General Current Events/Political Discussion

[ZBomber | 54]

Can we pause for a minute to talk about how annoying it is that some people constantly embed irrelevant videos in their posts? Especially in this thread. Like does anyone actually watch these, because I know I don't and I'm more likely to completely skip a post altogether if I see a stupid video attached.

[Magus | 169]

6 hours ago, Estil said:

No I think you made your position pretty clear on this one.  I just don't see it in the same way.

You guys should just agree to disagree at this point. You've all talked yourselves in circles multiple times. I am all for debating, but at this point i think it is clear nothing is to be gained by either side at this point. Butting heads for 30 pages, repeating the same points, and resorting to passive agressive jabs just seems like wasted energy.  

Edited June 13, 2020 by Magus

[Tabonga | 2,533]

3 minutes ago, NESfiend said:

To pretend that the vast majority of protesters are not black is ignoring reality and trying to hide behind the technicality that there are some white people too. Its a joke. You can think whatever you want about his post, but thats the joke whether you get it or not. He's been very consistent in his stance on the topic and his joke is consistent with that stance. 

See my edit above about when you called me a noob around here that doesnt understand social discourse. 

From what I can gather when the protesting/looting/arsoning changed into the looting/arsoning phase the makeup of the crowds changed with more white folks emerging from the woodwork (or where ever).  I am kind of surprised that Mr.W. needs you for a mouthpiece - he seems like an articulate and astute person -but perhaps you disagree.  I think there is a hidden joke here - but it is not Mr. W. or I.

See my edit since you posted when I was writing  my message -this does happen occasionally.  But you are twisting the truth yet again - I specifically mentioned the interactions between Cody and myself - no comment on general social discourse.

[Tabonga | 2,533]

10 minutes ago, ZBomber said:

Can we pause for a minute to talk about how annoying it is that some people constantly embed irrelevant videos in their posts? Especially in this thread. Like does anyone actually watch these, because I know I don't and I'm more likely to completely skip a post altogether if I see a stupid video attached.

Since this is actually a politics thread that suggestion (IMHO) more properly belongs in, well, suggestions and feedback.

[NESfiend | 1,556]

16 minutes ago, Magus said:

You guys should just agree to disagree at this point. You've all talked yourselves in circles multiple times. I am all for debating, but at this point i think it is clear nothing is to be gained by either side at this point. Butting heads for 30 pages, repeating the same points, and resorting to passive agressive jabs just seems like wasted energy.  

I've run out of energy for it anyway. Happy to duck out. I'm a young crazy lefty sheep and whatever else. Strange I spent several pages standing against defunding police when no other dem would. There's been plenty of racist stuff in this thread as many have said. His post was over the top enough I lost my patience for it and should have ducked out long ago. Enjoy the statue posts. Ill be playing my NES

Edited June 13, 2020 by NESfiend

[Link | 2,878]

“For generations, police departments have patrolled African-American neighborhoods like occupying armies, surveilling and circumscribing the movements of residents, who are treated as interlopers even on their home turf. The mobility of black people is additionally restricted by a system that construes their mere presence in many public spaces as trespassing, a de-facto crime, punishable by imprisonment or even death.“

From an article on the role bicycles play in protests of the day, in The New Yorker. 

Spoiler

I’m sure some people will discount anything published there, considering it a liberal rag... for some reason it is not on the media bias chart that Tulpa linked to, so we can’t confirm. Neither is Newsweek for that matter. I consider it high quality and factual in its news reporting, so I would expect it to be near the middle. But I have been reading it since I was a kid so maybe it is just biased the same way I am. (FWIW, I read news from many places including some that lean right. I listed some of them when m308gunner asked a general question to the group, what news sources do people read. He naturally declined to answer the same question himself.)

 

[Tulpa | 3,700]

The New Yorker's there, under "Complex Analysis," "skews liberal but still reputable." It's comparable to The Economist, which slightly skews conservative.

They haven't added Newsweek to the chart, but they did rate it very reputable, with a slight liberal bias.

 

Edited June 13, 2020 by Tulpa

[Link | 2,878]

3 hours ago, Tabonga said:

I am not a mind reader like some folks around here.

Speaking of the m308gunner, I am reminded that this was a common refrain of his when “not”-defending The Donald. It is true on its face, just as it is true that we don’t know precisely which or how many police officers are racist without them using the n word*. But what we can do, without reading minds, is recognize patterns. Black men (6% of population) represent 40% of kills by police. That’s a pattern. Speaking generally.

Taking on your specific point Tabonga re: police kill more black people because they have more encounters with black people, because black people commit or are adjacent to more crime, is sitting in more than that simple context. Such as black people are more likely to be poor, due to long term oppression (redlining, education and other service cuts, etc — attn: whoever was claiming racist legislation is not a thing). And being poor means you will need alternative means of earning money [selling cigarettes — Eric Garner] , means you get pulled over [Sandra Bland, Philando Castile] for, for instance, a tail light you can’t get fixed right away (or just straight up profiling) , means you might somehow end up with a counterfeit bill, and not recognize it. [George Floyd]. Such context as that big men assume, rightly, that they can with impunity kill a teenager solely because they don’t recognize them [Trayvon Martin] or because they “fear for their life” [Laquan McDonald]. In both of those instances the teenager was walking away. 

That’s the systemic part. Martin’s killer was just protecting his neighborhood, McDonald’s was just subduing a suspect, Floyd’s and Bland’s were just doing their jobs and so their colleagues didn’t intervene — bullshit. That’s systemic. The system says selling cigarettes or doing drugs (can’t afford more legitimate self care) are crimes that police respond to, while wage theft and stock market manipulation are crimes for lawyers to address, or more likely, no one at all.  

Patterns of systemic, institutionalized racism from the point of the majority in power is real, no matter how much this person or that “doesn’t hate black people”. 

*I say the word in these discussions when I know the people I’m talking to. I don’t think it should have the power it does. But I fully support its status as taboo** for reasons, now we just have to do the same for the ex- or implicit attitude behind its former prevalence. 
**I’m left-transgressive.

[Link | 2,878]

1 hour ago, Tulpa said:

The New Yorker's there, under "Complex Analysis," "skews liberal but still reputable." It's comparable to The Economist, which slightly skews conservative.

They haven't added Newsweek to the chart, but they did rate it very reputable, with a slight liberal bias.

 

Ah. I couldn’t see it on the chart, nor on page 850-whatever of the linked articles. The “interactive” function of the page is awful, at least on mobile. 

[fcgamer | 5,004]

IMO, BLM needs to rebrand itself and it's aims, or at least try to get some focus and some proper leadership in charge of it all. The way things are going at the moment, it's understandable to see why many people are going to be looking at the looting and violence caused, while ignoring the initial problem trying byo be solved. I'd venture a guess that for some people that weren't even particularly racist to begin with, such events could even change their thoughts and perceptions a bit.

Now about the BLM rebranding things, here's an example where the situation is being exploited:

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3946847

Well known gang leader in Taiwan, do some research and you'll see this is a bad guy. He doesn't care about BLM, he's just trying to draw comparisons between the BLM movement and the Hong Kong protests (two totally different protests related to two totally different issues....like comparing apples to mangosteens), just to try to make the USA look bad, and the CCP look good, to promote his mainland China reunification policy.

The real kicker though is that in general, Taiwanese people are more racist than almost any American I've met, and that's towards blacks, whites, South East Asians, etc. One of my first jobs here, I was asked for my skin colour on the telephone, if I was black. After answering I was not, I heard the voice saying "Good, good" on the phone. Needless to say I didn't want the job after that incident.

Blacks here have a harder time finding jobs, generally in undesirable locations. They're experiencing the kinds of racism I experience in Taiwan, and other things as well. Then this wanker suddenly gets concerned about the BLM movement, yeah sure buddy, are you and the others really fighting for the rights of the blacks in Taiwan and in the USA...

The movement loses credibility if issues like these aren't addressed, fastly and frequently.

[Estil | 1,291]

5 hours ago, Magus said:

You guys should just agree to disagree at this point. You've all talked yourselves in circles multiple times. I am all for debating, but at this point i think it is clear nothing is to be gained by either side at this point. Butting heads for 30 pages, repeating the same points, and resorting to passive agressive jabs just seems like wasted energy.  

I think you're pretty much right; I guess it is kinda human nature to sometimes feel like you must get in the last word.

[Estil | 1,291]

2 hours ago, Tulpa said:

The New Yorker's there, under "Complex Analysis," "skews liberal but still reputable." It's comparable to The Economist, which slightly skews conservative.

They haven't added Newsweek to the chart, but they did rate it very reputable, with a slight liberal bias.

Not during the Obama years!  No kidding it might as well had been called Obamaweek I guess I had to go to waiting rooms more often back then.

[Link | 2,878]

5 hours ago, ZBomber said:

Can we pause for a minute to talk about how annoying it is that some people constantly embed irrelevant videos in their posts? Especially in this thread. Like does anyone actually watch these, because I know I don't and I'm more likely to completely skip a post altogether if I see a stupid video attached.

haha now I regret not putting the disclaimer on the video I just posted. I considered putting under it “not a silly off-topic video” but I expect it’s clear since I didn’t preface it with “as soandso fictional character would say,”

[Estil | 1,291]

1 hour ago, Link said:

*I say the word in these discussions when I know the people I’m talking to. I don’t think it should have the power it does. But I fully support its status as taboo** for reasons, now we just have to do the same for the ex- or implicit attitude behind its former prevalence. 
**I’m left-transgressive.

I personally prefer to go the route of Coach Carter (Samuel Jackson) that all of us should treat ourselves with respect.  And to that end we just don't use those kind of words.  And some like to drop a bunch of f-bombs in their arguments I guess thinking it makes them and the viewpoint sound tough or something.  Well it doesn't, it makes them sound like some kind of mean spirited thug.

 

[OptOut | 8,996]

It's at times like these I thank God I have no principles! 

I'm getting a little sick of popcorn tho, so I guess I'll move on to hot dogs!

[Tulpa | 3,700]

28 minutes ago, Estil said:

Not during the Obama years!  No kidding it might as well had been called Obamaweek I guess I had to go to waiting rooms more often back then.

Yeah, funny how they'd feature Obama during his administration. It's like he was the president or something.

[Link | 2,878]

1 hour ago, Estil said:

I personally prefer to go the route of Coach Carter (Samuel Jackson) that all of us should treat ourselves with respect.  And to that end we just don't use those kind of words.  And some like to drop a bunch of f-bombs in their arguments I guess thinking it makes them and the viewpoint sound tough or something.  Well it doesn't, it makes them sound like some kind of mean spirited thug.

As I said, I don’t here. Neither do I curse here, much if at all. But that’s pretty funny that you would point at Samuel L. Jackson to discourage swearing. Surely you are aware of “Go The Fuck To Sleep” as well as his many other delightful works in which he says “fuck” and other bad words excessively.

I use “those kind of words” (swears or slurs) when I carefully consider it appropriate, based on the topic  and who I am talking to. Respect for myself, which hasn’t been a problem for over 20 years, and for my audience, which has never been a problem, is very much a part of that decision. When I do say “nigger”, it is in serious conversation. Never casual. Generally when I am talking about something that happened (soandso said it), or when I am talking about the kind of (white) people who use it derogatorily. I myself never use it that way. But that doesn’t mean I can’t say it. As I said, I do so in these kind of conversations (honest talk about race issues). From a standpoint of discussing problems of oppression and injustice, talking with black people and people that “some” “conservatives” call SJWs. Yet I have never been criticized for it. I will say again: Context is key. 

I don’t curse to sound tough. I much prefer to use clever alliteration and well-turned phrase for that (although in a live environment I am not always as clever or quick as I would like to be. For that matter, not online either.)  I curse for humor, to express frustration, or to emphasize. 

While you codify appropriate ways to use different kinds of words, please think about the implications in the word “thug” as it is generally used in the vernacular these days. And also about “censorship” which you are sometimes against, but apparently sometimes also not. Sorry, not trying to READ YOUR MIND, just recognizing patterns (or remembering things you said before and applying them to the current context)

[OptOut | 8,996]

4 minutes ago, Link said:

THE N WORD

[Estil | 1,291]

5 minutes ago, Link said:

As I said, I don’t here. Neither do I curse here, much if at all. But that’s pretty funny that you would point at Samuel L. Jackson to discourage swearing. Surely you are aware of “Go The Fuck To Sleep” as well as his many other delightful works in which he says “fuck” and other bad words excessively.

While you codify appropriate ways to use different kinds of words, please think about the implications in the word “thug” as it is generally used in the vernacular these days. And also about “censorship” which you are sometimes against, but apparently sometimes also not. Sorry, not trying to READ YOUR MIND, just recognizing patterns (or remembering things you said before and applying them to the current context)

Actually I only used the Coach Carter example regarding "n" and when I said "those kind of words" I meant on that part exclusively racial slurs...because there's one in particular (I'm not saying; I think most here know what it is) that is just as bad if not worse than "n".  And what the heck is wrong with thug?  I hope you're not suggesting there's now some kind of racial thing to it because all the "thugs" I know personally were not only white, but one in particular (my so-called father) was at least a "wannabe" racist    Conversely the POC's that I've personally known have mostly been among the kindest people I've ever met outside of my own family.  Of course like I've said before, I don't have any "black friends" or "Jewish friends" or Klingon friends...they are my friends.  No silly irrelevant and unnecessary qualifiers like that fishing grandpa in that PSA pointed out.

And where in the world is Carmen, eh I mean have I ever been in favor of censorship (except maybe by parents from kids to protect them from content they may not be "ready" for...but that is mostly the job of the parents, not the gov't; sorry Joe Lieberman and Tipper Gore )?  Because if I ever made a post where I favored censorship I wanna know.  Really.

[Link | 2,878]

another “liberal” source which is actually rated close to no bias unless you take issue with actual (not “alternative”) facts : https://www.npr.org/2015/04/30/403362626/the-racially-charged-meaning-behind-the-word-thug

8 minutes ago, Estil said:

if I ever made a post where I favored censorship I wanna know.  Really.

 

2 hours ago, Estil said:

to that end we just don't use those kind of words. 

 

[Estil | 1,291]

Just now, Link said:

another “liberal” source which is actually rated close to no bias unless you take issue with actual (not “alternative”) facts : https://www.npr.org/2015/04/30/403362626/the-racially-charged-meaning-behind-the-word-thug

Yeah rioters are indeed thugs.  And do I need to repeat myself once again that demonstrators and rioters are two completely different things?

And here's a "fact" for ya; most people who use words like thugs or punks or hoodlums (I think it might mean something a bit different in the UK but I digress) are not using it in any sort of racial kind of way.  One thing that's been increasingly prevalent over the years is what I like to call "fake racism" and "presumption of racist".  I have seen so many times over and over and over again through the years of people getting their lives half ruined when they were never being any kind of racist.  And you know how I have a BA in history and BA in political science from UK (the university not the country!)?  And how a couple of my hobbies has been reading World Book and Britannica Yearbooks (I'm currently working on 1976 on the latter) as well as my local newspaper's archive from newspapers.com (I'm on mid-June 1990)?  There are just so many examples of how history repeats itself and in this case I honest to goodness feel this trendy witch hunt for racists and what I like to call UIAC's (University Intolerant Activities Committees) is no different than the witch hunt for Communists by Joe McCarthy and his HUAC (House Unamerican Activities Committee) pals.  It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

[Estil | 1,291]

@Link You're not really counting what I said about "to that end we just don't use those kind of words" as being in favor of censorship are you?  I most definitely am not in favor of making saying so-called "hate speech" against the law.  Because not only can that definition be so easily misused (after all who gets to define what exactly constitutes "hate speech"?) but that will only give those affected by "speech codes" or whatever an excuse to consider themselves some sort of "free speech martyrs" and it will only make the general public more suspicious about why these viewpoints are being censored or forbidden or something (google/wiki Streisand effect).  Bottom line, I have seen way too much time and time again past/present why freedom of speech and assembly is so important and how attempts to limit it or censor things pretty much inevitably go horribly wrong.

Edited June 13, 2020 by Estil

[Link | 2,878]

14 minutes ago, Estil said:

presumption of racist

So you’ve said. I call it pattern recognition, but whatever. See my prior points on systemic issues. 

17 minutes ago, Estil said:

you know how I have a BA in history

History is written by winners, baby

I’m interested history too though. Have you read any Howard Zinn? 

21 minutes ago, Estil said:

I have seen so many times over and over and over again through the years of people getting their lives half ruined when they were never being any kind of racist. 

And I have seen so many times over and whatever, people not getting their lives ruined when they pretty much deserve it. What’s George Zimmerman up to these days? Oh, living a comfortable-ass life after selling his gun for six figures? That’s nice. Good for him. 

 

20 minutes ago, Estil said:

I most definitely am not in favor of making saying so-called "hate speech" against the law.  Because not only can that definition be so easily misused (after all who gets to define what exactly constitutes "hate speech"?) but that will only give those affected by "speech codes" or whatever an excuse to consider themselves some sort of "free speech martyrs" and it wi

ok, cool, yeah censorship is bad. How do you feel if I say, 

Spoiler

Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck
Fuck me, fuck me
Fuck you, fuck you, fuck everyone
Fuck the church, fuck Jesus
Fuck Mary
Fuck the Jews, fuck the Buddhists
Fuck the Hindus, fuck George Bush
Fuck his ugly wife, fuck Tipper Gore
Fuck everyone, fuck Gorbachev
Fuck Noriega, fuck all these assholes
Fuck you, fuck me, fuck all of you

?

How do you feel if I say (speaking of history) 

Spoiler

You start out by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." Then you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

?
He’s not saying that! He’s not racist! Not at all. No such thing as hate speech. Nor hate crimes. You follow? 

[Link | 2,878]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

I cannot BELIEVE you of all people posted this and then say the things you say. Could you miss the point any harder?

[Estil | 1,291]

5 minutes ago, Link said:

I’m interested history too though. Have you read any Howard Zinn? 

And I have seen so many times over and whatever, people not getting their lives ruined when they pretty much deserve it. What’s George Zimmerman up to these days? Oh, living a comfortable-ass life after selling his gun for six figures? That’s nice. Good for him. 

ok, cool, yeah censorship is bad. How do you feel if I say, 

He’s not saying that! He’s not racist! Not at all. No such thing as hate speech. Nor hate crimes. You follow? 

Never heard of Howard Zinn.  And I was speaking only of people who get their lives half ruined when they don't deserve it.  The Duke lacross guys, the water buffalo guy (google wiki it) for example?  Those supposed "satanic daycare people" from the mid 80s?  I feel like with the "how do you feel if I say" you were just pretending to be nuts and this is typical "static" that you often see in YT comments and whatnot.

And we had the federal vs state thing since the first ever political parties (Federalists vs Democratic-Republicans), but now all of a sudden "states rights" must now count as a "presumption of racist" taboo?  And that whole busing issue was a total mess...that is one where there most definitely were no easy answers.  And where did I say there was no hate speech or hate crimes?  Of course there are, I'm just saying trying to make "hate speech" against the law will only lead to major trouble and I just don't like the general idea of "hate crimes" in the sense that it sends the wrong message that for example, if you're gonna commit police brutality, you better make very sure it's NOT a "person of color", or you'll really get it good!!