Protests Across the America

1234568

Comments

  • DeeDee Adelaide
    Sometimes people are just arseholes. Sometimes they only think about themselves and they don’t care who else gets hurt or who they treat like shit in the process. Sometimes they enjoy hurting other people and making others feel uncomfortable or unsafe. Why would I waste my energy trying to capture those people with love or whatever? Fuck those people. They chose a side and they showed themselves. 

    I mean, sometimes a person can be lovely to you, help old ladies across the street, donate money to church, whatever, but if they yell at waitresses, they’re not a good person and I wouldn’t want to be around them. 
    asmallcathisdudeness915BenGiovanni
  • Like I said.  It's not your responsibility.  The war for hearts is won slowly.  The more exposure to people who do not share their views, and express as much without being combative, the more that cognitive dissonance builds up.  It's like death by a thousand cuts, if those cuts are delivered slowly over time and they're cuts to their perception of reality. No racist thinks they are a racist.  They think the problems in their lives and communities are a result of the scapegoat they've directed their hate towards. They believe their racism is justified, necessary. Hitler didn't change all the Nazis minds about the Jewish people by saying, "Boy these Jews should be gassed."  He did it by blaming them for all the problems Germany was facing.  Trump isn't saying, "I hate blacks."  He's saying the violent antifa rioters and radical Democrats are the reason America is falling apart. Basic critical thinking skills can lead any reasonable person to realize protestors are a symptom rather than a cause.  The problem is 30+% of Americans have been brainwashed by the news for 20 years now that America is a dangerous place filled with people who want to destroy everything.  They've spent decades saying things slightly more outrageous than the show on before them.  If Fox news went on 20 years ago saying the insane stuff they say now, nobody would have taken it seriously.  It's no truer now, but that pot has raised the temperature so slowly, people think it's just normal. 

    If you don't feel the need to provide outreach to hate groups, more power to you.  I don't blame you.  I'm not going out in search of them either.  I just firmly believe that turning up the hate on OUR side for the past 4 years hasn't helped, and has actually demonstrably raised tensions to brink of combustion. 
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    Example of the hate turning up on our side I encountered today: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1300673828008255489.html

    I think Trump's bloviating must have worried people, and I can understand that. I see it as largely empty, but I'm not in the line of fire if I'm wrong. I only have to worry about my pussy being grabbed. If someone had come for women this hard I'd be pretty alarmed too. In fact, I think a certain group is coming for women and that has riled me up. But I think fighting hate with hate is wrong. Maybe it's effective, but I don't believe in that. I believe in the nonviolent resistance that many Civil Rights leaders espoused. And empathy and conversation is my expression of that. 
  • edited September 1
    JaimieT said:
    Example of the hate turning up on our side I encountered today: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1300673828008255489.html

    I think Trump's bloviating must have worried people, and I can understand that. I see it as largely empty, but I'm not in the line of fire if I'm wrong. I only have to worry about my pussy being grabbed. If someone had come for women this hard I'd be pretty alarmed too. In fact, I think a certain group is coming for women and that has riled me up. But I think fighting hate with hate is wrong. Maybe it's effective, but I don't believe in that. I believe in the nonviolent resistance that many Civil Rights leaders espoused. And empathy and conversation is my expression of that. 
    Considering his twitter bio - "Constitutional republican, transracial humanist, and academic terrified of the culture of contemporary academia" - and the fact that his pinned tweet is a medium article about how police kill white people too, I'm gonna have to take this whole story with a huge grain of salt. Especially this - "Most disturbing, she's reinterpreted her 5 decades of life—in which she only ever had one very mild story of a microaggression—as a history of brutal, grinding racial oppression." So this guy is CERTAIN that the only racism his wife of however many years (apparently she's over 50) only ever faced one minor microagression as a black woman in America? I'm sorry, but that seems unlikely. Further, there's the disturbing "she has no idea she has an opponent" stuff at the end, as well as claiming that explaining to kids that america is racist against black people is tantamount to child abuse. Go to marriage counseling my dude, don't tweet about it. 

    He's also got a lot of "get a load of this crazy thing my wife said" in his tweets. Is there any way to verify who this guy is? I am skeptical to say the least. 

    Edit - here's the twitter if anyone's curious. https://twitter.com/Publicola17 

    Edit edit - Jesus Christ - "Woke anti-racists are the most vicious racists of all" 
    DeeCretanBull
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited September 2
    While I can't account for the word "vicious" (beyond allowing people some room to vent) or "most, of all" (I'm not sure how you measure that?), I too find anti-racist ideology (or critical race theory) to be textbook racist.

    For instance, an infographic the Smithsonian was pushing earlier this year in the wake of anti-racism fervor.




    Individualism, hard work, objectivity, progress, respect for authority, delayed gratification are lumped in with "whiteness" along with the thinly veiled insults. This is racist.
     
    I also object to the parts of this where sexism is pointed out — as if only white people are sexist. But I see a lot of chatter about how white people invented the worst things about the world.
    rhcoop
  • It seems to me the point of that infographic is that the culture in the US is inherently based on white culture - unavoidably so, as after the colonists wiped out the Native Americans, white people had the power in the US for a good 300 years. This is just pointing out that things we value in the US are inextricably tied up with whiteness, because that was who set the politics, culture, economy, etc of our country for most of its life. I don't know if it's making a value judgement on every talking point. And in what way was this pushed by the Smithsonian? As a jumping off point for a further discussion of race? Or as absolute truth?

    And I don't think that this infographic is saying only white people can be sexist - but the particular brand of sexism we have here is certainly based on white, western European, judeo-christian culture. I think that's undeniable. Obviously individuals can still be sexist, and sexist outside the bounds of that culture, but institutional sexism is certainly based on the culture generally. If the things in this infographic are true in the US (and most seem true to me), who is the cause other than white people? 

    Finally, I won't speak for the rest of the world (certainly the Japanese did some heinous shit before and during WW2, and the Chinese are doing some heinous shit now, for example, not to mention the brutally oppressive regimes that exist in the Middle East and Africa), but within the US, especially on a macro level, essentially all societal evil WAS caused by white people because that's who's in power. As a white man, knowing this is true doesn't bother me, nor does it make me think all white people are racist. But almost every evil thing the US has done in it's history was essentially planned by, and carried out by, white people, mostly men. That's not racist. It's true. That doesn't mean we need to hate white people, except those who still wish to carry out evil. 


    BenGiovannitom_g
  • I take some issue with the concept that an emphasis on the scientific method is "white."  The scientific method is the means with which we can understand and reinforce reality. The scientific method is objectively an excellent thing. It is used every day by scientists the world over and is not limited by race or creed.  Without the scientific method, we wouldn't have a means to independently verify or disprove theories. It is quite literally a structure with which to understand our world.  

    I believe that the scientific method would have come about regardless of which race is in power.

    I also believe that putting so much emphasis on race and racial division is antithetical to moving past the construct of race. We should be focusing on ways to eliminate race being a factor rather than pushing victim hood as a result of race. 

    Is our country's history full of racial issues?  No doubt.  Is America less racist today than it was 4 years ago?  No.  Is it less so than 40 years ago?  Absolutely. Progress is slow, but hopefully we can get back to it in a meaningful way in January.  
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited September 2
    @asmallcat, how would you describe the existence of individualism, hard work, objectivity, progress, respect for authority, and delayed gratification in non-"white" cultures?

    How would you describe the existence of a controlling nature and aggressiveness in non-"white" cultures?

    Btw - this could almost be a white supremacy poster. I certainly feel proud. Maybe I should just go with it like you do. ("As a white man, knowing this is true doesn't bother me." - @asmallcat) ; :D  ;)
  • The problem, IMO, with moving past victimhood as a result of race is that people are STILL being victimized as a result of race. A post-racial world is all well and good in theory, but we don't have that, and it is extremely easy for white people to be unaware of the suffering of other races in our country. 

    It's certainly possible that highlighting race as an issue can be pushed to far. But I am 100% sure that we are nowhere near the point where pointing out racism in our country is doing more harm than actual racism, and I don't think ignoring racism or just moving forward as if it doesn't exist is the answer. I don't know how we deal with racism without highlighting the differences between the experiences of different races in the US. Maybe there's a way, but I'm not smart enough to figure it out, and whenever something race-neutral is tried it almost always ends up having a racially disparate impact because of the structural disadvantages certain races have in the US (see standardized testing for example). 
    Giovanni
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA


    My cousin just posted this on Facebook. It's titled "a helpful perspective on whiteness." I only see racism. Maybe I just need to decenter myself. But that's what Christians always used to tell me too, anytime I started thinking, and that didn't work out so good.
  • JaimieT said:
    @asmallcat, how would you describe the existence of individualism, hard work, objectivity, progress, respect for authority, and delayed gratification in non-"white" cultures?

    How would you describe the existence of a controlling nature and aggressiveness in non-"white" cultures?

    Btw - this could almost be a white supremacy poster. I certainly feel proud. Maybe I should just go with it like you do. ("As a white man, knowing this is true doesn't bother me." - @asmallcat) ; :D  ;)
    I would describe those as having roots in whatever culture was being discussed, too. That's why I think this poster is being read way too far into. It's certainly true that US culture values individualism. Other cultures value "the village" more. Is one better than the other? I dunno. Would it be racist to say that strong commitment to the community is part of Chinese culture, even though non-Chinese cultures may also have that feature or even though there are non-Chinese people in China? 

    All this poster is saying is that these are facets of american culture, and american culture has been controlled and driven by and large by white people. I don't see that as a controversial statement. 

    Perhaps it would have been better if the poster said Society instead of Culture.

    As for random facebook posts, I'm sure there are some that go too far. Sure you can be racist against white people. But thinking "there are no good white people" has never been a policy of any government or large group in the US (except maybe some Native Americans, and they were probably right in their context to be fair). Thinking "non-whites are inferior to whites" WAS policy society-wide for most of this country's history, as was thinking men were superior to women. That's hardly unique to the US, but the US is where I live. 

    Where I come down on this is that we STILL have not fully reckoned with the racist past of our country, nor have we leveled the playing field to address that racist past. I think there's essentially no danger that "all white people are bad" ever becomes something that will be a widespread belief in the US and harm white people en masse. Perhaps that's where we differ. Any individual being racist against white people has basically no bigger impact outside that individual here. Racism against non-whites has had massive societal impacts. 
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    That tweet seems to be saying that you can’t just sit there and say “I’m one of the good white people because I don’t do/think/say racist things”, without bothering to do anything about the white people who do do/think/say/racist things. That being passive and uninvolved is not being “good”. 
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    Yes, if my example is too broad, then I'm reading into it too much; I'm being too serious. If my example is too specific, I'm cherry picking; I need to relax and let "random Facebook posts" go.

    But it's fine. This is not the type of discussion where I hope to convince anyone. I was just explaining the viewpoint, and I think my examples are good for that. 
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    Dee said:
    That tweet seems to be saying that you can’t just sit there and say “I’m one of the good white people because I don’t do/think/say racist things”, without bothering to do anything about the white people who do do/think/say/racist things. That being passive and uninvolved is not being “good”. 

    That's a viewpoint I could be inspired by. I think there is a less manipulative, less racist way to express it. (And the quasi-religious manipulation bothers me more.)
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited September 2
    I could quote verse after verse about:

    - how there is no good in us
    - how we will never be good
    - how the work will never be done
    - how our goodness isn't the point
    - how we only have a binary of options
    - how we shouldn't trust ourselves or prioritize ourselves

    (all of this is in that tweet)

    This is a very clever way to trap people, and it's very, very hard to get out of. I speak from personal experience. So when @asmallcat says "it won't ever get that far," I'm not sure how you stop this sort of thing. I'm still trying to do that with Christianity.
  • asmallcat said:
    The problem, IMO, with moving past victimhood as a result of race is that people are STILL being victimized as a result of race. A post-racial world is all well and good in theory, but we don't have that, and it is extremely easy for white people to be unaware of the suffering of other races in our country. 

    It's certainly possible that highlighting race as an issue can be pushed to far. But I am 100% sure that we are nowhere near the point where pointing out racism in our country is doing more harm than actual racism, and I don't think ignoring racism or just moving forward as if it doesn't exist is the answer. I don't know how we deal with racism without highlighting the differences between the experiences of different races in the US. Maybe there's a way, but I'm not smart enough to figure it out, and whenever something race-neutral is tried it almost always ends up having a racially disparate impact because of the structural disadvantages certain races have in the US (see standardized testing for example). 
    Allow me to clarify my position re: victimhood.  I'm NOT saying people aren't being victimized as a result of race.  Where that happens in an aggressive personal way, it should be denounced.  Where that happens systemically, practices and policies should be adjusted to eliminate the discrimination.  

    What I AM saying is that in my experience, outside of the issue of police killing black men and women at a disproportionately high rate, the idea of black victimhood is being pushed disproportionately high by white people.  

    On the topic of race, I would like to again recommend this great roundtable of Black Intellectuals that appeared on the Dark Horse Podcast around a month ago for some perspectives on racial issues.  
  • Fast forward to the 10 minute mark...it's something that everyone should see.


    JoshTheBlackDashEngine
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    asmallcat said:
    The problem, IMO, with moving past victimhood as a result of race is that people are STILL being victimized as a result of race. A post-racial world is all well and good in theory, but we don't have that, and it is extremely easy for white people to be unaware of the suffering of other races in our country. 

    It's certainly possible that highlighting race as an issue can be pushed to far. But I am 100% sure that we are nowhere near the point where pointing out racism in our country is doing more harm than actual racism, and I don't think ignoring racism or just moving forward as if it doesn't exist is the answer. I don't know how we deal with racism without highlighting the differences between the experiences of different races in the US. Maybe there's a way, but I'm not smart enough to figure it out, and whenever something race-neutral is tried it almost always ends up having a racially disparate impact because of the structural disadvantages certain races have in the US (see standardized testing for example). 
    Allow me to clarify my position re: victimhood.  I'm NOT saying people aren't being victimized as a result of race.  Where that happens in an aggressive personal way, it should be denounced.  Where that happens systemically, practices and policies should be adjusted to eliminate the discrimination.  

    What I AM saying is that in my experience, outside of the issue of police killing black men and women at a disproportionately high rate, the idea of black victimhood is being pushed disproportionately high by white people.  

    On the topic of race, I would like to again recommend this great roundtable of Black Intellectuals that appeared on the Dark Horse Podcast around a month ago for some perspectives on racial issues.  

    I'm 30 minutes into this and it's blowing my mind. I think I have always found discussions about racism to be boring, but this is so exciting; proving to me that discussions about racism can be exciting if you talk about it in a nuanced, fact-based way. This is great. I could listen to 10 hours of this. 
    JoshTheBlack
  • I haven't watched the video yet, but looking at the host and the panel members who I recognize I can't say that I'm filled with hope.
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    I haven't watched the video yet, but looking at the host and the panel members who I recognize I can't say that I'm filled with hope.

    Bizarre! Well, if you watch it, please let me know about any factual problem you have with what they are saying. I am always open to learning.
  • I haven't watched the video yet, but looking at the host and the panel members who I recognize I can't say that I'm filled with hope.
    Isn't that the definition of prejudice? It's well worth your time.  You don't have to agree with any or all of them, but it doesn't invalidate their opinions or lived experiences. 
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    I haven't watched the video yet, but looking at the host and the panel members who I recognize I can't say that I'm filled with hope.
    Isn't that the definition of prejudice? It's well worth your time.  You don't have to agree with any or all of them, but it doesn't invalidate their opinions or lived experiences. 

    I also think it's a disservice to oneself to ignore people who you think you will disagree with. I know the thought that you might be wrong is emotionally painful, but with practice you can sear those nerves. I have, and my life is richer for it. I also can argue my positions really damn well!  :D So in this spirit of BLM, educate yourself.

    That said, the panel is constantly disagreeing with each other, so I don't think it's reasonable to expect a consensus opinion 

  • To be clear, I didn't say that I won't or refuse to watch it, just that I haven't watched it yet.  And no, I'm not being prejudicial.  I'm very familiar with Bret Weinstein and have an extremely low opinion of him, and the same can be said for 3-4 of the people on that panel - I described them elsewhere as "every racist person's favourite black person".  The fact that the comment section was full of people wishing that Thomas Sowell could have been there only cements my opinion.  My experiences with these particular individual people are what set my expectations of them.  I'm not judging them on abstract or superficial things - I'm holding them accountable for positions that they hold.  That's not prejudicial.
    asmallcatken haleTeresa from Concord
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited September 3
    *writes down the name Thomas Sowell to research*

    But I'll reiterate, I am open to anyone finding anything factually wrong with what the members of that panel said. They clearly want to improve black lives. The insinuation that they are "every racist person's favorite black person" is hysterical, especially when the holier-than-thou's are hanging infographs in our Smithsonian that are practically white supremacist.  :D  Apparently it's meaningless if your side does it.
  • Sorry to randomly drop into the middle of this convo but I feel compelled to say that I think I understand where Cretan is coming from regarding that roundtable. I acknowledge that out of that panel I'm only mildly familiar with a couple people but my experience with them seems to imply they are at least somewhat in opposition to the BLM movement. I listened to the first 30ish minutes which was pretty much just their opening statements and it sounded to me like all of them ranged from dismissive to outright hostile towards the current racial focus in America that seems to be generally based around BLM. I get truly exhausted when I hear these type of conversations and it devolves into talking points like "radical" or "policing language" or that "racism is being exaggerated" or "this country is not fundamentally racist like the radical left is saying" or "many more total White people are killed by police." It's exhausting when people are defensive or dismissive about BLM while misrepresenting the goals or even the whole point of it so they don't have to debate in good faith. The problem I feel with this panel is that it's presented as if here are what the smart black people are saying and, since they are all broadly in opposition to the trajectory of the current racial movement happening in this county, it seems designed to give cover to the status quo even though that's not even necessarily what these people are actually saying. This, in turn, fits with the anti cancel culture type issues that Weinstein seems to be focused on and of course he's the organizer of the panel.

    I'm rambling a bit but ultimately its extremely exhausting and triggering to hear debates about semantics and straw men since when you get down to the core, it took 7 years to get the majority (at least in recent polls apparently) of this country to simply be comfortable with the term Black Lives Matter.
    DeeCretanBullasmallcatGiovannihisdudeness915Noel
  • Kc0347 said:
    Sorry to randomly drop into the middle of this convo but I feel compelled to say that I think I understand where Cretan is coming from regarding that roundtable. I acknowledge that out of that panel I'm only mildly familiar with a couple people but my experience with them seems to imply they are at least somewhat in opposition to the BLM movement. I listened to the first 30ish minutes which was pretty much just their opening statements and it sounded to me like all of them ranged from dismissive to outright hostile towards the current racial focus in America that seems to be generally based around BLM. I get truly exhausted when I hear these type of conversations and it devolves into talking points like "radical" or "policing language" or that "racism is being exaggerated" or "this country is not fundamentally racist like the radical left is saying" or "many more total White people are killed by police." It's exhausting when people are defensive or dismissive about BLM while misrepresenting the goals or even the whole point of it so they don't have to debate in good faith. The problem I feel with this panel is that it's presented as if here are what the smart black people are saying and, since they are all broadly in opposition to the trajectory of the current racial movement happening in this county, it seems designed to give cover to the status quo even though that's not even necessarily what these people are actually saying. This, in turn, fits with the anti cancel culture type issues that Weinstein seems to be focused on and of course he's the organizer of the panel.

    I'm rambling a bit but ultimately its extremely exhausting and triggering to hear debates about semantics and straw men since when you get down to the core, it took 7 years to get the majority (at least in recent polls apparently) of this country to simply be comfortable with the term Black Lives Matter.
    Yes, this - all of it - 100%
    asmallcat
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited September 3
    @Kc0347 - Cool, did someone say that more white people are killed by the police? I don't remember that, but I guess that that may be a factual claim that I should research. Are you saying that that's untrue?

    Edit: A timestamp would be nice. Was this claim in the first 30 minutes? And do you recall who said it?

    Not to be pedantic, but I can't tell if you threw that out there, but no one said it. 

    Edit 2: I actually don't remember hearing any of the things you have in quotation marks?

    Good news, you may have no reason to be exhausted or triggered!  :D
  • JaimieT said:
    @Kc0347 - Cool, did someone say that more white people are killed by the police? I don't remember that, but I guess that that may be a factual claim that I should research. Are you saying that that's untrue?

    Edit: A timestamp would be nice. Was this claim in the first 30 minutes? And do you recall who said it?

    Not to be pedantic, but I can't tell if you threw that out there, but no one said it. 

    Edit 2: I actually don't remember hearing any of the things you have in quotation marks?
    That's not what they were claiming, they said 'these types of conversations' and gave examples of the types of things that come up in 'these types of conversations' not necessarily this particular conversation.

    You've asked for factual errors several times, but the conversation wasn't data or fact-driven - it was a panel of people discussing their thoughts, opinions, and views.  If you wanted me to explain what I found objectionable about it, it's in the framing of the issues, their selective interpretations etc.  I could present an argument that was diametrically the opposite of everything that was said and be 100% factually correct, and any of them could dissect my argument by attacking my framing, interpretations etc. 
    Giovanni
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    @Kc0347 - I'm very curious about that poll you are referencing that says people are uncomfortable with the term "black lives matter." Do you have a source for that?
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    JaimieT said:
    @Kc0347 - Cool, did someone say that more white people are killed by the police? I don't remember that, but I guess that that may be a factual claim that I should research. Are you saying that that's untrue?

    Edit: A timestamp would be nice. Was this claim in the first 30 minutes? And do you recall who said it?

    Not to be pedantic, but I can't tell if you threw that out there, but no one said it. 

    Edit 2: I actually don't remember hearing any of the things you have in quotation marks?
    That's not what they were claiming, they said 'these types of conversations' and gave examples of the types of things that come up in 'these types of conversations' not necessarily this particular conversation.

    You've asked for factual errors several times, but the conversation wasn't data or fact-driven - it was a panel of people discussing their thoughts, opinions, and views.  If you wanted me to explain what I found objectionable about it, it's in the framing of the issues, their selective interpretations etc.  I could present an argument that was diametrically the opposite of everything that was said and be 100% factually correct, and any of them could dissect my argument by attacking my framing, interpretations etc. 

    Did you watch it?
Sign In or Register to comment.