Serious Political Correctness and Race

"A new report about the nation’s black women paints a familiar portrait of a group that is working hard on many levels to achieve the American Dream but is still falling short.

Black women vote at high rates, have made significant improvement in earning college degrees and are succeeding in opening their own businesses, according to
“The Status of Black Women in the United States.” Yet they continue to be underrepresented in elected office, earn less than white men and women and are twice as likely as white women to be incarcerated, the report says.

'They have all the makings of what should be success, yet their contributions are undervalued and under compensated,' states the report, released this week by the National Domestic Workers Alliance. The report was prepared by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, a nonprofit organization affiliated with George Washington University."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-not-working-for-them/?utm_term=.1895fdf63e49
 
I don't really see the problem in a group being underrepresented, race wise.

Shouldn't your ideas and beliefs be represented rather than your skin color? Standing behind someone solely on the basis that they are from the same group as you sounds like a great way to get yourself misrepresented.

Isn't the whole "one person representing an entire race" thing something you stand against, anyway? That's what I got from reading this thread (which I admittedly kind of regret), at least.

Also, quick question; why is it assumed that an entire system is designed to keep non-white people down (despite the election of a black president. Twice.) is...actually a thing? Is it proven beyond a doubt? Are supposed signs of this "white supremacist" society purely attributable to it or is it possible that they are signs of another thing entirely?

Going off that; say this white supremacist system or what have you does not exist. How would you end racism? Or have you convinced (read: deluded) yourself of being infallibly right on this and are completely unwilling to entertain the thought?

Finally, I certainly hope this is not going to be dismissed by "well, you have internalized racism and are a victim of the system. That's why you're thinking like this." or something along those lines. It's such a stupidly easy way to shutdown any counterpoint and criticism others might have, without actually engaging with those points. It also implies that, somehow, only you are able to see the system, how it works and how to end it, which is just a bit arrogant. Might just be imagining that.

Rambling at 1 am is a terrible idea, by the by.
 
About the Alexandria shooting, are we going to somehow attribute this to the fault of President Trump? Toxic white masculinity? Mental disorder?

BBC said:
A Facebook account that appears to belong to Hodgkinson is filled with anti-Republican and anti-Trump posts, as well as expressions of support for former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (the page has since been removed).

On social media, Hodgkinson railed against Donald Trump, writing on Facebook, "you are Truly the Biggest A** Hole We Have Ever Had in the Oval Office".

He also belonged to many Facebook groups with names like "Terminate the Republican Party" and "Donald Trump is not my President".

Local media also unearthed a 2012 photo of Hodgkinson protesting outside a downtown Belleville post office holding a sign that read, "Tax the Rich".

The Belleville-News Democrat also compiled his letters to the editor in 2012, when he railed against conservative tax policies and praised President Barack Obama.

"God bless the 99 percent," he concluded one letter.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...rets/?tid=ss_fb-bottom&utm_term=.3124ba273d6f

" The cycle self-perpetuates as each leak that reveals another government lie or secret makes the state look less trustworthy and leaking information more legitimate.

Even if they can hedge with electronic surveillance, employers (including the government) ultimately have no choice but to trust millennial workers. They need our skills and our labor. I’m sure the vast majority of us are risk-averse, dependable employees. But though it is mostly about tricking us into accepting less money and job security, that rhetoric about living our values sinks in every once in a while. We hardly invented leaking, but millennials are especially well-suited to the tactic. It’s a squirt gun we can use on our leaders when they’ve stepped out of line. I don’t imagine that employers — public or private — are going to start inspiring loyalty or stop abusing power anytime soon, so expect the leaks to keep flowing. At least until millennials find a bigger weapon."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/14/virginia-shooting-rorschach-test-for-america


"A Bernie Sanders supporter shooting bullets at congressional Republicans is a tragic absurdity ready-made for today’s hot take circus. By now, we know the script. The right will say this is proof that progressives are growing unhinged in the Donald Trump era. The left will argue for gun control, or point out the obvious truth that had a Muslim shot at Steve Scalise, the House majority whip, Trump would’ve cried terrorism.

Moments like these are never-ending Rorschach tests for whoever is consuming the news. Polarized Americans retreat to their corners and await further confirmation of their world views, burying themselves in hypotheticals. What if a Trump lover had shot at a House Democrat – would MSNBC spontaneously combust? Would the New Yorker tell America the president has blood on his hands?"

yawn
 
Am I the only one who got a cryptic PM from Old Gregg? It was so copypasta-sounding that I wouldn't be suprised if he just sent it out to every liberal minded poster in this thread.
 
"It is also important to note that it is time and time again it is white liberals who are condemning the actions of violence among not only the Civil Rights Movement but also the anti-fascist movement. White liberals who came into institutionalized power through centuries of violence against people of color and other minority groups now demand those same groups ask nicely for their freedoms.

Ask yourself when white men have ever taken something without violence? The United States was formed on the violent takeover of Natives. The country was built on the backs of Africans violently taken from their homes in Africa. Slavery was defended through violent means, and the rights of those later freed were fought against through violence such as public lynchings carried about by civilians and police. And all of that barely scratches the surface of white violence against marginalized groups.

Why would white men be afraid of the Alt-Right? They have the least amount to lose should the alt-right movement win further power and begin to realize their goals of ethnic cleansing, yet in the face of continued violence and terrorism, these liberals continue to dictate how the most marginalized of communities must react.

They did the same when people took to the streets in Ferguson, and they are doing the same now as people take the streets around the country to combat these injustices.

Liberals need to wake up to the reality they are facing and heap praise and solidarity onto those willing to risk everything for the greater good."
 
"It is also important to note that it is time and time again it is white liberals who are condemning the actions of violence among not only the Civil Rights Movement but also the anti-fascist movement. White liberals who came into institutionalized power through centuries of violence against people of color and other minority groups now demand those same groups ask nicely for their freedoms.

Ask yourself when white men have ever taken something without violence? The United States was formed on the violent takeover of Natives. The country was built on the backs of Africans violently taken from their homes in Africa. Slavery was defended through violent means, and the rights of those later freed were fought against through violence such as public lynchings carried about by civilians and police. And all of that barely scratches the surface of white violence against marginalized groups.

Why would white men be afraid of the Alt-Right? They have the least amount to lose should the alt-right movement win further power and begin to realize their goals of ethnic cleansing, yet in the face of continued violence and terrorism, these liberals continue to dictate how the most marginalized of communities must react.

They did the same when people took to the streets in Ferguson, and they are doing the same now as people take the streets around the country to combat these injustices.

Liberals need to wake up to the reality they are facing and heap praise and solidarity onto those willing to risk everything for the greater good."
"Let's punch this dude who's ideology differs from mine. He's a fascist (I think, possibly. Maybe). He also loses any decent human treatment based on this assumption, so let's hit him with a bicycle lock and crack his skull."

Where are these ethnic cleansing plans being executed? Why do past actions committed by people who aren't even alive today relevant and able to be tossed onto folks who had nothing to do with it, save sharing skin color? Do the actions of a few pertaining to a group reflect on the whole? So how does that kidnapping of a mentally disabled white kid by black teens reflect on the black community in America?

That last question highlights what I hate about "progressive" people. This tribalism leads to shitslinging contests of "yeah, I know we did that, but YOU guys did this", which is not very productive. Or fair. I'm not going to hold an entire group responsible for that actions of a few (and from a different time, even). That's retarded, the only actions an individual is responsible for are their own.

Besides that, all starting a fight does is make your side seem needlessly aggressive and invoke sympathy for the maybe-maybe not Nazi's you're punching, which sounds a bit counterproductive. Call the people doing this racist for showing basic human empathy and you'll only cause pushback to your movement. Not to mention, if they punch back, you eat shit, because now you can't claim the moral high ground (you punched first) and, if they genuinely are a shitty person, they're probably going to go further than you.

Remind me why you're punching them again?
 
"Let's punch this dude who's ideology differs from mine. He's a fascist (I think, possibly. Maybe). He also loses any decent human treatment based on this assumption, so let's hit him with a bicycle lock and crack his skull."

Where are these ethnic cleansing plans being executed? Why do past actions committed by people who aren't even alive today relevant and able to be tossed onto folks who had nothing to do with it, save sharing skin color? Do the actions of a few pertaining to a group reflect on the whole? So how does that kidnapping of a mentally disabled white kid by black teens reflect on the black community in America?

That last question highlights what I hate about "progressive" people. This tribalism leads to shitslinging contests of "yeah, I know we did that, but YOU guys did this", which is not very productive. Or fair. I'm not going to hold an entire group responsible for that actions of a few (and from a different time, even). That's retarded, the only actions an individual is responsible for are their own.

Besides that, all starting a fight does is make your side seem needlessly aggressive and invoke sympathy for the maybe-maybe not Nazi's you're punching, which sounds a bit counterproductive. Call the people doing this racist for showing basic human empathy and you'll only cause pushback to your movement. Not to mention, if they punch back, you eat shit, because now you can't claim the moral high ground (you punched first) and, if they genuinely are a shitty person, they're probably going to go further than you.

Remind me why you're punching them again?
Ah, you must be one of those white liberals so we can discount anything you say /s
 

DTC

I'll be your 1-Up girl
is a Live Chat Contributoris a Pokemon Researcheris a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
There's definitely a time and place for violence in place of arguments, tbf, as we've seen many times in history. Let's not pretend as if we figured out all our problems through civil discourse, lol. That said, I don't think we're close to that point in american politics right now.

Sad the shooting happened and really sad that both sides are politicizing this issue.
 

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
That last question highlights what I hate about "progressive" people. This tribalism leads to shitslinging contests of "yeah, I know we did that, but YOU guys did this", which is not very productive. Or fair. I'm not going to hold an entire group responsible for that actions of a few (and from a different time, even). That's retarded, the only actions an individual is responsible for are their own
Yeah this is a progressive thing, which is why liberals are pushing for that Muslim ban!

As for your questions: 1) so minorities are only allowed to complain after the growing white nationalist movement starts ethnically cleansing them? Threats aren't enough? It's not like the threat isn't there, you saw what happened in Portland, or just the large increase in hate crimes post DT's election. 2) are you kidding me? Historical context is hugely important in terms of politics, culture, and race relations. POC live in a society in which they legally were second class citizens. Do you think that the reason the poverty rate among native Americans and black Americans is almost three times higher than among white Americans is due to the fact they are inferior, or is it more likely due to the fact that white people developed a large economic advantage when stealing land from the native Americans (and also killing them) and enslaving black people, and have, as a whole (obviously there are exceptions), been holding onto this advantage. I'm honestly stunned someone is asking a question that essentially amounts to "what does history have to do with today's issues?" I don't know, fucking everything? 3) no, if this were the case, based on the 4 posts above DTC's (not to mention the old Gregg post I just deleted) I'd assume that people who have never been a part of a political outgroup are incapable of empathy or intelligent posting, but DTC's post would indicate that's not the case. Also lmao, "do the actions of a few represent everyone in that group?", then saying what you hate about progressives is that they all think that way. DO YOU SEE THE IRONY? I can't believe how tone deaf this post is, amazing. 4) based on my answer to number 3, it doesn't say anything. Just like the actions of the 3 white teens who tortured a mentally ill black kid at around the same time don't reflect anything about white people as a whole. What the situation does reflect is that the justice system in the US is still biased against POC, considering the black torturers are going to jail (as they should), while the three white teens (one was legally an adult), got literally 0 jail time between them.

Also for the record Richard Spencer is a self described white nationalist, which is pretty much a nazi equivalent. He doesn't want to kill all the Jews, he just wants a racially pure America by deporting all POC, that's so much better!
 

eden

laid to rest
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past SPL Champion
When has tribalism not been a part of how we deal with others? The idea that we can expect America, in its current state to be inclusive to everyone equally, without judgement is laughable. We probably are home to some of the least tolerant people in the West, and to be constantly "surprised" by shootings is laughable.

We have all of these amendments meant to give us basic rights, but they are constantly abused in the worst ways; and I can confidently say even once Trump's presidency has passed the more racist group of people that did vote for him won't just go away. We've normalized them. Our laws have never worked fairly for all, everything is subject to interpretation. Historically not being white, has always led to being on the wrong side of that interpretation;

The issue is inherently racial in nature, and it will definitely continue to be polarizing, and politicized, for as long as we think that how a person looks is a reason to think any less of them. Just have to look at how America's foreign policy quickly changed from give me your ill, impoverished and weak to being against granting of work visas, kind of speaks to that. For a country that prides itself, on how it is the front runner of capitalism; we certainly seem to behave in quite the opposite way when the wind doesn't blow behind our sails. We talk about free market, and then the moment free market takes jobs from people here, and gives them to people abroad(even if they might be better at said job) we get mad. Again all of this just comes back to said foreigners, looking and/or speaking differently.

On the one hand this is pretty obvious to anyone living in/following the American political scene for a while; on the other, you have people saying we're "overly" politically correct right now. Maybe its because the minorities didn't and still are not getting their due? For the most part this is a problem that'll sadly keep on popping up, until we decide how we want to live and be governed.
 
Yeah this is a progressive thing, which is why liberals are pushing for that Muslim ban!

As for your questions: 1) so minorities are only allowed to complain after the growing white nationalist movement starts ethnically cleansing them? Threats aren't enough? It's not like the threat isn't there, you saw what happened in Portland, or just the large increase in hate crimes post DT's election. 2) are you kidding me? Historical context is hugely important in terms of politics, culture, and race relations. POC live in a society in which they legally were second class citizens. Do you think that the reason the poverty rate among native Americans and black Americans is almost three times higher than among white Americans is due to the fact they are inferior, or is it more likely due to the fact that white people developed a large economic advantage when stealing land from the native Americans (and also killing them) and enslaving black people, and have, as a whole (obviously there are exceptions), been holding onto this advantage. I'm honestly stunned someone is asking a question that essentially amounts to "what does history have to do with today's issues?" I don't know, fucking everything? 3) no, if this were the case, based on the 4 posts above DTC's (not to mention the old Gregg post I just deleted) I'd assume that people who have never been a part of a political outgroup are incapable of empathy or intelligent posting, but DTC's post would indicate that's not the case. Also lmao, "do the actions of a few represent everyone in that group?", then saying what you hate about progressives is that they all think that way. DO YOU SEE THE IRONY? I can't believe how tone deaf this post is, amazing. 4) based on my answer to number 3, it doesn't say anything. Just like the actions of the 3 white teens who tortured a mentally ill black kid at around the same time don't reflect anything about white people as a whole. What the situation does reflect is that the justice system in the US is still biased against POC, considering the black torturers are going to jail (as they should), while the three white teens (one was legally an adult), got literally 0 jail time between them.

Also for the record Richard Spencer is a self described white nationalist, which is pretty much a nazi equivalent. He doesn't want to kill all the Jews, he just wants a racially pure America by deporting all POC, that's so much better!
1) Well, isn't that not what I said. I'm not aware of what happened in Portland, do tell. I'm not sure what you're implying here, either. Are you saying a hate crime increase (which might just be media outlet bias) means there's a conspiracy to kill all non-white people?

2) Tragic. I care very little about what happened in the past. I have no doubt that there is a disproportionate amount of poor black people, due a system that was (keyword) in place. It couldn't just be the after effects of such a system, now could it? If people need financial aid to get to a standard of living to start being able to work their way up, maybe you should focus on achieving that instead? Clearly it can be done (again, black president. Twice), but being placed in a competitive job market when the past did kind of screw you over will lead to you getting low wage jobs. Does this mean black people generally tend to have a worse chance at getting better jobs and, thus, stay poor? Yes. Does this garbage society with second class citizenship still exist? Probably not. Also worth noting is that it seems there is priority on helping poor PoC instead of just every poor person. Equality is a thing, I thought?

I find the focus on figuring out who to blame instead of solving the problem in a way that ensures poverty in general decreases kind of unproductive.

3) Good to hear and good on you. Daily reminder that someone being hypocritical doesn't automatically mean the point he/she made falls apart.

4) Again, good on you. But why can the only reason this seems to be happening (or, alternatively, be put up front and center by media outlets every time it does happen) be a horrible system put up by horrible people (instead of, for example, individual people having individual biases)? And if such a system does indeed exist, why not attempt to change it? Make it better for everyone in a bad spot?

So Spencer is a shit. Tragic. Now do tell me how you can tell someone who does agree with him and someone who doesn't apart. By what they say, right? Too bad antifa shuts down gatherings and rallies where you could do that, but you can punch them all anyway. Because they're probably in the former category. And if they willingly tried engaging in discussion with them, they HAVE to be one, right? Unless this isn't a response to my second to last paragraph, at which point I will ask what the point of this was.

Personally, I think the muslim ban is a bit of a misnomer as it implies all muslim people were banned when in actuality it was seven countries and only affected 13% of the muslim population worldwide. Or is it due the primarily affected group being muslims? Just wondering how the muslim ban got called just that, don't mind this bit.
 

Blazade

is a Forum Moderator
Moderator
The Muslim Ban was called that by Donald Trump himself, lol. He may have since refined the langauge and stretched legal structure to start pushing it as something more politically correct but the original intent is clear in its broad implementation and hamfisted execution.

I personally have always thought the main issue was class and class warfare in the abstract, so we can agree there, however. You can't really use a single counterexample in Obama to make a case about social trends. Yes, racism isn't overt anymore, not nearly as much, but larger social trends are harder to catch when you're a part of them.
 
this has been answered many times within academia and even in cong. please read peter gelderloos' book 'how nonviolence protects the state' in order to understand the purpose of a 'diversity of tactics' as malcolm x would put it.

before i delve into why i feel as though violence shouldn't be wafted away in progressive movements, i think it's important to establish what protests are meant to achieve. they are mechanisms of effecting change and disrupting the state--ways of mobilising folx en masse in order to achieve a goal. in the face of patriarchy, capitalism, colonialism et al., protests like worker strikes and sit-ins have been integral for the betterment of labor. although individual workers in our society lack the means of self-liberation, gatherings allow for a much more pronounced statement in the battle against oppressors.

it's also important to establish that my acknowledgment of violence as a useful and sometimes necessary mechanism of change doesn't mean that i am pro-violence. often, discussions of nonviolence are unproductive because champions of 'safety' and 'non-harmful methods' create a false dichotomy of non-violence vs violence. to address us as solely violent actors is a misconception. instead, i believe that progressive actors should consider every tool in their toolbox and determine the best method of action. sometimes, this might be violence. often it is not. doing away with historically effective methods of protest under an arbitrary moral guise is a misguided action.

nonviolence is doing the work of the state for the state. pacifists pushing for nonviolent methods in the face of an unsympathetic bureaucracy allows for the state to establish dominion of violence. the state wishes for a nonviolent opposition--they're far easier to ignore and have far weaker of a chokehold. feel free to march around washington exclaiming transphobic, white feministy 'pussies fight back' mantras, but how will this coalition effectively curtail the heinous policies the state wishes to enact? what are the effects of your march? therein lies the problem: nonviolent coalitions are often historically far less effective.

now you may just falsely cling onto gandhi, martin luther king jr., et al. with your whitewashed history and wish to prove me wrong. your knowledge of history, however, is from the mouth of the coloniser. the history taught in our public education system is from a patriotic, winner's perspective. look no further than the accounts of american imperialism and east-asian hegemony being obfuscated under the guise of a 'bad guy' or 'democracy' in order to understand the very framing that you've been taught. to promote martin luther king as the messiah of the civil rights movement is to ignore the black panthers party that helped espouse national movements and allow him to gain a foothold. to espouse mlk's tactics as superior is to ignore the power that black revolutionaries and resistors afforded him.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state

"In the spring of 1963, Martin Luther King Jr.‘s Birmingham campaign was looking like it would be a repeat of the dismally failed action in Albany, Georgia (where a 9 month civil disobedience campaign in 1961 demonstrated the powerlessness of nonviolent protesters against a government with seemingly bottomless jails, and where, on July 24, 1962, rioting youth took over whole blocks for a night and forced the police to retreat from the ghetto, demonstrating that a year after the nonviolent campaign, black people in Albany still struggled against racism, but they had lost their preference for nonviolence). Then, on May 7 in Birmingham, after continued police violence, three thousand black people began fighting back, pelting the police with rocks and bottles. Just two days later, Birmingham — up until then an inflexible bastion of segregation — agreed to desegregate downtown stores, and President Kennedy backed the agreement with federal guarantees. The next day, after local white supremacists bombed a black home and a black business, thousands of black people rioted again, seizing a 9 block area, destroying police cars, injuring several cops (including the chief inspector), and burning white businesses. A month and a day later, President Kennedy was calling for Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act, ending several years of a strategy to stall the civil rights movement. Perhaps the largest of the limited, if not hollow, victories of the civil rights movement came when black people demonstrated they would not remain peaceful forever. Faced with the two alternatives, the white power structure chose to negotiate with the pacifists, and we have seen the results."

being a pacifist also comes from a place of privilege. guess what loves, violence is already here. the state has already worked against radical movements through methods including but not limited to: assassinations, provocateurs, black-jacketing, etc. the cointelpro program, which is still alive and well today, worked towards silencing and 'neutralising' folx who were pushing against the state. not only that, but racist, patriarchal [et al.] structural violence through policies like the war on drugs, police violence, redlining of houses, the school to prison pipeline, etc. are already forming violence. they are tools of the state systematically crafted in order to create capital. there is a direct link between extraction of capital and societal oppression.

it is privilege which blinds you to these structures as you're not affected by them. it is privilege which says that the white pacifism pushing towards black liberation is enough to stop the imprisonment and slave labor that is happening. it is privilege which allows white people to gain social and economic capital from supporting black movements yet not actually supporting black people. it is privilege to write heartfelt letters to your senators while many folks affected by us imperialism are fighting for their lives. it is privilege to erase history and rewrite it in your own nonviolent pacifistic guise. it is privilege to have a patronising, patriarchal stance against those who commit acts of violence because their oppression is part and parcel to their livelihood. it is privilege to say that other issues are more important--that our own forced migration of native americans and now elimination of their water sources isn't of concern.

sometimes you just have to fight back. resist with purpose.
language is a source of power and struggle--employing the term riot (a term that has been adopted by the right to delegitimise acts of defiance against the state), especially in the mass media, is an attempt to neuter the efficacy of said defiance. keep in mind that this term is coded among racial lines as well.

"Pacifists would also do well to examine the color of violence. When we mention riots, whom do we envision? White activists committing property destruction as a form of civil disobedience may stretch, but do not usually lose, the protective covering of “nonviolence.” People of color engaged in politically motivated property destruction, unless strictly within the rubric of a white activist-organized protest, are banished to the realm of violence, denied consideration as activists, not portrayed as conscientious."

if you believe that any forme of violence is unnecessary in a modern context, i question your consciousness wrt many of the issues that folks are dissenting against. we have more slaves alive today than ever before in history through the state propagating the necessity of prison. this industry, tying state criminalisation to privatised prisons and neoliberal capitalism, reveals one of the many flaws in our current system.

primitive accumulation has never been addressed by capitalism, and the myth of meritocracy promotes neutrality against the state in many marginalised communities. while studying this primitive accumulation, we find the roots for many other imbalances present in oppressed groups today, primarily in people of color, through the redlining of houses, the disparities in prison sentences and arrest rates for petty crimes, etc. this accumulation describes the usurpation of native american land for resources, water, etc. it also describes the usurpation of colored bodies for free labor and sex. chattel slavery allowed for possessors to overtake bodies for sex and then enslave the children for more capital. the interconnection of state legislation and capitalism is present yet again.

much how feudalism, the predecessor of capitalism, promoted neutrality through the myth of divine right, we find this very same kool-aid fettering progress in the communities today. in turn, this allows for a simpler extraction of labor for capitalists. as i mentioned previously, societal oppression is part and parcel to the extraction of labor. this is to say that capitalists have historically subjugated folx in order to more easily extract labor (and therefore capital). how do we reconcile 'equality' with this system of oppression which has never been adequately confronted?

there are myriad other issues that radical actors push against, many of which have been discussed in previous cong threads--i just gave an example i hadn't seen given; folx like myzozoa have outlined many more modern examples of discrimination and work needed to be done. the civil rights movement inadequately amended even de jure discrimination, let alone de facto discrimination. ignoring this discrimination shows a willful ignorance of modern movements and a deficient understanding of history.
 
some ways the state is violent that have been subscribed to just on this page:
  • propagating the idea that violence is inherently bad through public education
  • whitewashing history & turning it into jingoistic propaganda
  • institutionalizing the non-profit industrial complex
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
"Let's punch this dude who's ideology differs from mine. He's a fascist (I think, possibly. Maybe). He also loses any decent human treatment based on this assumption, so let's hit him with a bicycle lock and crack his skull."

Where are these ethnic cleansing plans being executed? Why do past actions committed by people who aren't even alive today relevant and able to be tossed onto folks who had nothing to do with it, save sharing skin color? Do the actions of a few pertaining to a group reflect on the whole? So how does that kidnapping of a mentally disabled white kid by black teens reflect on the black community in America?

That last question highlights what I hate about "progressive" people. This tribalism leads to shitslinging contests of "yeah, I know we did that, but YOU guys did this", which is not very productive. Or fair. I'm not going to hold an entire group responsible for that actions of a few (and from a different time, even). That's retarded, the only actions an individual is responsible for are their own.

Besides that, all starting a fight does is make your side seem needlessly aggressive and invoke sympathy for the maybe-maybe not Nazi's you're punching, which sounds a bit counterproductive. Call the people doing this racist for showing basic human empathy and you'll only cause pushback to your movement. Not to mention, if they punch back, you eat shit, because now you can't claim the moral high ground (you punched first) and, if they genuinely are a shitty person, they're probably going to go further than you.

Remind me why you're punching them again?

so self contradicting:
"That last question highlights what I hate about "progressive" people." lol ok
"I'm not going to hold an entire group responsible for that actions of a few (and from a different time, even). That's retarded, the only actions an individual is responsible for are their own. "

This tribalism leads to shitslinging contests of "yeah, I know we did that, but YOU guys did this"

lol 'whine' in front me, you just did all the thing you said the leftists (that you say that you hate) do.


you are really dumb for real
 
Last edited:
yes i am against



so self contradicting:
"That last question highlights what I hate about "progressive" people." lol ok
"I'm not going to hold an entire group responsible for that actions of a few (and from a different time, even). That's retarded, the only actions an individual is responsible for are their own. "

This tribalism leads to shitslinging contests of "yeah, I know we did that, but YOU guys did this"

lol 'whine' in front me, you just did all the thing you said the leftists (that you say that you hate) do.


you are really dumb for real
So can I take your lack of counterpoints to everything else I've mentioned as you agreeing with them?

Unless you think that, somehow, focusing on one bit and showing how wrong it is (even though hypocrisy by itself doesn't negate the point) makes anything else I've said invalid?

Try coming up with some counterpoints instead of insulting me. Thanks and a good day to you.

EDIT:
this has been answered many times within academia and even in cong. please read peter gelderloos' book 'how nonviolence protects the state' in order to understand the purpose of a 'diversity of tactics' as malcolm x would put it.
Well, I most definitely would give whatever you linked a read, if only to get more context on those quotes.

But I'm about to go do things and, as a result, me giving this a quick read and giving you a proper response will take a bit.

So give me some time and I will get back to you.
 
Last edited:

PDC

lowlife
is a Team Rater Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
2) Tragic. I care very little about what happened in the past.
this is essentially all i need to hear to understand your view of racial / sexist / whatever struggles when placed in a modern context. the past matters very much; understanding why were are at a specific place, what strategies worked, how injustices have been paved over and replaced with lesser condolences (the socialist groups being replaced by the 'progressives' in the early 20th century), etc. by ignoring the past, you are essentially viewing this entire setting as an equal-playing field, and will miss any nuances or conclusions. things cannot be looked at purely through the context of the present day, they must be analyzed as an evolving line. your willingness to ignore that shows an unwillingness to solve the problem.

(doesn't seem you really want to solve the problem either considering you only stress a moderate route)

4) Again, good on you. But why can the only reason this seems to be happening (or, alternatively, be put up front and center by media outlets every time it does happen) be a horrible system put up by horrible people (instead of, for example, individual people having individual biases)? And if such a system does indeed exist, why not attempt to change it? Make it better for everyone in a bad spot?
why are you assuming that we are not trying to do this lol. if you're saying systematic racism or biases don't inherently exist then you are completely mistaken. systematic bias did not end with wide-sweeping legislation or the civil rights protests; subjugation of minorities, whether racial, sexual, or religious has been the theme of the power structure in western nations for hundreds of years -- and you believe that all of construction has simply been overturned? i guess this goes right in line with your complete ignorance to the past, you aren't willing to understand a wider context and thus apply that theorem of individuality to instead trump a clear pattern.
 

Ash Borer

I've heard they're short of room in hell
this has been answered many times within academia and even in cong. please read peter gelderloos' book 'how nonviolence protects the state' in order to understand the purpose of a 'diversity of tactics' as malcolm x would put it.
How is that a system with seemingly bottomless jails, one that profits from jails even, is damaged by violent protests? Violence justifies police violence and massive arresting and incarceration in the eyes of many. As violence escalates, the state's action for violence is further justified, until war is upon us, and in war there is a loser.

How can it be that violent protesting will lead to anything but further oppression when your opponent has all of the power?
 
So just to be clear here. It's okay to shoot congressmen we disagree with in ideology? It's okay to assault people who don't share my views? It's perfectly fine if I deface, set fire to, or outright destroy property on my way to rallying with the troops? And that I should be praised for standing up against the opposition? Cause if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.
 

Ash Borer

I've heard they're short of room in hell
Hes saying that violence to enforce political will can be justified. I dont necessarily disagree, we call them "freedom fighters" when theyre on our side and "terrorists" when theyre not. My concern is starting a war you cant possibly win.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top