American politics

[DubaiSpur]

My time isn't theirs to take. Sometimes, if you protest quietly and not enough fudges are given, it's not the volume of the protest that's the problem - it's the number of fudges given.

No, it's usually the case that quiet protesting is useless. The very point of a protest is to draw attention to something - quietly protesting doesn't do that, because people generally follow the 'out of sight, out of mind' mantra. One of the ironies of modern society is that we have forced protestors to assemble far away from daily life, and only protest absolutely quietly so Joe Public or Mr. Barrington-Smithers-Toff isn't inconvenienced on their way to either work or the Royal Ascot, respectively. But, having extracted that concession from protestors, we don't offer anything back to them - we don't say, 'okay, now you're following the rules, so we'll listen to you.' There is no reward for quiet protests, and we make that abundantly clear - then we are shocked and outraged when the protestors learn that for themselves, and decide to take more active measures to *force* us to listen. And that actually leads to change more often than not, funnily enough. We actually incentivize that.

I didn't say that I agreed with the cause, I said I have sympathy for it.

I don't think that anyone should have to feel that their race is being persecuted by an evil, racist police force. That's not the same as actually believing there really is an evil, racist police force.

Oh, I'm not presuming you agree or disagree with their cause. I'm challenging the idea that you sympathize with it, or even understand it - because if you did, it would probably merit a bit more thought than just being outraged when they interrupt your prawn sandwiches and weekend entertainment. You don't sympathize, or care - ergo, pretending you do and thus demanding that protestors respect your 'sympathy' is a bit asinine. Your 'sympathy' only involves zero concessions on your part.

I don't need them to make me care or not care, I'm perfectly capable of doing that myself.

But like 99.9% of people on this forum, I've decided that there are more pressing things in my life than doing something about it.

Sure. Don't act surprised or outraged when protestors decide that doing something about it is more important than the 'pressing things in your life' - as I said, they have no responsibility to you, because you've made it plain you don't care. People with genuine sympathy for their cause would understand their actions - and, in the event that they feel uncomfortable about it, it is *worth* the time of the protestors to engage with those concerns, because they come from genuine sympathizers.

The protestors owe you, on the other hand, nothing - your time, and your opinion, is worthless given that you don't care about their concerns anyway. There is zero obligation on your part to stand them, but zero obligation for them to care about people like you. Trying to gain your sympathy is useless, or worse than useless, because you don't care - reciprocating that is the least they could do. You should be grateful that all they're doing is peacefully inconveniencing you, really.

What was there to learn from the LA riots? Have the army ready faster? Ensure that the response is swift and brutal? There is no excuse for rioting and anyone doing so deserves the full force of everything the army throws at them.

The lesson to learn from the LA riots is that black people were quietly, peacefully protesting police brutality for thirty *years* - white people never gave a damn about those peaceful protests. It took the televised beating of Rodney King to bring that to public attention - and then, the acquittal of the cops involved in that beating proved that it wasn't a truth the American public were willing to accept, even then.

But then, when the riots happened, suddenly *everybody* was talking about it - Bill Clinton, Dan Quayle, Democrats, Republicans, the California legislature, academics, journalists, filmmakers, musicians, law enforcement - the entirety of American society was talking about the riots, their causes, and the concerns of black people marginalized and ignored for thirty years when they tried the 'peaceful' route.

The lesson to learn is that we as a society incentivize violent, spectacular protests and riots as a means of bringing issues to public attention - because we either ignore quiet protests or get outraged when peaceful protests interrupt our bread and games. We're only forced to listen and acknowledge when buildings go up in flames and people are injured and killed - because we *choose* that route, by ignoring peaceful protests or getting angry at them when they mildly inconvenience us.

Fear works better than persuasion. The threat of violence works better than pleas and attempts to gain attention the peaceful way. That is what we are incentivizing as a society by getting angry at peaceful protests - that is the logical next step, if those protests are unheard, and we do that to ourselves as a society. That is what we need to learn from the LA riots - conservatives in particular, with their macaronic, useless, craven 'tough on crime' rhetoric that does nothing to address this.

 

[r-u-s-x]

I'd say it's marginal. It was hardly an underepresented issue beforehand and people are really talking tangentially - more about Trump vs kneeling douchbags than the actual issue.

And it is all about me. The sooner people learn that, the sooner they'll start getting life right.

ok dude this has not raised awareness and made people pick a side, I think its had its desired outcome myself.

 

[scaramanga]

No, it's usually the case that quiet protesting is useless. The very point of a protest is to draw attention to something - quietly protesting doesn't do that, because people generally follow the 'out of sight, out of mind' mantra. One of the ironies of modern society is that we have forced protestors to assemble far away from daily life, and only protest absolutely quietly so Joe Public or Mr. Barrington-Smithers-Toff isn't inconvenienced on their way to either work or the Royal Ascot, respectively. But, having extracted that concession from protestors, we don't offer anything back to them - we don't say, 'okay, now you're following the rules, so we'll listen to you.' There is no reward for quiet protests, and we make that abundantly clear - then we are shocked and outraged when the protestors learn that for themselves, and decide to take more active measures to *force* us to listen. And that actually leads to change more often than not, funnily enough. We actually incentivize that.



Oh, I'm not presuming you agree or disagree with their cause. I'm challenging the idea that you sympathize with it, or even understand it - because if you did, it would probably merit a bit more thought than just being outraged when they interrupt your prawn sandwiches and weekend entertainment. You don't sympathize, or care - ergo, pretending you do and thus demanding that protestors respect your 'sympathy' is a bit asinine. Your 'sympathy' only involves zero concessions on your part.



Sure. Don't act surprised or outraged when protestors decide that doing something about it is more important than the 'pressing things in your life' - as I said, they have no responsibility to you, because you've made it plain you don't care. People with genuine sympathy for their cause would understand their actions - and, in the event that they feel uncomfortable about it, it is *worth* the time of the protestors to engage with those concerns, because they come from genuine sympathizers.

The protestors owe you, on the other hand, nothing - your time, and your opinion, is worthless given that you don't care about their concerns anyway. There is zero obligation on your part to stand them, but zero obligation for them to care about people like you. Trying to gain your sympathy is useless, or worse than useless, because you don't care - reciprocating that is the least they could do. You should be grateful that all they're doing is peacefully inconveniencing you, really.



The lesson to learn from the LA riots is that black people were quietly, peacefully protesting police brutality for thirty *years* - white people never gave a damn about those peaceful protests. It took the televised beating of Rodney King to bring that to public attention - and then, the acquittal of the cops involved in that beating proved that it wasn't a truth the American public were willing to accept, even then.

But then, when the riots happened, suddenly *everybody* was talking about it - Bill Clinton, Dan Quayle, Democrats, Republicans, the California legislature, academics, journalists, filmmakers, musicians, law enforcement - the entirety of American society was talking about the riots, their causes, and the concerns of black people marginalized and ignored for thirty years when they tried the 'peaceful' route.

The lesson to learn is that we as a society incentivize violent, spectacular protests and riots as a means of bringing issues to public attention - because we either ignore quiet protests or get outraged when peaceful protests interrupt our bread and games. We're only forced to listen and acknowledge when buildings go up in flames and people are injured and killed - because we *choose* that route, by ignoring peaceful protests or getting angry at them when they mildly inconvenience us.

Fear works better than persuasion. The threat of violence works better than pleas and attempts to gain attention the peaceful way. That is what we are incentivizing as a society by getting angry at peaceful protests - that is the logical next step, if those protests are unheard, and we do that to ourselves as a society. That is what we need to learn from the LA riots - conservatives in particular, with their macaronic, useless, craven 'tough on crime' rhetoric that does nothing to address this.

I do agree with the bolded part of your post.

I think that the punishment for violent protest and/or rioting should be far, far stronger. Enough to completely disincentivise it. Anyone choosing to riot has essentially taken themselves out of civilised society, so I don't see a reason to allow them back in.

 

[the dza]

Good on the players I say. They are millionaires largely insulated from life's problems and instead of shrugging their shoulders and saying "oh well, I'm alright" they are using their platform to protest against a gross unfairness and inequality.

Gotta laugh at these people burning NFL Jerseys in the name of freedom. "You're disrespecting our military by using the freedoms that they fought for you to have..." Great logic.

 

[Jordinho]

 

[DubaiSpur]

I do agree with the bolded part of your post.

I think that the punishment for violent protest and/or rioting should be far, far stronger. Enough to completely disincentivise it. Anyone choosing to riot has essentially taken themselves out of civilised society, so I don't see a reason to allow them back in.

Ah, because that always works and never leads to marginalized communities essentially acting as if they live under occupation - which they essentially are, because they're never listened to when they protest peacefully, told to shut up and get lost when they protest peacefully in ways that attract attention, and then 'strongly' punished when they have no other options left but violent rioting.

Once again, the brilliance of the bog-standard conservative response *staggers* me. Turning areas into no-go zones for police or any state presence because they don't acknowledge authorities willing to 'take them out of civilized society' for daring to complain against injustice...and that's apparently the *preferred* solution to just adjusting ourselves as a society and listening to peaceful protests. Truly brilliant, from the brilliant 'tough-on-crime' conservative minds that brought us the War on Drugs, another smashing conservative success.

The long and short of it is that, in this particular instance, predominantly black, poor communities already *know* that they don't exist in the same society as rich white folk - they don't get the same services, the same treatment, the same benefits, or even the same right to *live* when faced with interactions with the police that a white person would walk away from. Your laughable punishment would do absolutely nothing to disincentivize riots, given that reality.

 

[scaramanga]

Ah, because that always works and never leads to marginalized communities essentially acting as if they live under occupation - which they essentially are, because they're never listened to when they protest peacefully, told to shut up and get lost when they protest peacefully in ways that attract attention, and then 'strongly' punished when they have no other options left but violent rioting.

Once again, the brilliance of the bog-standard conservative response *staggers* me. Turning areas into no-go zones for police or any state presence because they don't acknowledge authorities willing to 'take them out of civilized society' for daring to complain against injustice...and that's apparently the *preferred* solution to just adjusting ourselves as a society and listening to peaceful protests. Truly brilliant, from the brilliant 'tough-on-crime' conservative minds that brought us the War on Drugs, another smashing conservative success.

The long and short of it is that, in this particular instance, predominantly black, poor communities already *know* that they don't exist in the same society as rich white folk - they don't get the same services, the same treatment, the same benefits, or even the same right to *live* when faced with interactions with the police that a white person would walk away from. Your laughable punishment would do absolutely nothing to disincentivize riots, given that reality.

There's already an established method to change things that one doesn't like:

Earn power.
Use power.
Profit.

Shortcuts are neither necessary nor acceptable. The rest of us had to use that method, so should anyone else.

 

[DubaiSpur]

There's already an established method to change things that one doesn't like:

Earn power.
Use power.
Profit.

Shortcuts are neither necessary nor acceptable. The rest of us had to use that method, so should anyone else.

Ah, if only Martin Luther King had heeded your sage advice to follow the established method in an attempt to effect change. Slowly gain power, trusting to the good graces of GHod that it would be permitted by white society and that it would actually be allowed to accrue to a level sufficient to inspire change! Who knows, African Americans might have gotten civil rights and ended Jim Crow laws as early as 2100 in that wonderfully bright future!



It is nearly always the case that the 'sympathizers' and pearl-clutching moderates advocate for gradualism and abhor the idea of people protesting (peacefully or otherwise) and rioting - after all, their own convenience would be affected in those scenarios, the cardinal sin. But it is also nearly always the case that change is best achieved through the use of protests, of riots, of the threat of civil disobedience and outright violence if the former three fail. Civil rights were won not because black people ran for office, they were won because Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement said 'f*ck the moderates' and marched and protested anyway, despite paternalistic advice to the contrary by their ostensible 'sympathizers'. And despite the fact that those white moderates *hated* them for pushing the issue - they won. Forceful protest works. The method of begging for society to grant you the power to effect change does not work to anywhere near the same extent.

And believe me, the 'rest of us' did not use that method any more than black folk did. We only patronizingly tell them to go down that route because we achieved our own aims with force and disobedience over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, and now want to pull up the ladder behind us. Black folk won't fall for that ruse.

 

[Jordinho]

https://twitter.com/x/status/912734895440629760

 

[the dza]

 

[scaramanga]

Ah, if only Martin Luther King had heeded your sage advice to follow the established method in an attempt to effect change. Slowly gain power, trusting to the good graces of GHod that it would be permitted by white society and that it would actually be allowed to accrue to a level sufficient to inspire change! Who knows, African Americans might have gotten civil rights and ended Jim Crow laws as early as 2100 in that wonderfully bright future!

View attachment 3676

It is nearly always the case that the 'sympathizers' and pearl-clutching moderates advocate for gradualism and abhor the idea of people protesting (peacefully or otherwise) and rioting - after all, their own convenience would be affected in those scenarios, the cardinal sin. But it is also nearly always the case that change is best achieved through the use of protests, of riots, of the threat of civil disobedience and outright violence if the former three fail. Civil rights were won not because black people ran for office, they were won because Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement said 'f*ck the moderates' and marched and protested anyway, despite paternalistic advice to the contrary by their ostensible 'sympathizers'. And despite the fact that those white moderates *hated* them for pushing the issue - they won. Forceful protest works. The method of begging for society to grant you the power to effect change does not work to anywhere near the same extent.

And believe me, the 'rest of us' did not use that method any more than black folk did. We only patronizingly tell them to go down that route because we achieved our own aims with force and disobedience over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, and now want to pull up the ladder behind us. Black folk won't fall for that ruse.

Swap US for UK and race for class (which is a pretty good comparison) and you have the very same adversity that I and many others have overcome to be successful.

The answer to not having what one wants is not being a whiny little bitch and it's not being a thug. The answer is being better and more ruthless than the competition and making a world where ones children and grandchildren can follow in success. Apologies for typos, I'm a couple of bottles deep.

 

[the dza]

Swap US for UK and race for class (which is a pretty good comparison) and you have the very same adversity that I and many others have overcome to be successful.

The answer to not having what one wants is not being a whiny little bitch and it's not being a thug. The answer is being better and more ruthless than the competition and making a world where ones children and grandchildren can follow in success. Apologies for typos, I'm a couple of bottles deep.

There is no comparison between being white working class in the UK and being black working class in the USA. For all the adversity you may have overcome, I doubt you have ever been at risk of being killed by police because of what you look like -- this is something working class black men in the USA have to contend with and it's just one of many differences.

Do you think Martin Luther King was a whiny little bitch/thug?

 

[scaramanga]

There is no comparison between being white working class in the UK and being black working class in the USA. For all the adversity you may have overcome, I doubt you have ever been at risk of being killed by police because of what you look like -- this is something working class black men in the USA have to contend with and it's just one of many differences.

Do you think Martin Luther King was a whiny little bitch/thug?

I don't think black men are at any more risk of being killed by police once you take class into account either. This is a problem of perception and one of misunderstanding of statistics

 

[the dza]

I don't think black men are at any more risk of being killed by police once you take class into account either. This is a problem of perception and one of misunderstanding of statistics

It's a problem of perception alright, but it's how people perceive black working-class men in America. Which is why they are more at risk.
Also, this is what you said:

Swap US for UK and race for class (which is a pretty good comparison) and you have the very same adversity that I and many others have overcome to be successful

So you are saying the adversity that black working class Americans face is the "very same" that you faced in the UK? Absolute b0ll0cks.

 

[glasgowspur]

Ah, because that always works and never leads to marginalized communities essentially acting as if they live under occupation - which they essentially are, because they're never listened to when they protest peacefully, told to shut up and get lost when they protest peacefully in ways that attract attention, and then 'strongly' punished when they have no other options left but violent rioting.

Once again, the brilliance of the bog-standard conservative response *staggers* me. Turning areas into no-go zones for police or any state presence because they don't acknowledge authorities willing to 'take them out of civilized society' for daring to complain against injustice...and that's apparently the *preferred* solution to just adjusting ourselves as a society and listening to peaceful protests. Truly brilliant, from the brilliant 'tough-on-crime' conservative minds that brought us the War on Drugs, another smashing conservative success.

The long and short of it is that, in this particular instance, predominantly black, poor communities already *know* that they don't exist in the same society as rich white folk - they don't get the same services, the same treatment, the same benefits, or even the same right to *live* when faced with interactions with the police that a white person would walk away from. Your laughable punishment would do absolutely nothing to disincentivize riots, given that reality.

Sorry but colour is irrelevant, white poor and black poor don't have the same services, treatment and benefits of white or black rich people.
Poverty, and it's inequalities, isn't exclusive to certain skin colours.
If you want to compare a poor white person and poor black person and say there is inequality in their treatment fine, but your argument there doesn't work.

 

[the dza]

Yeah, I've heard a million white actors with the same story as Wendell Pierce here:

 

[the dza]

Yeah, I've heard a million white actors with the same story as Wendell Pierce here:

You'll notice when he describes being pulled over, he is so matter of fact about having a system "wallet on the dash, open the door from the outside" because it happens so often (being pulled over driving while black) and that if he doesn't do these things, he increases his risk of getting shot.

I hear Jerry Seinfeld talk about this all the time because of his similar experiences with police...

 

[scaramanga]

It's a problem of perception alright, but it's how people perceive black working-class men in America. Which is why they are more at risk.

I think the real question that has to be answered and solved is why are there so many black men in poverty in the US and how do we reverse the trend?

Whilst there are clearly some racists in the police force (as there will be in any large group of people), I don't see the institutional racism that people claim exists.

Also, this is what you said:

So you are saying the adversity that black working class Americans face is the "very same" that you faced in the UK? Absolute b0ll0cks.

I'm saying the barriers to success are the same.

Anyone who wants to make change can, they just have to follow the steps I posted above.

 

[jts1882]

The problems faced by poor white and blacks may be similar, but one can escape the problems, the other can't.

Take an NFL player who has succeeded and become a millionaire, the police still treat him the same way. The same wouldn't happen to a white millionaire from a poor background.

Seattle Seahawks defensive end Michael Bennett penned an open letter claiming that he was racially profiled and stopped by Las Vegas police after the Floyd Mayweather-vs.-Conor McGregor fight Aug. 26. According to Bennett’s Twitter post, he was leaving the T-Mobile Arena when he and others in the crowd heard what they believed to be gunshots. Bennett ran, as did everyone else, but police stopped and harassed him, according to Bennett:

Since he posted the letter, TMZ Sports has found footage of the arrest, which shows one officer on a balcony with his gun drawn and another officer cuffing Bennett, who lies facedown on the concrete. Bennett can be heard asking the officer why he’s being cuffed. He even calls the officer “sir.”

Full story: http://www.theroot.com/video-nfl-player-michael-bennett-assaulted-by-police-a-1800817157

 

[Rock Strongo]

This thread is designed for making fun of Donald, you are killing the mood with your loud protests! I find you mildly unconvenient, now go away! And YOU'RE FIRED as well!