U.S. Politics

[daelm]

I would rather suggest that expecting racial/gender/whatever parity in statistical outcomes is a flawed way of framing any issue. Expecting that social intervention be taken to accomplish that parity is exactly asking for special treatment rather than normal treatment.

no, i'm not talking about the statistical outcomes. i'm talking about their lived experience. policing in the US has a problem with issues of race. it's an issue that the cops themselves have been raising forever. we could go into the back and forth about why that might be (and it probably includes things like the Reconstruction, even), but, in practice, it plays out really badly for some people.

i didn't see people with signs saying "Racial Parity Matters". i saw people saying our lives matter, and i understood that to be coming from a place of despair.

ignore all the drama that people who routinely hijack things for personal ends have caused. what do you think those people should have done at that point?

 

[daelm]

Yeah, but you don't believe Jesus was right, do you?

So actually the tit correcting Jesus would be.... making a good point?

this is genuinely funny, btw.

 

[AfricanTech]

Exclusive inclusivity ftw.


Yeah, but there's no particular reason why we should listen to a bunch of ethnocentrists trying to eke out special treatment for a particular skin colour. Telling them "all lives matter" is explaining to them what's wrong with their ethnocentrism.

and this is the point in this particular conversation at which I will disengage since our worldviews divert too widely to have a meaningful discussion.

 

[cerebus]

Call them by their name:

 

[cerebus]

His ego is a shitty character trait but he could've at least explained his critique so that people don't misinterpret it I guess.

Hey hey hey, Trump called it the "Kung Flu" on stage. Don't play this game of "his ego", he knew he was being racist and he was playing the dog whistling for all its worth.

 

[daelm]

In that case, you tried to both sides something, and I explained to you that what I was pointing out is confined to one side; therefore your response actually doesn't address the point I was making.

but we're not in the realm of genuine debate about this stuff most of the time, we're fvcking trapped in the insane, zero-sum finger-pointing and points-scoring that passes for discussion.

oh, this wasn't aimed at you, btw. it was a general comment about how crazy any discussions of anything tend to be.

 

[CaptainOblivious]

no, i'm not talking about the statistical outcomes. i'm talking about their lived experience. policing in the US has a problem with issues of race. it's an issue that the cops themselves have been raising forever. we could go into the back and forth about why that might be (and it probably includes things like the Reconstruction, even), but the issue, in practice, plays out really badly.

I don't think anecdotal reports (cuz that's what lived experiences boil down to) are sufficient to conclude that there is in fact a disparity between the way the average white person and the average black person is treated. I am sure there are any number of examples of white people suffering at the hands of police brutality and dumbass cops who can give a very convincing account of their lived experience.

i didn't see people with signs saying "Racial Parity Matters". i saw people saying our lives matter, and i understood that to be coming from a place of despair.

ignore all the drama that people who routinely hijack things for personal ends have caused. what do you think those people should have done at that point?

You have it backwards. The "hijackers" actually convinced unwitting dupes to go along with their Marxist agenda in this instance. I think those people should have chosen a slogan that wasn't fatally poisoned by a malignant ideology.

 

[rietrot]

Hey hey hey, Trump called it the "Kung Flu" on stage. Don't play this game of "his ego", he knew he was being racist and he was playing the dog whistling for all its worth.

How is kung flu racist?

Please give your definition of racism.

 

[greg0205]

Yeah, but you don't believe Jesus was right, do you?

So actually the tit correcting Jesus would be.... making a good point?

No, and no. The tit correcting Jesus is an ass, in much the same way people who screech all lives matter are asses.

I'm about to use a phrase that's going to make you flinch, pal, but stick with me if you can, mmkay?

White privilege.

Still with me?

Good...

See, what all lives matter means is that a certain group, unwilling to share the world they live in equally, take umbrage when another group that has historically had less, simply asks to be equal.

They're jealous, and possessive of the things that have, and they're upset that they're not the centre of attention, even for a moment.

So when folks who have historically had less say Black Lives Matter, the all lives matter folks retreat into victimhood and lash out with, "What about MEEEEEEEEE!?" to defend their white privilege.

Sometimes they're so eager to defend their white privilege that they get hold of automatic weapons and drive across state lines, and shoot Black Lives Matter protesters, or sometimes they storm a Capitol building during a coup, and beat a cop to death with the national flag.

White privilege.

See how that all works now, CO?

 

[CaptainOblivious]

this is genuinely funny, btw.

It was Tom Holland who first brought this particular gambit to my attention.

 

[MachoPants]

No, and no. The tit correcting Jesus is an ass, in much the same way people who screech all lives matter are asses.

I'm about to use a phrase that's going to make you flinch, pal, but stick with me if you can, mmkay?

White privilege.

Still with me?

Good...

See, what all lives matter means is that a certain group, unwilling to share the world they live in equally, take umbrage when another group that has historically had less, simply asks to be equal.

They're jealous, and possessive of the things that have, and they're upset that they're not the centre of attention, even for a moment.

So when folks who have historically had less say Black Lives Matter, the all lives matter folks retreat into victimhood and lash out with, "What about MEEEEEEEEE!?" to defend their white privilege.

Sometimes they're so eager to defend their white privilege that they get hold of automatic weapons and drive across state lines, and shoot Black Lives Matter protesters, or sometimes they storm a Capitol building during a coup, and beat a cop to death with the national flag.

White privilege.

See how that all works now, CO?

Is there evidence of these automatic weapons ?

 

[daelm]

I don't think anecdotal reports (cuz that's what lived experiences boil down to) are sufficient to conclude that there is in fact a disparity between the way the average white person and the average black person is treated. I am sure there are any number of examples of white people suffering at the hands of police brutality and dumbass cops who can give a very convincing account of their lived experience.

i'm not saying that anecdotal evidence is behind the conclusion. i'm saying that the anecdotal evidence is substantiated by a wealth of other studies, conducted by the cops and FBI. (even the military was highlighting this in formal warnings going as far back as the 90s.) statistically, there's a racial divide in policing and weight of sentencing. that's been under discussion for decades and the prevalence of camera phones and the advent of social media suddenly made it really, really visible.

what i'm saying is that what drives someone - edit: obviously not everyone, but someone - onto the street to say our lives matter is not statistics. it's experience. i sympathise with that. if it was happening to me, i'd also be in despair.

You have it backwards. The "hijackers" actually convinced unwitting dupes to go along with their Marxist agenda in this instance. I think those people should have chosen a slogan that wasn't fatally poisoned by a malignant ideology.

i disagree, though. i don't think that's the sequence, but i'm happy to look at it.

here's the thing: even if you're right and someone with the lived experience had unwittingly been "duped" into going along with a slogan that was "fatally poisoned by a malignant ideology", they are still in good faith. maybe this is where we differ. when i'm confronted with a situation where my response might be perfectly appropriate to, say, a well-educated student and trust-fund baby with malignant intentions, and to a person in despair at the end of their tether, then i will default to the cause of the second. it's the same kind of principle you try to apply in a war zone - will this kill the insurgent and the women with the baby who's terrified? yes? then maybe i make another plan.

 

[CaptainOblivious]

No, and no. The tit correcting Jesus is an ass, in much the same way people who screech all lives matter are asses.

I'm about to use a phrase that's going to make you flinch, pal, but stick with me if you can, mmkay?

White privilege.

Still with me?

Good...

See, what all lives matter means is that a certain group, unwilling to share the world they live in equally, take umbrage when another group that has historically had less, simply asks to be equal.

They're jealous, and possessive of the things that have, and they're upset that they're not the centre of attention, even for a moment.

So when folks who have historically had less say Black Lives Matter, the all lives matter folks retreat into victimhood and lash out with, "What about MEEEEEEEEE!?" to defend their white privilege.

Sometimes they're so eager to defend their white privilege that they get hold of automatic weapons and drive across state lines, and shoot Black Lives Matter protesters, or sometimes they storm a Capitol building during a coup, and beat a cop to death with the national flag.

White privilege.

See how that all works now, CO?

Pretty sure the dickheads chanting "all lives matter" favour equality of opportunity. That's the liberal position, btw, that the ideal is freedom from government tyranny and so therefore an expectation of a minamalist approach to governance is to be endorsed.

But you don't actually want equality of opportunity. You don't actually care about things such as merit, or that individuals might actually behave differently in such a way that aggregate differences might appear in social groups when analysed.

And the simpler answer here is that the people who screech "all lives matter" are simply doing their civic duty by objecting to ethnocentrism wherever it raises its ugly head.

 

[Temujin]

How is kung flu racist?

Please give your definition of racism.

Cos the cnn said so and the echo chamber fact checked it. It is fact.
/reports rietrot for questioning fact
/end thread

 

[daveza]

why is the Kingdom of God, the poors reward?

The church wants to offer some hope to the destitute - it's much better than having to give them a morsel from their stockpile of riches.

 

[daelm]

It was Tom Holland who first brought this particular gambit to my attention.

dude, this is so much classier than what i was going to post earlier in the thread.

i was going to post Louis CK talking about the way people say "Jeeeeewwwwsss", fwiw. thank fvck i didn't. saved by Youtube's shitty algorithm.

 

[CaptainOblivious]

what i'm saying is that what drives someone onto the street to say our lives matter is not statistics. it's experience. i sympathise with that. if it was happening to me, i'd also be in despair.

I sympathise with their despair, I'm just not about to agree to the policies their despair is causing them to support.

i disagree, though. i don't think that's the sequence, but i'm happy to look at it.

here's the thing: even if you're right and someone with the lived experience had unwittingly been "duped" into going along with a slogan that was "fatally poisoned by a malignant ideollogy", they are still in good faith. maybe this is where we differ. when i'm confronted with a situation where my response might be perfectly appropriate to, say, a well-educated student and trust-fund baby with malignant intentions, and to a person in despair at the end of their tether, then i will default to the cause of the second. it's the same kind of principle you try to apply in a war zone - will this kill the insurgent and the women with the baby who's terrified? yes? then maybe i make another plan.

If you're acting in good faith then someone pointing out how your feelings are being used to support a counterproductive response will be something that you internalise. "All lives matter" is a great way of highlighting the problematic element in the counterproductive response.

Not killing the woman and allowing the insurgent to shoot a hundred is also a mistake.

 

[greg0205]

Is there evidence of these automatic weapons ?

Ask Kyle Rittenhouse.

 

[daelm]

Pretty sure the dickheads chanting "all lives matter" favour equality of opportunity. That's the liberal position, btw, that the ideal is freedom from government tyranny and so therefore an expectation of a minamalist approach to governance is to be endorsed.

But you don't actually want equality of opportunity. You don't actually care about things such as merit, or that individuals might actually behave differently in such a way that aggregate differences might appear in social groups when analysed.

And the simpler answer here is that the people who screech "all lives matter" are simply doing their civic duty by objecting to ethnocentrism wherever it raises its ugly head.

that's the whole point though, isn't it?

here's Thoreau in On a Duty to Civil Disobedience. it's pretty much an anti-government tract for a lot of people. so much so that he starts with...

"I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."

but later within his whole long argument, he states:

"It is not a man’s duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man’s shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too."

it's the corollary position. for all that you don't want anything distorting real outcomes, you also have to check that you aren't already in a situation where that's happening, and it's just not happening to you.

 

[daelm]

Not killing the woman and allowing the insurgent to shoot a hundred is also a mistake.

agreed. they're tough calls. i don't envy anyone faced with them, and West Point has a whole portion of the programme on the fallacies of a purely utilitarian mindset just because of this.