Serious Political Correctness and Race

It sounds like you're after a civil war of political ideology

After? No. Willing to accept that it's going to happen whether I want it to or not? Yes (I'd even argue that it's already begun). Willing to stand up and do the right thing when all hell breaks loose? Abso-fucking-lutely.
 
Last edited:

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
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.
no i call them 'the crazy men with the guns'

please tell me more about how divisive and desiring of 'civil war' 'the left' is, while youre busy painting leftists as dangerous and violent. like who is really bringing the civil war? it's not the users perceived as 'progressive' 'liberal' and 'leftist' that are in the thread telling stories to collectively blame the left or the right for this outburst of violence.

please check ur own divisive rhetoric before you project that bull shit onto others.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
this convo literally went from congressman being shot by white male facebook commenter w assualt rifle to 'let me tell you about how leftwing protests are violent and bad and how they want whatever violence is coming to them'

plz children
 

vonFiedler

Ridley is in Smash
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
Could you cool it Myzo? I think you're misdirecting your rage. You can't agree with dice and steel with it and then lash out like "NU UH" at someone who is just asking questions. That's what the alt-right does with their racist doublespeak...
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
like=/=agree

just as telling me im mad =/= me being mad, or my points being off.

that would be consistent with painting perceived leftwing users/anyone tbh as misbehaving and mad/bad

continue dat rhetoric
 
Last edited:
Really, Dice is the one so far calling for outright murder without saying it. I just want him to come out and say it.

And Myzozoa, the liberals in this topic are doing a pretty good job of saying they like violence themselves to me. They don't need my help.
 

vonFiedler

Ridley is in Smash
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
like=/=agree

just as telling me im mad =/= me being mad, or my points being off.

that would be consistent with painting perceived leftwing users/anyone tbh as misbehaving and mad/bad

continue dat rhetoric
Your points were off when directed at ash borer... and when at me. We're not outlaw or the right wing media who are saying the things you are opposing. You just look ridiculous. If barking at everyone who comes within 5 feet of you is not being mad, I don't know what is.

Like, I think there was an opportunity for an interesting discussion before you abruptly shot it down. Why not explain your position instead of endlessly condescending to literally everyone?
 
Last edited:

Ash Borer

I've heard they're short of room in hell
no i call them 'the crazy men with the guns'

please tell me more about how divisive and desiring of 'civil war' 'the left' is, while youre busy painting leftists as dangerous and violent. like who is really bringing the civil war? it's not the users perceived as 'progressive' 'liberal' and 'leftist' that are in the thread telling stories to collectively blame the left or the right for this outburst of violence.

please check ur own divisive rhetoric before you project that bull shit onto others.
Sorry but youre really putting words in my mouth. Im asserting that violence only leads to escalation. You have a political will and political enemies. To impose your will on them with violence can work, but only if they submit. If they dont submit, theyll fight back, and then to make them submit you have to use more violence. As long as your enemy is not willing to submit, then to use violence is to commit to starting a war or you yourself submitting accomplishing nothing.

Now Dice has made the claim that in the past the political enemy, those against the civil rights movement of the 1960s submitted very quickly to violence of riots, and this is the precedence for further change. Not only do I find this interpretation the product of picking and choosing the events of history to suit an ideology, the term whitewashing is the tools to accomplish this, but I also dont think its analogous to the current reality. Do you think burning down baltimore businesses again is going to lead to mass police violence, incarceration and pepe nazis showing up to antifa rallies with weapons while feeling justified? Will it really pressure drumpfy and his congress to pass affirmative action laws, cop accountability laws, or whatever your goal is?
 
Last edited:
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.
I didn't realize not caring for something meant you didn't know anything about it.

I never said it was an equal playing field. I said:
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.
I'm well aware that due past discrimination in various areas (education, getting a job, second class citizenry, etc.) black people are on the backfoot, particularly when it comes to improving themselves (via education) and their lives (through getting better jobs). I don't see, however, how focusing on exposing a system (that I still haven't seen being proven to exist) and trying to find someone to blame (something something not you, but something I've seen from a lot of left leaning folk something something) will change anyone's life for the better, save for raising racial tension, which doesn't do that, by the by. If given enough support to be able to be above barely getting by, I'd say poor people would be able to work towards getting an education or improving their lives.

And getting discriminated against while, for example, applying for a job seems pretty hard nowadays, given how most, if not all left leaning media outlets tend to fall all over themselves trying to expose "the injustice of the system". So I'm pretty sure poor PoC, at least, will definitely have a platform to voice their concerns, if need be. Strange that a system intent on oppressing minorities is giving them a platform to speak on.

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.
Um...ok. I'll let the "complete ignorance" bit slide, seeing as I have already addressed that. But how did you get all that from me saying that this system you keep going on about might not exist? Systemic racism did exist. Good, you're right on that, somewhat. But the rest of this seems part an attempt to tell me your worldview and part strawman.

You'll note that my main issue with most of this isn't that there aren't people who get/were discriminated against and are worse off for it, but rather the claim that this system that supposedly keeps them down exists, totally and for real.
 
*sighs, rubs temples* Fine, I'll be polite and drop the snark for one post.

You can't agree with dice and steel with it and then lash out like "NU UH" at someone who is just asking questions.

I did not say that I want violence. I said the literal opposite, that I do not want violence. If you wish to align yourself with omnicidal bigots over those of us speaking out against omnicidal bigotry, then whatever, I'll let history be the judge, but do not put words in my mouth. You've said that you want to discuss this in good faith, right? That can't happen if you insist on flat-out lying about my beliefs.
 

GatoDelFuego

Legendary Cat
is a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Moderator
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
Can you explain this some more? I don't quite follow. The public school system is...brainwashing us to believe that violence is bad (when it's actually not, all the time)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: g
I'm well aware that due past discrimination in various areas (education, getting a job, second class citizenry, etc.) black people are on the backfoot, particularly when it comes to improving themselves (via education) and their lives (through getting better jobs). I don't see, however, how focusing on exposing a system (that I still haven't seen being proven to exist) and trying to find someone to blame (something something not you, but something I've seen from a lot of left leaning folk something something) will change anyone's life for the better, save for raising racial tension, which doesn't do that, by the by. If given enough support to be able to be above barely getting by, I'd say poor people would be able to work towards getting an education or improving their lives.

And getting discriminated against while, for example, applying for a job seems pretty hard nowadays, given how most, if not all left leaning media outlets tend to fall all over themselves trying to expose "the injustice of the system". So I'm pretty sure poor PoC, at least, will definitely have a platform to voice their concerns, if need be. Strange that a system intent on oppressing minorities is giving them a platform to speak on.
The problem being, that systemic injustices are not a relic of the past, but rather a pervasive force even in the modern era. There's plenty of evidence that supports that black and latino minorities are heavily effected by current injustices. The easiest example would be to highlight the sentencing differences between crack and powder cocaine. Until 2010, with the passage of the 'Fair' Sentencing Act (relatively more fair, not entirely fair), the mandatory sentencing for the drugs at a ratio of 100:1, meaning that the same mandatory sentences were applied for possessing 100 grams of powder cocaine as for possessing 1 gram of crack (which, with the passage of the FSA, reduced the ratio to ~18:1).

Of course, differences in mandatory sentencing have little to with race... right? However, here comes the issue with the difference. Whites were far more likely to be found in possession of powder cocaine, while Blacks were far more likely to be founded in possession of crack. This is beacuse powder tends to be more expensive and harder to manufacture than crack, thus economic barriers affect who has which version. This of course resulted in huge differences in how long each race were forced to stay in prison, and eventually, the a large lopsided racial make-up of our prison systems. Furthermore, compounded with the failure of the correctional system to... well... correct, and the disparity of hiring between whites and other racial minorities, helped fund the circular prison cycle we all know love. Thus, a circular system arose, blacks, especially males, were caught as a result of wide sweeps by police targeting black communities (beacuse the stereotype is that black communities have higher drug use, and were thus racially profiled). Then, blacks were caught in overly long prison sentences, swelling the prison population. Upon release, these individuals combined with the disparity in hiring based upon race and lack of a higher education, were forced to survive by doing the only thing they had access to, criminal activities.

Also, to note, the consensus in the scientific community is that the effects of crack and powder are the same, the only difference being their form. So any justification of the mandatory sentencing ratio is pretty much void on the basis of effect.

So, why does this matter? Well, your statement was that you don't see how "focusing on exposing a system will change anyone's life for the better". With the passage of the FSA in 2010, at least a step in the right direction to reduce racial disparity in the prison population was created. Furthermore, in 2011, I believe they passed more legislation which allowed the federal government to potentially reduce the sentences of many inmates sentenced on non-violent drug charges under the new changes. However, this change for the better would never have existed, had there not been some effort to expose the injustices in the criminal justice system, through lobbying by non-profit groups, and even yes, protests.

Exposing flaws in the system is simply a step in the right direction, showcasing issues and hopefully allowing for those in power to at least attempt to address these issues and promote changes/fixes.

Um...ok. I'll let the "complete ignorance" bit slide, seeing as I have already addressed that. But how did you get all that from me saying that this system you keep going on about might not exist? Systemic racism did exist. Good, you're right on that, somewhat. But the rest of this seems part an attempt to tell me your worldview and part strawman.

You'll note that my main issue with most of this isn't that there aren't people who get/were discriminated against and are worse off for it, but rather the claim that this system that supposedly keeps them down exists, totally and for real.
I think my above reply is at least some evidence enough, and I don't really think I have it in me to write much more (my AC is broken, RIP me, I'm slowly dying), so I'll do something light

https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc232i.pdf

This is a study by Devah Pager, a professor of sociology currently working at Harvard. It's widely acclaimed and often used as the cornerstone study to showcase racial discrimination in hiring, and while it's closing in on being somewhat dated (2003 publication if I'm remembering correctly), there have been a plethora of other follow-up studies that corroborate her findings.

In the study, to be put shortly, she tested to see how a name (and the racial connotation it brings) affected one's chance at being called back for a job interview. In summery, she found that the racial connotation of a name strongly affected one's chance of getting called back, so much so that white males (she did other studies on gender with race as well I think, or it might have been other people) with a criminal record were more likely to get called back to a job than black males without a criminal record and with higher education. You can imagine how much call backs black males with a criminal record got.

Thus, the issuing being, is that if it's a lot harder to obtain a job, often your access to resources is drastically reduced. Furthermore, this often pushes individuals to criminal activities often just to survive.

Now, I think your argument is that socio-economic systems don't actively seek to hurt most minorities, which is correct. However, racism has updated since the conventional terminology before and during the Civil Rights era. No longer is it the overt, KKK, "Let's lynch them all!" racism, rather it's become covert, acting to hamper the opportunities of minority groups all while putting on a cheerful smile.

I doubt that any of this will change your mind, but I might as well post this beacuse I've just wasted ~an hour typing :P. Rip me.
 
Last edited:

thesecondbest

Just Kidding I'm First
The problem being, that systemic injustices are not a relic of the past, but rather a pervasive force even in the modern era. There's plenty of evidence that supports that black and latino minorities are heavily effected by current injustices. The easiest example would be to highlight the sentencing differences between crack and powder cocaine. Until 2010, with the passage of the 'Fair' Sentencing Act (relatively more fair, not entirely fair), the mandatory sentencing for the drugs at a ratio of 100:1, meaning that the same mandatory sentences were applied for possessing 100 grams of powder cocaine as for possessing 1 gram of crack (which, with the passage of the FSA, reduced the ratio to ~18:1).

Of course, differences in mandatory sentencing have little to with race... right? However, here comes the issue with the difference. Whites were far more likely to be found in possession of powder cocaine, while Blacks were far more likely to be founded in possession of crack. This is beacuse powder tends to be more expensive and harder to manufacture than crack, thus economic barriers affect who has which version. This of course resulted in huge differences in how long each race were forced to stay in prison, and eventually, the a large lopsided racial make-up of our prison systems. Furthermore, compounded with the failure of the correctional system to... well... correct, and the disparity of hiring between whites and other racial minorities, helped fund the circular prison cycle we all know love. Thus, a circular system arose, blacks, especially males, were caught as a result of wide sweeps by police targeting black communities (beacuse the stereotype is that black communities have higher drug use, and were thus racially profiled). Then, blacks were caught in overly long prison sentences, swelling the prison population. Upon release, these individuals combined with the disparity in hiring based upon race and lack of a higher education, were forced to survive by doing the only thing they had access to, criminal activities.

Also, to note, the consensus in the scientific community is that the effects of crack and powder are the same, the only difference being their form. So any justification of the mandatory sentencing ratio is pretty much void on the basis of effect.

So, why does this matter? Well, your statement was that you don't see how "focusing on exposing a system will change anyone's life for the better". With the passage of the FSA in 2010, at least a step in the right direction to reduce racial disparity in the prison population was created. Furthermore, in 2011, I believe they passed more legislation which allowed the federal government to potentially reduce the sentences of many inmates sentenced on non-violent drug charges under the new changes. However, this change for the better would never have existed, had there not been some effort to expose the injustices in the criminal justice system, through lobbying by non-profit groups, and even yes, protests.

Exposing flaws in the system is simply a step in the right direction, showcasing issues and hopefully allowing for those in power to at least attempt to address these issues and promote changes/fixes.


I think my above reply is at least some evidence enough, and I don't really think I have it in me to write much more (my AC is broken, RIP me, I'm slowly dying), so I'll do something light

https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc232i.pdf

This is a study by Devah Pager, a professor of sociology currently working at Harvard. It's widely acclaimed and often used as the cornerstone study to showcase racial discrimination in hiring, and while it's closing in on being somewhat dated (2003 publication if I'm remembering correctly), there have been a plethora of other follow-up studies that corroborate her findings.

In the study, to be put shortly, she tested to see how a name (and the racial connotation it brings) affected one's chance at being called back for a job interview. In summery, she found that the racial connotation of a name strongly affected one's chance of getting called back, so much so that white males (she did other studies on gender with race as well I think, or it might have been other people) with a criminal record were more likely to get called back to a job than black males without a criminal record and with higher education. You can imagine how much call backs black males with a criminal record got.

Thus, the issuing being, is that if it's a lot harder to obtain a job, often your access to resources is drastically reduced. Furthermore, this often pushes individuals to criminal activities often just to survive.

Now, I think your argument is that socio-economic systems don't actively seek to hurt most minorities, which is correct. However, racism has updated since the conventional terminology before and during the Civil Rights era. No longer is it the overt, KKK, "Let's lynch them all!" racism, rather it's become covert, acting to hamper the opportunities of minority groups all while putting on a cheerful smile.

I doubt that any of this will change your mind, but I might as well post this beacuse I've just wasted ~an hour typing :P. Rip me.
Yes, but is the solution to help black kids stay off drugs and stay in school or to go out and commit violence against the government?
Also, is this classism or racism? Poor white people probably use crack more than powdered cocaine. No reason why this is racial, just a way for the prison industrial complex to make more money.
As for the names paper, you may be right, but I'd like to see it controlled on the job they apply for. It may be the case that ethnic names are more accepted in certain fields and less in other. But I agree with you on that one.
 

Blazade

is a Forum Moderator
Moderator
Also, is this classism or racism? Poor white people probably use crack more than powdered cocaine. No reason why this is racial, just a way for the prison industrial complex to make more money.
The way I see it is that even though it's a classism problem it often becomes seen through a racial phenotype in the eyes of the justice system and the public. It isn't easy to decouple correlation sometimes, and regardless of that we have a rather scary tendency of separating the self from the other. When I criticize the system it often isn't to point out explicitly malicious intent, but instead to call attention to trends and iron out a few kinks.
 
Yes, but is the solution to help black kids stay off drugs and stay in school or to go out and commit violence against the government?
There really is no good answer to combating drug use in any community. Programs like DARE really haven't been too effective in the U.S., but at least they raise some sort of awareness. Following in Portugal's footsteps and decriminalizing drug use and treating it as a public health issue may be effective in smaller, more united countries, but applying the same effects to the U.S. would not necessarily resolve issues in the same format.

Of course, violence is only best reserved as a last recourse, but just saying "keep black youth from using using/dealing drugs" is not going to solve the issue. In fact, whites are more likely to use hard drugs than blacks as illustrated by this study here. Even if we eliminate mandatory sentencing laws, poured billions of USD into funding programs like DARE in inner cities, the issues would still remain. It's far harder for blacks to obtain jobs vrs whites as illustrated by Pager's study and countless others, and so the recourse in inner cities has often been to look to crime/gang life. Even if we pushed for moving low-education jobs to inner city communities that provided greater weight for minorities when accepting job applicants, it doesn't resolve the issue of racial profiling among law enforcement... and so on and so on.

There's no easy answer, beacuse there's always one more issue that has to be resolved. We sadly can't just go "poof! no more drug use! Yay! We solved racism!", beacuse of how embedded into our society these issue are.

Which is why (at least arguably so), you see a lot of violent actions being preformed on the behalf of fixing inequality. There's a lot of pent-up rage, at a system that was designed throughout history to discriminate against blacks. The federal government has rarely made any effort to try and fix inequality, and when it does, it often flops badly (take for example, No Child Left Behind). Often, the federal government falls headfirst into the color-blind-ideology trap, and it seems to understand the world as a post-racist society. Former President Obama, for example, is the prime target of those who support a color blind ideology. "Oh look, we've elected a black president, we must not have any racism or racial inequality anymore, yay!"

It's that dismissiveness that we see propagated by those afflicted with color blind racism, that results in aggressive actions. As well-off individuals, who don't have to suffer from racial inequality, it's often hard to see the issues and how they effect people. So when say, someone dismisses black issues as non-existent, it's pretty easy to understand why many blacks get so enraged. We don't have to deal with the issues they face on a daily basis, and so we can't possibly fully understand the complete condition.

I'm a white (okay, white and Asian, but Asians have acquired pseudo-whiteness) male, who lives in a wealthy location and who has access to sufficient monetary capital. Even as I talk about race and the various studies about it, I'm probably never going to have to deal with the effects of true racism (unless Japan keeps getting overrun by militants, we get Imperial Japan back, WW2 2.0 breaks out, and I get interred at an internment camp like my great grandparents :P). So I can't really speak on how racism really effects people, I can only report the numbers. We like to think we have all the answers on how to fix issues, but the truth is, we don't.

Sorry I kind of went off on a tangent, but I like to try and explain things in full :3.
Also, is this classism or racism? Poor white people probably use crack more than powdered cocaine. No reason why this is racial, just a way for the prison industrial complex to make more money.
They're very similar, beacuse class is often heavily related to race. Again, for the sake of time, I'm not going to go into depth. However, the truth is that there is a huge disparity in the capital among races. While the wage inequality has slowly started to diminish (though it's still pretty large), on average whites have more capital than blacks and Hispanics. Capital includes the monetary value of things you own, such as your house, or your car. If you factor in capital, there's a massive difference in the mean wealth between whites, and blacks/hispanics.

Furthermore, as illustrated, whites are far more likely to be in possession of hard drugs, so incarceration disparity shouldn't be as large as it is. ~1/17 whites males are going to be incarcerated in their lifetimes, while ~1/3 black males will be incarcerated. Furthermore, as ~60% of the U.S. is white (non-Hispanic white), while only ~12% of the U.S. is black, it's pretty obvious that blacks are being over-represented in the correctional system.

Edit: I should also mention that ~40% of all inmates are black, that's probs more a succinct number for you rather than deriving meaning from my mad ramblings :P. If we didn't have a racial issue in the correctional system, we wouldn't see blacks being over-represented to such an extent.
As for the names paper, you may be right, but I'd like to see it controlled on the job they apply for. It may be the case that ethnic names are more accepted in certain fields and less in other. But I agree with you on that one.
Yeah, compounding variables suck. I'm sure there may have been more controlled studies done, but I'm not a sociologist and I have no idea who may have done them. The problem is, the larger the study, the more expensive and time consuming it is. Imagine 1 small team trying to pull off what the U.S Census Bureau does every 10 years, and trying to get a total study on job specific racial inequality across the entire U.S. using random sampling of businesses categorized by job type (as that would be the best study that reduces compounding variables). Probs would kill all the researchers with exhaustion, or only be completed after the entire study became too dated :P.

Can Blizz go to sleep now? He's very tired...
 

vonFiedler

Ridley is in Smash
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
I did not say that I want violence. I said the literal opposite, that I do not want violence. If you wish to align yourself with omnicidal bigots over those of us speaking out against omnicidal bigotry, then whatever, I'll let history be the judge, but do not put words in my mouth. You've said that you want to discuss this in good faith, right? That can't happen if you insist on flat-out lying about my beliefs.
Do you really want to play this card?

Did I say what your stance was at all? No, I lumped you in with Dice because you replied to a post asking him a question about his beliefs. Now I'll say that this post:

After? No. Willing to accept that it's going to happen whether I want it to or not? Yes (I'd even argue that it's already begun). Willing to stand up and do the right thing when all hell breaks loose? Abso-fucking-lutely.
Comes across as not exactly zealously anti-war. That's just my understanding based on something you posted.

But the real shit kicker coming from someone who really wants me not to put words in their mouth: When did I align myself with omnicidal bigots? When did I say that I think that your stance (or my understanding of it) was wrong? The fact of the matter is, I agree with you. Which makes you look like a huge drama queen now.

There's a saying, "Evil flourishes when good men do nothing." Has that happened? Yes. But the saying isn't, "Evil flourishes when white supremacists do nothing." 80% of people don't vote at all. Maybe many are still politically inclined but that's a massive middle ground for you to be so quick to condemn anyone who so much as raises an eyebrow at you. You need to be convincing. No one is convinced when you're a chode to them. I tried that all of last year and Trump still became president.
 
if people had read any of my posts, they'd find that i don't oppose violence and support a diversity of tactics. meaning: you should choose what is the most effective tool from your toolbox. it may be violence, it may not be. it depends. nuance is key, y'all.

i believe folks backlashing against the state need to take every measure possible and have every tactic in mind when choosing the most effective. and, in fact, violence has been the one of the most effective. because i only gave one example, Ash Borer has painted me as 'whitewashing' history and being 'selective' but like, there are multiple examples of the efficacy of violence (and the opposite in nonviolence) that are pretty plain-as-day in yr historical knowledge! that was just one example and it was somehow extrapolated as me being selective? https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state i linked and quoted this before, but it's a fabulous resource for anyone who wants to better understand how to take measures against the state, and how being anti-violence is inherently patriarchal, racist, statist, et al.

here is more context, just so i'm not 'selective':

"We realize this threat to be even more direct when we understand that the pacifist history of India’s independence movement is a selective and incomplete picture-nonviolence was not universal in India. Resistance to British colonialism included enough militancy that the Gandhian method can be viewed most accurately as one of several competing forms of popular resistance. As part of a disturbingly universal pattern, pacifists white out those other forms of resistance and help propagate the false history that Gandhi and his disciples were the lone masthead and rudder of Indian resistance. Ignored are important militant leaders such as Chandrasekhar Azad,[6] who fought in armed struggle against the British colonizers, and revolutionaries such as Bhagat Singh, who won mass support for bombings and assassinations as part of a struggle to accomplish the “overthrow of both foreign and Indian capitalism.”[7] The pacifist history of India’s struggle cannot make any sense of the fact that Subhas Chandra Bose, the militant candidate, was twice elected president of the Indian National Congress, in 1938 and 1939.[8] While Gandhi was perhaps the most singularly influential and popular figure in India’s independence struggle, the leadership position he assumed did not always enjoy the consistent backing of the masses. Gandhi lost so much support from Indians when he “called off the movement” after the 1922 riot that when the British locked him up afterwards, “not a ripple of protest arose in India at his arrest.”[9] Significantly, history remembers Gandhi above all others not because he represented the unanimous voice of India, but because of all the attention he was given by the British press and the prominence he received from being included in important negotiations with the British colonial government. When we remember that history is written by the victors, another layer of the myth of Indian independence comes unraveled."

Outlaw keeps trying to paint me as a homicidal maniac because he's unable to grasp these very concepts, but that's okay. please disregard his posts because he's unable to read others.

if you want my opinion about the white shooter who hit up the GOP, my answer is: i don't give a fuck. i shouldn't have to empathise for someone who has consistently voted to take away my rights, the rights of black ppl and poc, and is someone who david duke commended as a savior of 'white civil rights'.

here is a short piece by one of my favorite writers, son of baldwin, that aptly gives my opinion.

https://medium.com/@SonofBaldwin/let-them-fucking-die-c316eee34212

"What I am suggesting will rile us because it operates contrary to our centuries of brainwashing, rejects the religious instruction our oppressors gave us, negates the mounds of propaganda that imagines our oppressors as deserving of our humanity in the face of their lack of such. What I propose will certainly have most white/cisgender/heterosexuals who practice bigotry (or do not believe they practice bigotry even when they do) up in their outrageous feelings because they have become accustomed to our worship, rely on our fealty, and receive sustenance from our sacrifice. They want us as Django Unchained’s Stephen, infinitely and perpetually servile, or as the punchline to their malicious humor, laughing along with them.

Our indifference to their well-being is the only thing that terrifies them.

So:

....

Do nothing.

Least of all put your life on the line for theirs, and do not dare think doing so, putting your life on the line for theirs, gives you reason or cause to feel celestial.

Saving the life of those that would kill you is the opposite of virtuous."
 
Guess I don't have to empathize with PoC/Etc while also supporting wholesale anybody brave enough to gun down anyone who dares threatens my perceived superiority due to the color of my skin or the government of my choice or my ideology.

Thanks for the knowledge Dice. Hope you lose.
 
Last edited:

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
your repetitive italics have already made sure that everyone and their mother in law knows that omg dice advocates murder.You don't need to be 100% on-board with him, I know I'm not, but if you care enough to make multiple response maybe try engaging with the nuance being put forth instead of repeating the same thing thrice with perfunctory one-liners. That's in bad faith, even if you are "right" (whatever that is).
 

vonFiedler

Ridley is in Smash
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
These are the rules.

2. No flaming. Be respectful to each other when posting - as you are everywhere else in the forum apart from Firebot. If you dislike someone's opinion, criticise it and disagree with it, but do not insult or use ad hominems. You will be infracted for this.
Do not keep trying to politicize it whenever I try to enforce this rule. Both sides have done that. Have a little self-awareness please. That's the end of this sidetracking of this thread.
 
Hi there, Libertarian-leaning Centrist from the US here (voted for Gary Johnson in the main US election). Honestly, political correctness is such a hot button subject, while I believe in the last five years it's gone way too far, people seem to be misconstruing political correctness with common decency as a human being. Honestly, the problem that keeps fueling this endless cycle is the fact that radicalism on both sides of the political spectrum has been allowed to free roam for what seems like an eternity now.

Ignoring the internet and its wealth of crazy subcultures, I'd like to point out what I consider to be the two most pressing culturally detrimental organizations in the US. ANTIFA (Left-wing radical fascist group), and the Alt-Right (Right-wing radical fascist group). From the outside looking in, both of these organizations are actually quite similar.

- Both racially motivated (ANTIFA is racist towards white people, Alt-Right is racist towards non-white people)
- Both have similar methods of expression (Both want censorship of opposing views, both want specific religious based systems instituted [ANTIFA wants Sharia Law, Alt-Right wants Catholic Theocracy], both want racial segregation [ANTIFA wants whites to have less rights, Alt-Right wants non-whites to have less rights]
- Both are violent, and frequently use violent protesting methods including but not limited to: vandalism, bodily injury, theft, and road blocking (while this last one is controversial, it has resulted in death both due to protesters getting run over, and people who have died in ambulances because the road was being blocked by protesters).
- Both rose to relevancy due to the 2016 political election due to the main two candidates (Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton) being viewed as "morally repugnant" by each of the respective sides.

The fact that both of these groups have been receiving so much relevancy in the public eye is a contributor to their success. Mainstream media on both political sides loves to fuel the fire, and unfortunately I don't see any of that stopping any time soon. Both of these groups frequently argue over whether being "PC" is necessary or not, but in extreme ways. I feel as though "PC" culture should never be enforced, and us as people should maintain common decency towards our fellow human beings (along with limiting the government's power and reach as much as we can, as it's gotten way too involved in everyone's lives).

One negative thing that comes from political correctness is people attempting to attack freedom of speech, which is something that we as a society cannot afford to lose.

- Freedom of Speech: Now, I understand that people can't just say whatever the hell they want, but we do need to understand that the only type of Free Speech that is illegal is speech that directly incites, or causes physical harm. Notice the term physical, not emotional. It should also never be changed to fit "emotional" harm, or else no-one will be able to say anything without running the risk of being charged in the court of law, and no-one with a functioning brain wants that. This means that under no circumstances should someone be charged for calling someone a slur, or a mean name. As terrible as it is, and as bad as it feels (I can't even tell you guys how many times I was called some variation of "insert slur Smogon won't let me say here" in my early years due to my emo appearance back then), what causes emotional harm is subjective and varies between each individual person. Physical harm is objective, there's no interpreting a flesh wound, if someone stabs you in the leg, that's a physical wound, no room for interpretation. I do believe that people should be able to physically fight each other if it's consensual, and mutually agreed upon before hand (with witnesses and possible documentation to go along with more serious fights). Sometimes humans can't settle things verbally, and that people need to slug it out.

While there are some aspects of political correctness that are beneficial (increased awareness towards mental health, medical conditions, etc), overall the negative side-effects that come from it are far too risky to ever have it be a mainstay in culture.
 
first Google result that wasn't an alt-right blog said:
During Monday's session, Anaya cited Urban Outfitters' so-called "Navajo" line as an example of a major retailer using "false marketing" of an indigenous community ― the Navajo Nation ― for financial gain, CBC reported.

The Navajo Nation sued Urban Outfitters in 2012 for marketing a line of Navajo-themed products ― which included panties and a flask ― without first asking permission from the Native American tribe, which registered the Navajo name in 1942, according to The Guardian. Urban Outfitters reached a settlement with the tribe for an undisclosed amount in November.

The U.N.'s specialized committee, known officially as the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (or IGC), is a forum for WIPO member states to discuss intellectual property issues and negotiate an international treaty that would protect unique cultures and traditions.

It's not political correctness run amok, it's a copyright dispute.
 

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

Top