cultural characteristics. Conversely, the "have nots" tend to share common cultural characteristics as well. Perhaps the habits of the "haves" would be useful to the "have nots."
Yeah, and that cultural characteristic tends to be which group won a war and conquered a region.
Maybe true, but the blacks born in 1990 aren't poor because (a) their great-great-grandfather was a slave two hundred years ago. They're poor because (b) they didn't get an education and consequently couldn't get a job. Maybe (a) had a large influence on how (b) came to be, but that doesn't change the solution for the problem that (b) is.
Do the metrics you're using involve the socioeconomic disparities between the average black community and say the average white community?
Of course? That's how these things are usually measured. Median income, HS/college graduation rates, etc. Though I don't see why it should be limited to whites... comparing it to the average non-black US resident seems fine.
I think you underestimate the latent hatred for black people that there is in America and the fundamental impact this must have on black people ability to be 'successful'. I have only been in this country for five years but I can feel it slowly warping my mind. Little things like being stopped by the police while biking home from work at night and have them ask me "Have you seen any black people?" (several times!) Police reports sent to the university mailing list describing the perpetrator as "Other race". The friend who told a story about how the one black kid in her class at Yale go arrested for trying to hand in homework late at night. It just adds to up a feeling of the 'natural state of things'
To a large extent I can't even explain it, but I know that a small part of me instinctively reacts in a way when I see black people now that I simply didnt 5 years ago.
I would chalk it up to imagination if it wasnt so empirically obvious. Black people get (legally) shot for terrible crimes like driving and walking. It only makes sense if there is a general cultural undercurrent that sees black people as threatening/different/scary. The recent documentary I am not your negro was eye opening to me, it put words on a lot of things I had been thinking but been unable to express.
Yale professor: Why must we concentrate on colour, I have more in common with a black scholar than a white person who is against scholarship. (paraphrasing) Baldwin: It is hard to focus on writing when you are afraid of the world around you. The terror that if as a black person you stop being constantly wary you may die. (paraphrasing)
On July 14 2017 05:53 Sermokala wrote: I've seen danglers critize republicans a lot. You're the one thats refusing to respond to any of his posts without anything more then "trust me I know more then you".
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just not interested in argument for argument's sake, and that's all he seems to care about.
Anyway, I recognize I'm not doing myself any favors at this point, I would prefer to drop it.
On July 14 2017 04:40 TheTenthDoc wrote: So, the new healthcare bill has at minimum two GOP senators saying they won't vote for it. Time to see if this is another DeVos scenario where Collins is objecting because the party gave her the go-ahead and everyone else will fall in line or not.
Have the newer bills even addressed anything that Republicans are voting against? Or is this more of a millstone strategy where they make cosmetic changes and hope they feel pressure from the inactivity?
I think they adopted some of the Cruz stuff (but not all) and put in more opioid addiction money to try to offset the Medicaid cuts and target pet zones of the handful of R senators who objected to Medicaid cuts (the money doesn't offset it of course, but people love opioid treatment since it started to hurt rich and/or old white people).
But they didn't get the whole Cruz amendment, they didn't go far enough for Rand, and their Medicaid changes were basically nil. Which puts them in another awkward place.
On July 14 2017 05:53 Sermokala wrote: I've seen danglers critize republicans a lot. You're the one thats refusing to respond to any of his posts without anything more then "trust me I know more then you".
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just not interested in argument for argument's sake, and that's all he seems to care about.
I really liked this video about how to be a good white ally for black folks. I think this guy hits all the right notes. For reference, I am a white, mainstream liberal democrat (Hillary).
On July 14 2017 04:04 Artisreal wrote: GH I admire your tenacity in conversing with the folks time and again. It's so tiresome to even read, I can't imagine being confronted with that in person.
I just remind myself that I have it a lot easier than my brothers and sisters before me. Watching/reading Baldwin, MLK, Malcolm, Bayard Rustin, Fredrick Douglass, Nat Turner, Ida B Wells, and more I gain an appreciation both for what was done for me and what I owe to the next generation. The bravery they showed in a hostile America is inspiring and uplifting. I imagine white people get a different feeling from watching that recent history (remember people are still alive that saw MLK, Malcolm, Medgar, and others targeted by the FBI and eventually assassinated), they still tell theier kids stories of THEIR black experience (this can lead to incidents like was described earlier about black people hating white people). Imagine your parents telling you that black people did to them what white people did to black people (spit on them, and beat them for trying to go to school for example) many people would grow to distrust and dislike such a group.
On July 14 2017 00:35 mozoku wrote: [quote] You completely ignored my point and made a veiled accusation of ignorance/ethnocentrism. I'm actually extremely familiar with Asian history, but it wasn't relevant to my point.
East Asia culture is heavily influenced by Confucianism, which places social value on the characteristics I listed: "culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability." That is entirely noncontroversial, and based on historical flows of culture and information. Furthermore, the discussion is based on the present-day, where East Asia usually refers to Korea, Japan, and China. I'm not talking about hundreds of cultures from history.
If you had read carefully, you'd have noticed I never listed anything that says that East Asians are any less violent between states than Europeans. So next time please read what I said instead of assuming my ignorance on an off-topic point and giving me a lecture about it.
Your point just sucks then.
North American culture is heavily influenced by Christian religion, which places social value on the same things. African-Americans are a part of North American culture. Therefore African-Americans are peaceful, QED or something.
I'd recommend not trying to broad-stroke the entirety of China, or Korea, or Japan, as a comparison point.
It's not even relevant to my point that Confucianism influenced all three cultures. I only mentioned Confucianism to justify why I grouped the three together for a point about what academics agree are Confucian values held in the culture of all three countries. Not to mention, my reference to Asia was a subpoint in a larger argument that you've totally ignored. Your posts have literally served no purpose other than to play overzealous and misguided "PC Police." Sorry you're butthurt that you got embarrassingly caught in your game of "Grandstand the Ignorant Ethnocentrist!"
The point is that Korea, Japan, and China share the cultural values of "work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability." I didn't make cultural any claims beyond that, and you haven't even denied that those countries' cultures do share those traits. That claim isn't even remotely controversial, which is why your outrage is so silly and immature. All you've done is obstinately object that I dare try to group the three together for any cultural reason whatsoever, and tell me "your point just sucks then." You've added nothing of value to this discussion. Go troll somewhere else.
In fact, let me expand my "broad-stroke" and say that you can include Taiwan along with Korea, Japan, and China for the purposes of this discussion.
To quote the entire post I responded to:
Lots of cultures throughout the world have been as poor/poorer than the African American community and managed to raise themselves out of poverty. See Asia. The difference is that the Asians (despite their own issues with racism and other problems) have a culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability, etc.
Poverty doesn't necessarily lead to violence. Figuring out to change black culture to be less self-destructive would be a much more productive use of time than accusing whites of privilege and microaggressions.
I mean, you literally say here that the African American community can raise itself out of poverty because Asia did it. And Asians did it because they have a better culture than African Americans.
If you don't want to be called out on bad posts, don't make bad posts.
I was clearly referring to economically successful countries in Asia by the context. Which would imply... drum roll... Taiwan, Japan, Korea, China. Those countries share certain traits in their culture, which I listed explicitly and is a fact that you still haven't denied is true because common knowledge.
I'm done responding to a grandstanding troll. Come back if you want to have a real discussion. You're literally doing nothing but saying "You grouped Asia together" when it was clear from context and my following posts that it wasn't my attention. I've made several long posts with at least plausible logic and ideas going back several pages. That's a lot more effort than this troll sequence from you where you've done nothing but say "but but but you grouped 'Asia'", so maybe do some self-reflection before criticizing my posting.
Yes, so Taiwan, Japan, Korea and China are all nations, comparable to the United States.
Each of those countries have their own regions, varying in economic prosperity and poverty, with multiple mingling cultures that are fairly distinct from one another.
And yes, some of those cultural groups can be separated into "haves" and "have nots", and the latter could be comparable to African-Americans in the US.
So I don't see why you're comparing the African-American community to China. Or Japan. Or any sovereign nation.
Fine, continue to believe that an emphasis on education, family values, and non-violence in the community won't help the African-American community. After all, they're obviously doing so well with a culture where missing fathers are rampant, education levels are horrible, and violence is rampant. I'm sure arguing about privilege, microagressions, and BLM are going to fix those any day now.
EDIT: To more directly answer your point, while there are "haves" and "have not" groups in every society, the "haves" between societies tend to share common cultural characteristics. Conversely, the "have nots" tend to share common cultural characteristics as well. Perhaps the habits of the "haves" would be useful to the "have nots."
Yeah, and that cultural characteristic tends to be which group won a war and conquered a region.
Maybe true, but the blacks born in 1990 aren't poor because (a) their great-great-grandfather was a slave two hundred years ago. They're poor because (b) they didn't get an education and consequently couldn't get a job. Maybe (a) had a large influence on how (b) came to be, but that doesn't change the solution for the problem that (b) is.
Do the metrics you're using involve the socioeconomic disparities between the average black community and say the average white community?
Of course? That's how these things are usually measured. Median income, HS/college graduation rates, etc. Though I don't see why it should be limited to whites... comparing it to the average non-black US resident seems fine.
I think you underestimate the latent hatred for black people that there is in America and the fundamental impact this must have on black people ability to be 'successful'. I have only been in this country for five years but I can feel it slowly warping my mind. Little things like being stopped by the police while biking home from work at night and have them ask me "Have you seen any black people?" (several times!) Police reports sent to the university mailing list describing the perpetrator as "Other race". The friend who told a story about how the one black kid in her class at Yale go arrested for trying to hand in homework late at night. It just adds to up a feeling of the 'natural state of things'
To a large extent I can't even explain it, but I know that a small part of me instinctively reacts in a way when I see black people now that I simply didnt 5 years ago.
I would chalk it up to imagination if it wasnt so empirically obvious. Black people get (legally) shot for terrible crimes like driving and walking. It only makes sense if there is a general cultural undercurrent that sees black people as threatening/different/scary. The recent documentary I am not your negro was eye opening to me, it put words on a lot of things I had been thinking but been unable to express.
Yale professor: Why must we concentrate on colour, I have more in common with a black scholar than a white person who is against scholarship. (paraphrasing) Baldwin: It is hard to focus on writing when you are afraid of the world around you. The terror that if as a black person you stop being constantly wary you may die. (paraphrasing)
You are paying the price to be white. Baldwin wrote something you might find strangely insightful for how long ago it was written. (Sorry about the format, it's from copy and paste)
America became white-the people who, as they claim, "settled" the country became white-because of the necessity of denying the black presence, and justifying the black subjugation. No community can be based on such a principle--or, in other words, no community can be established on so genocidal a lie. White men-from Norway, for example, where they were "Norwegians" -became white by slaughtering the cattle poisoning the wells, torching the houses, massacring Native Americans, raping black women.
Just so does the white community, as a means of keeping itself white, elect, as they imagine, their political (!) representatives. No nation in the world, including England, is represented by so stunning a pantheon of the relentlessly mediocre. I will not name names I will leave that to you.
But this cowardice, this necessity of justifying a totally false identity and of justifying what must be called a genocidal history, has placed everyone now living into the hands of the most ignorant and powerful people the world has ever seen. And how did they get that way? By deciding that they were white. By opting for safety instead of life. By persuading themselves that a black child's life meant nothing compared with a white child's life. By abandoning their children to the things white men could buy. By informing their children that black women, black men, and black children had no human integrity that those who call themselves white were bound to respect. And in this debasement and definition of black people, debased and defined themselves.
And have brought humanity to the edge of oblivion: because they think
they are white. Because they think they are white, they do not dare con
front the ravage and the lie of their history. Because they think they are
white, they cannot allow themselves to be tormented by the suspicion that
all men are brothers, Because they think they are white, they are looking
for, or bombing into existence, stable population, cheerful natives, and
cheap labor. Because they think they are white, they believe, as even no
child believes, in the dream of safety. Because they think they are white,
however vociferous they may be and however multitudinous, they are as
speechless as Lot's wife-looking backward, changed into a pillar of salt.
On July 14 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote: I feel like this shouldn't really need saying but whatever. Inequality didn't disappear with the end of slavery.
Never said it did. However, if a black student performs well at their HS, we have relaxed admissions standards for minorities that should help in college admissions to make up for the worse education that blacks receive on average. There's also the issue of probable dual causality in why the schools in AA communities are usually worse in the first place: 1) They have worse funding (should be fixed) 2) Teachers can't teach because the schools are chaos and students don't care about learning.
How do you propose to solve problem (2) without reforming black culture?
EDIT: More directly, social mobility is still alive and well in most of America. Inequality isn't limited to AAs.
More positive images of blacks succeeding in life outside of sports. Show them there are other avenues to pursue than sports or rap. But when you already know you're gonna be selling drugs at 14 for the rest of your life, you kinda resign to your fate and say fuck school. :/
I agree 100%. The Democrats should be spending money to inspire the AA youth that they can indeed rise of poverty. That will make a much larger impact than BLM, and returning fathers from prison isn't going to fix problems when children have the issues you stated even when their dads are around.
Applying your argument to the opioid crisis, instead of putting money into treatment and cracking down on distribution we should just focus on reforming white culture, which encourages self-medication through substance abuse.
This is nonsense.
To the extent there are cultural issues in various communities which contribute to undesirable socioeconomic outcomes, those issues can be handled by the people in such communities who have firsthand knowledge and experience with what they are dealing with. In the meantime the rest of society can work to remove institutional factors contributing to such outcomes by for example supporting affirmative action for members of historically disadvantaged groups, outlawing the advertisement of opioids directly to the public, etc.
On July 14 2017 00:35 mozoku wrote: [quote] You completely ignored my point and made a veiled accusation of ignorance/ethnocentrism. I'm actually extremely familiar with Asian history, but it wasn't relevant to my point.
East Asia culture is heavily influenced by Confucianism, which places social value on the characteristics I listed: "culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability." That is entirely noncontroversial, and based on historical flows of culture and information. Furthermore, the discussion is based on the present-day, where East Asia usually refers to Korea, Japan, and China. I'm not talking about hundreds of cultures from history.
If you had read carefully, you'd have noticed I never listed anything that says that East Asians are any less violent between states than Europeans. So next time please read what I said instead of assuming my ignorance on an off-topic point and giving me a lecture about it.
Your point just sucks then.
North American culture is heavily influenced by Christian religion, which places social value on the same things. African-Americans are a part of North American culture. Therefore African-Americans are peaceful, QED or something.
I'd recommend not trying to broad-stroke the entirety of China, or Korea, or Japan, as a comparison point.
It's not even relevant to my point that Confucianism influenced all three cultures. I only mentioned Confucianism to justify why I grouped the three together for a point about what academics agree are Confucian values held in the culture of all three countries. Not to mention, my reference to Asia was a subpoint in a larger argument that you've totally ignored. Your posts have literally served no purpose other than to play overzealous and misguided "PC Police." Sorry you're butthurt that you got embarrassingly caught in your game of "Grandstand the Ignorant Ethnocentrist!"
The point is that Korea, Japan, and China share the cultural values of "work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability." I didn't make cultural any claims beyond that, and you haven't even denied that those countries' cultures do share those traits. That claim isn't even remotely controversial, which is why your outrage is so silly and immature. All you've done is obstinately object that I dare try to group the three together for any cultural reason whatsoever, and tell me "your point just sucks then." You've added nothing of value to this discussion. Go troll somewhere else.
In fact, let me expand my "broad-stroke" and say that you can include Taiwan along with Korea, Japan, and China for the purposes of this discussion.
To quote the entire post I responded to:
Lots of cultures throughout the world have been as poor/poorer than the African American community and managed to raise themselves out of poverty. See Asia. The difference is that the Asians (despite their own issues with racism and other problems) have a culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability, etc.
Poverty doesn't necessarily lead to violence. Figuring out to change black culture to be less self-destructive would be a much more productive use of time than accusing whites of privilege and microaggressions.
I mean, you literally say here that the African American community can raise itself out of poverty because Asia did it. And Asians did it because they have a better culture than African Americans.
If you don't want to be called out on bad posts, don't make bad posts.
I was clearly referring to economically successful countries in Asia by the context. Which would imply... drum roll... Taiwan, Japan, Korea, China. Those countries share certain traits in their culture, which I listed explicitly and is a fact that you still haven't denied is true because common knowledge.
I'm done responding to a grandstanding troll. Come back if you want to have a real discussion. You're literally doing nothing but saying "You grouped Asia together" when it was clear from context and my following posts that it wasn't my attention. I've made several long posts with at least plausible logic and ideas going back several pages. That's a lot more effort than this troll sequence from you where you've done nothing but say "but but but you grouped 'Asia'", so maybe do some self-reflection before criticizing my posting.
Yes, so Taiwan, Japan, Korea and China are all nations, comparable to the United States.
Each of those countries have their own regions, varying in economic prosperity and poverty, with multiple mingling cultures that are fairly distinct from one another.
And yes, some of those cultural groups can be separated into "haves" and "have nots", and the latter could be comparable to African-Americans in the US.
So I don't see why you're comparing the African-American community to China. Or Japan. Or any sovereign nation.
Fine, continue to believe that an emphasis on education, family values, and non-violence in the community won't help the African-American community. After all, they're obviously doing so well with a culture where missing fathers are rampant, education levels are horrible, and violence is rampant. I'm sure arguing about privilege, microagressions, and BLM are going to fix those any day now.
EDIT: To more directly answer your point, while there are "haves" and "have not" groups in every society, the "haves" between societies tend to share common cultural characteristics. Conversely, the "have nots" tend to share common cultural characteristics as well. Perhaps the habits of the "haves" would be useful to the "have nots."
Yeah, and that cultural characteristic tends to be which group won a war and conquered a region.
Maybe true, but the blacks born in 1990 aren't poor because (a) their great-great-grandfather was a slave two hundred years ago. They're poor because (b) they didn't get an education and consequently couldn't get a job. Maybe (a) had a large influence on how (b) came to be, but that doesn't change the solution for the problem that (b) is.
Do the metrics you're using involve the socioeconomic disparities between the average black community and say the average white community?
Of course? That's how these things are usually measured. Median income, HS/college graduation rates, etc. Though I don't see why it should be limited to whites... comparing it to the average non-black US resident seems fine.
I think you underestimate the latent hatred for black people that there is in America and the fundamental impact this must have on black people ability to be 'successful'. I have only been in this country for five years but I can feel it slowly warping my mind. Little things like being stopped by the police while biking home from work at night and have them ask me "Have you seen any black people?" (several times!) Police reports sent to the university mailing list describing the perpetrator as "Other race". The friend who told a story about how the one black kid in her class at Yale go arrested for trying to hand in homework late at night. It just adds to up a feeling of the 'natural state of things'
To a large extent I can't even explain it, but I know that a small part of me instinctively reacts in a way when I see black people now that I simply didnt 5 years ago.
I would chalk it up to imagination if it wasnt so empirically obvious. Black people get (legally) shot for terrible crimes like driving and walking. It only makes sense if there is a general cultural undercurrent that sees black people as threatening/different/scary. The recent documentary I am not your negro was eye opening to me, it put words on a lot of things I had been thinking but been unable to express.
Yale professor: Why must we concentrate on colour, I have more in common with a black scholar than a white person who is against scholarship. (paraphrasing) Baldwin: It is hard to focus on writing when you are afraid of the world around you. The terror that if as a black person you stop being constantly wary you may die. (paraphrasing)
Rural areas you're probably right.
In big cities though, my anecdotal experience makes me lean towards the belief that the prejudice is less "because you're black" and more "because blacks are associated with a lot of socially undesirable behaviors." In my anecdotal experience living in downtown Chicago, experiences of blacks with severe mental illness (yelling to themselves, etc.), drug abuse, drug deals on the subway, and more aren't uncommon. In addition to the dangerous stuff, there's things like blasting music on a boombox on the train, confrontations between groups of young black men, public intoxication, etc.
And I live in one of the safest, most affluent neighborhoods in the city. These are just the things I just see on/near the subway. I would say 90%+ of blacks I encounter seem like perfectly fine people, but the much higher rate of bad apples among them makes me (rationally) more cautious around them as a group.
Is this fair to most of the black community? Not at all. But, at the same time, it's a rational defense mechanism on my part.
The point of this is, people are going to react the way that you and I are as long as the AA community has a reputation (fair or not) for violence and crime. The way to wash away that reputation is going to start with kids staying in school and out of trouble to become productive and socioeconomically successful members of society. It's not going to happen on the current course of racial relations where all the focus is on the symptoms of the deeper problems in the AA community.
Applying your argument to the opioid crisis, instead of putting money into treatment and cracking down on distribution we should just focus on reforming white culture, which encourages self-medication through substance abuse.
This is nonsense.
To the extent there are cultural issues in various communities which contribute to undesirable socioeconomic outcomes, those issues can be handled by the people in such communities who have firsthand knowledge and experience with what they are dealing with. In the meantime the rest of society can work to remove institutional factors contributing to such outcomes by for example supporting affirmative action for members of historically disadvantaged groups, outlawing the advertisement of opioids directly to the public, etc.
What made you think applying a solution intended to handle generational poverty and violence would be well-suited for fixing a short-term drug problem in the first place? Of course different problems require different solutions.
If rural whites fall into generational poverty, then yes, a similar solution might be the right direction to go.
You can literally do this for anything. "Free markets work really well in the retail industry." "Therefore, we should build our utility (electric, gas, cable) providers around free markets." Obviously that doesn't work out.
On July 13 2017 10:25 KwarK wrote: Are we forgetting that the Trump voters actually didn't like Obama because he was black? Or are we just not supposed to talk about that? Birtherism didn't happen in a vacuum.
::Dems have problems convincing poor families struggling to get by that they're members of the privileged class and didn't like Obama because he was black or Hillary because she was a woman Kwark: Trump voters actually didn't like Obama because he was black.
There we have it, gentlemen. The ultimate perpetuating loop of rationalizing the division and justifying it. Please have some consultant in the Democrat's 2020 campaign that likes "You're all racists. No, really, I can prove it to you!"
You'll have to do a better job hiding the fact that you detest Republican voters and a vote against Obama was partially motivated by Obama's race.
On July 13 2017 10:30 zlefin wrote: [quote] odd; then why does the Republican message of disunity and their open numerous insults to many Americans, and their dislike of people who live in cities/coasts, succeed? it's a mirror of the same thing; so why does it work for one and not the other?
Care to elaborate? Reactionary doesn't presume that this is the first cause-effect go-around.
what's to elaborate on? the republicans use a message of disunity, and show open dislike of the people living in cities/coasts. you say the Dems have a message of disunity and dislike of uneducated flyover voters. and that that hurts their chances. why does the strategy work for republicans, yet not work for democrats? this isn't really relevant to the reactionary part. it's a simple question of why does a strategy work for one side and not the other.
What's the message and why do you think it's one of disunity?
that's not an answer to my question. can you please answer the question asked?
as to your questoin: if I'm going to accept for purposes of this discussion your claim that the dems have a message of disunity and dislike of flyover voters; it seems reasonable for you to accept my claim that reps have a message of disunity and a dislike of urban/coastal voters. why would you doubt it given how often some republicans rant about those exact voter groups? I don't see the republican message as being inclusive to all americans, it clearly is unfriendly toward some. thus, disunity. it's also an utterly typical political tactics, so i'd expect to see if found everywhere on all sides. you might claim the message isn't one of disunity, just as I might claim the dems isn't one of disunity. it's not that hard to spin the messages so they look good/bad, not with so much partisanship flying around.
@danglars this musta gotten missed in the overnight transition; I'd still like to hear your answer.
I detailed what I thought was divisive; you just took for granted some opposite message without explanation. I'm not in the mood to indulge in hypotheticals or see you moan about both sides doing the same thing. If you'll remember, I responded to a post about the ideological consistency of Republican views and focused on a reactionary spirit, which you may read again in the quote train if you forgot.
ok, I'll take that to mean you're arguing in bad faith, as you refuse to answer an eminently reasonable question, and I did explain it sufficiently, you're simply unwilling to admit the basic fact that the republicans (as with the democrats) sometimes use messages that are disunited and disparage various groups of americans, I need not cite specific ones for it to be abundantly clear that such things occur. I indulged in your hypothetical, and you refused to indulge in mine. Whatever you responded to initially doesn't change the validity of my point. Attacking an outgroup, which mostly consists of the other sides' voters (or people outside the country), is a very basic political tactic since forever. as such I will disregard your complaints about dem's lack of unity, as you're unwilling to look at the exact same problems as they occur from your side, and thus display high levels of bias.
I take it you just want to assume everything Democrats do that is bad, divisive, or whatever is equally true about Republicans and simply alleging they do the same is enough to demand I defend it. It's total poppycock. I named the messages, I named the connection, and I named its relevance. You're arguing in absentia "sometimes it happens duhh" without the least bit of honesty. I'm risking repeating myself just to get you familiar with the central problem: the reactionary backlash to Democrats use of identity politics and open disdain for middle America and rust belt issues. If all you got is "but but Republicans are guilty of the same" and won't put it in words your comparison and establish relevance to my point, you have no point and you're better off responding "No" when I ask you to elaborate.
yes, you're arguing in bad faith, I get it. here's the thing: I assume you're vaguely aware of american politics, and if you were, you'd have heard of such things happening, since you haven't, you clearly are not aware of anything in american politics. second, once I post the examples of divisiveness, you're going to claim they're not divisive using some lame excuse, constantly quibble on that point, and perpetually dodge answering my actual question. you also continue to lie by claiming the dems show open disdain for rust belt issues; they've done plenty of work to try to fix the issues, and more work than the republicans have. you want me to bring in GH to argue that the republicans show a disdain for issues that black americans face? I'd think anyone in the thread would have heard about it by now. you deny that some republicans show open disdain for the "coastal elites and city-folk"
you also lie by saying I assume it's equally true simply because; I say it's true because I've seen it, it's easy to see when the other side does it, it's less visible to a person when it's your side donig it. being on the more dem-ish side, I've seen plenty of divisive republican rhetoric. also, you continue to lie with the farce about identity politics while refusing to admit that republicans ENGAGE in identity politics to a great deal, that identity being christian, with also some white and male parts. thus proving again you're not acting in good faith, by claiming some nebulous "identity politics" and refusing to admit to your own side's equal use of it.
I also didn't ask you to "defend" it, I asked you why it worked for one side and not the other.
I'll try to be a little more explicit because I see I didn't word things very clearly (and quote chain got messed up). I responded to this post:
It isn't just the American press. The German press has been much less forgiving or reserved on this issue. German's most popular newspapers regularly refer to Trump as a Russian menace. The German chancellor says, in public, that they can't rely on America.
Not sure which newspapers you refer to, usually german newspapers (unlike Bild, which is less newspaper and more tabloid/yellow press) are pretty impartial on the issue.
Mind, i don't disagree with anything you said, but as a german, that feels new to me.
Mostly referring to what I've seen from Der Spiegel. I'm not going to pretend to regularly read German periodicals, but what I've seen from Der Spiegel is enough to make me realize that America's image has been irrevocably changed for the worse.
edit: and Merkel's direct quotes. Those are saddening.
"Irrevocably" is hyperbole, outside of left-wing echo chambers. Trump has barely accomplished anything substantive that the next president can't undo in a month. He withdrew from TPP, but Hillary and Bernie were going to do that anyway. It wouldn't be shocking to see TPP revived in some form in the future anyway. He withdrew from the Paris Climate agreement, but that isn't anywhere near large enough to cause irrevocable damage to the US diplomatic future (on its own, at least).
The irony here is that, despite the doomsayers claiming Trump represents death to America's democracy, it's the US institutions and his unpopularity that largely restrained him from accomplishing anything actually harmful long-term.
If the US has a reasonable president or two after Trump, the world is going to be more concerned with being aligned with the world's largest economy/military that also supports democratic ideals than worrying about that country's failed nutcase president 10 years ago. The international community is largely pragmatic; look at how many countries are friendly with China (or even Russia) despite it being ruled by the human rights disaster that is the CCP.
Irrevocably? No.
But you seem to be missing the point that the german views of the US are declining for more than a decade now. Merkel just said what germans already thought more than 10 years ago, and it didn't get better from there, but worse.
The harm already is done, you just seem to be too shortsighted to see it. Politically we got ice age now. That doesn't mean that we stop trading. But you now pushed other countries to get friendlier with china, something that won't stop after you try to fix the problems. Regardless of what happens from now, you strengthened ties between china and europe. Ties that won't get cut once you got a decent president again, the same way ties didn't get cut between europe and the US despite constant scandals plus a supreme leader on top.
Oh sidenote, that "supports democratic ideals" is yet to be seen.
Btw i don't see Trump as death to american democracy. As a former soldier, that one died long ago.
I don't buy your argument. Europe is going to get closer to China because the US isn't liberal enough currently, but after the US presumably "re-liberalizes" Europe is going to continue to get closer to China? In your scenario, there's a Europe who's terribly bothered by a more nationalist US, but is apparently infinitely tolerant of a far more nationalist China.
Another asymmetric assumption is that Europe can cool their relations with the US, but not with China. As Europe gets closer with China, they're going to run into a lot more points of tension than they ever did with the US. A post-Trump US will look much more attractive by comparison.
Its not the nationalism that is a problem for EU-US international relations. Its stability.
China is politically stable and has shown little interest in interfering in EU politics or dragging anyone into wars. The US on the other hand can swing rather wildly depending on which party has the Presidency. And no one likes such schizophrenic changes every 4-8 years.
And that's really the problem. If the Republicans were somewhat sensible and consistent, it'd be something. But they're clearly not, a lot of their opinions shift dramatically just because Fox News drum up some narrative. The majority of opinion polls show a dramatic shift in opinion towards Russia/Putin the minute Fox News started drumming up support for Trump. Similarly with regards to things like the the current state of the economy that can't realistically change in a matter of months.
Republicans, unlike China, aren't remotely ideologically consistent at this point, outside of certain social issues like supporting Confederate monuments, cutting taxes and abolishing abortion.
Tell me what bearing you want to bring down on this post. Not how both sides are guilty of divisive speech because you say so, but how your argument is relevant to this one.
I think the conversation on privilege has reinforced my belief that it's so hard for many white people to accept, acknowledge, and address white privilege in large part because of their being tethered to the American meritocracy myth.
On July 14 2017 05:53 Sermokala wrote: I've seen danglers critize republicans a lot. You're the one thats refusing to respond to any of his posts without anything more then "trust me I know more then you".
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just not interested in argument for argument's sake, and that's all he seems to care about.
Then don't respond to him.
I think that's probably the better course than declaring that I can assert things to the contrary, too.
On July 13 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote: I don't understand how some of you still aren't getting this...
The story isn't the "scandal" the story is that this is all theater and you're all going to be disappointed/surprised when it turns out to basically go nowhere (despite how bad it is) and act like folks like myself didn't see this a mile away and tried desperately to get you to see that.
Assume what you say is true, I and hopefully most others are familiar with elected officials having a history of not receiving the punishment they deserve for the shit they pull off. That doesn't mean for a moment that I'm just going to accept what they do as normal, and just not mention it. You have your priorities, please don't project them on me or anyone else.
We are sooooo far beyond "mentioning it", yeah, if your priority is following every little drip of this Trump/Russia story imo you have bad priorities.
There are Americans dying/suffering simply because politicians don't see the political advantage in helping them, and they don't get headlines because people like yourself are more likely to click Russia stories and the 6 corporations who own most of the media don't particularly like stories focused on how their greed and exploitation contributes to such abuses.
If people engrossed themselves in the suffering and deaths of so many Americans as they are this Russia nonsense we might actually have a chance at addressing them, but no, Russia!!!!!!!
Which, hey, if we were actually going to do something about it, would be an interesting news story, but we aren't, so it isn't.
I don't think you have any idea how exhausting it is seeing you come into every argument, and doing the same thing over and over. You never think an issue is worth the exposure it gets because you think there's always a more important issue, and you repeatedly, and unprovoked, lambaste people for not holding the same list of "correct priorities" that you do. If you don't understand why consistently breaking evidence in a large-scale scandal is getting headlines and occupies discussion, I don't know how I can help you. Multiple problems are allowed to exist, just because one story is developing doesn't mean there are no other problems in the world, or that people aren't aware of them. You think you're some kind of savior reminding people of all the woes of the world, but most of us are pretty generally aware of how shitty things are. Your consistent derailing of discussions about unrelated topics is growing old, and I'm not in the mood to indulge it anymore.
One of these days he'll either convince you that you're (1) barking up the wrong tree if you want to change Trump getting away with everything or (2) just as stubborn at doing the same thing over and over (making the same mistake over and over) as he is. If the Russia thread of agitation and group paranoia is high on your priority list, start opening yourself up to the idea that the theater feeds Trump. You're literally making your problems bigger. It's like the hardcore baseball fan that reads every tidbit of possible trades with his team in the offseason--GH's accurate "following every little drip" priority critique. It will consume your attention and give you myopic focus that fucks up any attempt to grasp the big picture. You'll lose easy elections, or maybe barely squeak by some easy elections, by focusing on the next silver stake that sinks Trump.
Secondly, your earlier "my opponents refuse to accept information" shows you're about as resistant to change as everybody else that looks for the easy-out way that shortcuts examination.
I don't know why you continue to obsess over what I say, but if you're going to misrepresent my points then I'm not going to give you the dignity of spending time on a response.
GH didn't make inroads, I didn't make inroads: can't you see you either can deal with things or not? Take your own advice if you have nothing to add.
EPT
