[Politics] What matters more? My Sex or my Race? (Interesting MCU conversation explored)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Saelune:
So what you're saying is, you're allowed to be uncivil to me for being uncivil to you, but I am not allowed to be uncivil to people who are uncivil to me?

I believe the term is 'hypocrite'.

Nope, you can be uncivil to individuals who are uncivil towards you. That is perfectly fine. And cathartic.

It is just not helpful to convince them of anything. And you should not extend the lack of civility towards a whole group when a member of it insults you. Because every big enough group has idiots and attacking a whole group in response will be seen as unjustified by most.

Satinavian:
As for it being enlightened, well, i couldn't say because i am not really familiar with the realities in other countries. But considering how YOU describe the US, that might very well be true in comparison. I have never been to the US. But since visiting this forum, my opinion of it has dropped significantly. Because i am willing to listen instead of assuming that it would probably be more or less the same over there anyway.
Yes, still anecdotical evidence, but what Americans post here does not paint a pretty picture at all.

If anyone wonders if I am a geek, stay a while and listen.

If I had to break the countries down into Vampire the Masquerade Clans, I would say that Americans are Brujah.

The Brujah are one of the seven playable clans in Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines. The Brujah have a reputation as fierce warriors; their affinity for war is carried in their blood. Because their weakness is their rage, they are much more vulnerable to frenzy. Quick to anger and always passionate, they have been steadily regaining their position as a clan of lofty philosophers and activists, and are known for mysterious knowledge and power.

To put it in a non-asinine way, We're Rabble-rousers and we'll call out shit when we see it. Even if it's our own. Other countries don't really do that. I mean, the amount of Hate related Crime has just been on the upswing for years in England and Wales. I don't see that many UK members making posts about it. The number of Knife Offenses in UK during 2018 (39,818) and the Firearm incidents in America (56,887). For a population that's 5 times larger than the UK, those numbers are really close.

But if brought up, I feel most people would want to make it a conversation about the evils of guns instead of looking at the own backyard and thinking "... Yeah, might want to get on that before it gets out of hand...".

Everyone's fine with airing out America's dirty laundry. I'm fine with that as well. I'm all for transparency. But there's a lot I see when I read or watch the BBC that I don't see mirrored here. Every place sucks. It's just a matter of who is going to be upfront with it or not.

Eacaraxe:
Snip

Ok, I'm going to be blunt. I find this conversation very unfulfilling, I'm tired of the naked hostility, responding to the ever-ballooning wall of text is becoming quite exhausting, and this is going nowhere. So I'm going to bow out of this conversation.

Saelune:
As in a bunch of bullshit meant to silence people speaking up about injustice while trying to pretend to be 'better' than the people pointing out the injustice.

Since the ACLU came up, let's go with this.

https://www.nyclu.org/en/stop-and-frisk-data

The national organization and its constituent state organizations, which house major cities with Terry stop policies, have campaigned against the practice since its inception and continue today. African-Americans, notably black male youths, are the most disproportionately profiled and targeted by the practice, and that's inarguable.

But, equal protection grounds aren't the ACLU's only (or even the biggest) reason and means of continuing to fight it. It's a due process issue. Meanwhile, the discriminatory nature of Terry stops towards African-Americans is only one argument among many (at the very least, Latin-Americans and Arab-Americans are also profiled) the ACLU levies against stop and frisk.

Is the ACLU a racist organization that doesn't care about the problems black people face, because their efforts against stop and frisk aren't all about African-Americans, and intended to end the practice as applies to African-Americans, or even non-caucasians in general? Is the ACLU guilty of 'meaning to silence people speaking up against injustice', or 'pretending to be better than [them]', in your own words? Does the ACLU's advocacy and efforts to end stop and frisk (or a ton of other issues) run contrary to BLM or its principles, or are they trying to contradict, compete with, or end BLM?

Or are you just trying to call me a racist and hoping beyond hope I won't call you out?

Satinavian:

Saelune:
So what you're saying is, you're allowed to be uncivil to me for being uncivil to you, but I am not allowed to be uncivil to people who are uncivil to me?

I believe the term is 'hypocrite'.

Nope, you can be uncivil to individuals who are uncivil towards you. That is perfectly fine. And cathartic.

It is just not helpful to convince them of anything. And you should not extend the lack of civility towards a whole group when a member of it insults you. Because every big enough group has idiots and attacking a whole group in response will be seen as unjustified by most.

Groups need to self-moderate their 'bad eggs' if they don't want to be associated with those 'bad eggs'. However when those groups are fundamentally a group of bad people, ie hate groups, then it is not wrong to assume everyone part of it is ya know, bad.

If the Republican Party doesn't want to be associated with people like oh, Donald Trump, THEN DONT MAKE HIM YOUR LEADER!

It depends on what makes the group a group. Obviously anyone can just like a show or movie and thus be part of a fandom, though fandoms should still discourage shitty behavior. The DnD community has been doing a good job of this, and thus I can trust many DnD groups to support LGBT people and diverse representation.

But to be say, a cop or a Republican? I mean, the police COULD properly police themselves, but they dont. They actively and intentionally protect their 'bad eggs', so it is perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of all cops. And the Republican Party literally votes their leaders. For people to vote for someone is to say 'I agree with this person'. It is perfectly reasonable to judge the Republican party by its leadership. (Just as it is Democrats).

But you're just mad that I said sexism exists even though you claim to not see it.

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
As in a bunch of bullshit meant to silence people speaking up about injustice while trying to pretend to be 'better' than the people pointing out the injustice.

Since the ACLU came up, let's go with this.

https://www.nyclu.org/en/stop-and-frisk-data

The national organization and its constituent state organizations, which house major cities with Terry stop policies, have campaigned against the practice since its inception and continue today. African-Americans, notably black male youths, are the most disproportionately profiled and targeted by the practice, and that's inarguable.

But, equal protection grounds aren't the ACLU's only (or even the biggest) reason and means of continuing to fight it. It's a due process issue. Meanwhile, the discriminatory nature of Terry stops towards African-Americans is only one argument among many (at the very least, Latin-Americans and Arab-Americans are also profiled) the ACLU levies against stop and frisk.

Is the ACLU a racist organization that doesn't care about the problems black people face, because their efforts against stop and frisk aren't all about African-Americans, and intended to end the practice as applies to African-Americans, or even non-caucasians in general? Is the ACLU guilty of 'meaning to silence people speaking up against injustice', or 'pretending to be better than [them]', in your own words? Does the ACLU's advocacy and efforts to end stop and frisk (or a ton of other issues) run contrary to BLM or its principles, or are they trying to contradict, compete with, or end BLM?

Or are you just trying to call me a racist and hoping beyond hope I won't call you out?

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

Saelune:
Groups need to self-moderate their 'bad eggs' if they don't want to be associated with those 'bad eggs'. However when those groups are fundamentally a group of bad people, ie hate groups, then it is not wrong to assume everyone part of it is ya know, bad.

Some groups can moderate themself, others can't. You need mechanisms to enforce stuff to moderate yourself. Most of the calls for self-moderation of e.g. Muslims are pretty stupid and that is also true for political movements where everyone can join.

As for the Republicans : You do have a point there. But not because of random Republican idiots insulting people, but because they made Trump president and make a lot of shitty laws and the majority of regular members support it.

As for cops ? Those have hirarchy and even mechanisms for oversight and sanctions. Sure, those really should selfmoderate and punish members behaving wrong. Which is another thing many countries do better than the US.

But you're just mad that I said sexism exists even though you claim to not see it.

I talked about the expectation of men paying for women in restaurants.

I won't say that sexism doesn't exist here. But it probably does take on different forms because of cultural differences and resulting differences in gender roles.

Now to actually nail down what those differences actually are and how the meaning of gender varies across borders is something that is of interest to me which is why i ask questions about concrete examples of gendered behavior elsewhere. Like men paying for women.

Saelune:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You're the one trying to equate acknowledgment of shared struggles, and organizing to effect policy to ameliorate those shared struggles, to racism and deliberate attempts to silence. Don't pretend that wasn't your intent likening it to All Lives Matter.

The ACLU, in this case (and others) behaves in a manner entirely consistent with the claims of "All Lives Matter" supporters. Stop and frisk is prima facie, universally, unjust; racial discrimination via stop and frisk is symptomatic of its underlying injustice, not causative.

Your claim is speech and action belies intent, so hold the ACLU to your own standards. Is the ACLU racist or not?

Satinavian:

Saelune:
Groups need to self-moderate their 'bad eggs' if they don't want to be associated with those 'bad eggs'. However when those groups are fundamentally a group of bad people, ie hate groups, then it is not wrong to assume everyone part of it is ya know, bad.

Some groups can moderate themself, others can't. You need mechanisms to enforce stuff to moderate yourself. Most of the calls for self-moderation of e.g. Muslims are pretty stupid and that is also true for political movements where everyone can join.

As for the Republicans : You do have a point there. But not because of random Republican idiots insulting people, but because they made Trump president and make a lot of shitty laws and the majority of regular members support it.

As for cops ? Those have hirarchy and even mechanisms for oversight and sanctions. Sure, those really should selfmoderate and punish members behaving wrong. Which is another thing many countries do better than the US.

But you're just mad that I said sexism exists even though you claim to not see it.

I talked about the expectation of men paying for women.

I won't say that sexism doesn't exist here. But it probably does take on different forms because of cultural differences and resulting differences in gender roles.

Now to actually nail down what those differences actually are and how the meaning of gender varies across borders is something that is of interest to me which is why i ask questions about concrete examples of gendered behavior elsewhere. Like men paying for women.

When I defend Muslims IN AMERICA, I am defending a religious minority. Islam is a terrible religion, as is Christianity. But Islams main critics are hypocritical Christians who pretend both religions don't have the same bigoted views and policies.

I assure you though, any Muslim, in America or otherwise who uses their faith to hate on LGBT people are bigots and horrible people. I just want religion to be treated EQUALLY. If they want me to condemn ALL Muslims, then I should be able to condemn ALL Christians, but I am not, so I wont let them do that to Muslims.

Their (police) hierarchy is made up of those bad cops who got into positions of power to defend other bad cops.

The expectations in America vs your country (still don't know which btw), but then you pretended we were never talking about America and criticized me for taking issue with this example of sexism. Now we're talking about being uncivil to groups who not only don't do anything to stop their members bad behavior, but actively encourage it. All this cause I pointed out the sexist cause of men paying for women at restaurants.

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You're the one trying to equate acknowledgment of shared struggles, and organizing to effect policy to ameliorate those shared struggles, to racism and deliberate attempts to silence. Don't pretend that wasn't your intent likening it to All Lives Matter.

The ACLU, in this case (and others) behaves in a manner entirely consistent with the claims of "All Lives Matter" supporters. Stop and frisk is prima facie, universally, unjust; racial discrimination via stop and frisk is symptomatic of its underlying injustice, not causative.

Your claim is speech and action belies intent, so hold the ACLU to your own standards. Is the ACLU racist or not?

I am saying your pushing of Kyriarchy is a misdirection meant to shut down actual discussion on sexism. Now you're throwing this ACLU racism strawman at me to refute a point I wasn't making.

Yes, 'All Lives Matter', that is the underlying point of all EQUAL RIGHTS movements, but it doesn't help to pretend certain groups aren't oppressed in certain specific ways that others are not. Acknowledging that black people have more trouble with cops doesn't mean that we cant acknowledge that women have more trouble dealing with equal work for equal pay, or that LGBT people deal with more trouble from religion.

When most people say 'All Lives Matter' what they are actually doing is virtue signaling to seem progressive while actually telling black people to shut up about their problems cause 'its racist to acknowledge that black people have different problems than whites'.

Saelune:

The expectations in America vs your country (still don't know which btw), but then you pretended we were never talking about America and criticized me for taking issue with this example of sexism. Now we're talking about being uncivil to groups who not only don't do anything to stop their members bad behavior, but actively encourage it. All this cause I pointed out the sexist cause of men paying for women at restaurants.

It is Germany. I thought you knew.

I did not critisize you for taking issue with this example of sexism. I would take issue with it too, even if that might be cultural intolerance against Americans. I asked you (and others) if this is really still a thing because it isn't here and hasn't been for decades and thus would be one of those rare concrete examples of gender roles differing between western countries.

Saelune:
When most people say 'All Lives Matter' what they are actually doing is virtue signaling to seem progressive while actually telling black people to shut up about their problems cause 'its racist to acknowledge that black people have different problems than whites'.

Not that i had too much contact with those guys, but i agree with your assessment.

Saelune:
I am saying your pushing of Kyriarchy is a misdirection meant to shut down actual discussion on sexism.

You might want to go re-read the OP, or the thread title, if you think this is a conversation about only sexism. The OP was specifically bemoaning abuse of the language of intersectionality to shut down, silence, and/or derail conversations about personal, or even shared, struggles.

Now you're throwing this ACLU racism strawman at me to refute a point I wasn't making.

Sure you weren't. Answer the question. Does the ACLU's focus on the nature of stop and frisk as a universal injustice make them racist?

...but it doesn't help to pretend certain groups aren't oppressed in certain specific ways that others are not...

Focusing only on how certain groups are oppressed in certain specific ways doesn't help, nor does focusing only on who may or may not be most disproportionately affected by a given injustice, and that's my entire goddamn point. At some point the rubber has to meet the road, people have to stop infighting, acknowledge shared struggles exist, and organize to eliminate them. Otherwise, not only does progress fail to happen, but in all likelihood society regresses...just like it has for the past thirty years.

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
I am saying your pushing of Kyriarchy is a misdirection meant to shut down actual discussion on sexism.

You might want to go re-read the OP, or the thread title, if you think this is a conversation about only sexism. The OP was specifically bemoaning abuse of the language of intersectionality to shut down, silence, and/or derail conversations about personal, or even shared, struggles.

Now you're throwing this ACLU racism strawman at me to refute a point I wasn't making.

Sure you weren't. Answer the question. Does the ACLU's focus on the nature of stop and frisk as a universal injustice make them racist?

...but it doesn't help to pretend certain groups aren't oppressed in certain specific ways that others are not...

Focusing only on how certain groups are oppressed in certain specific ways doesn't help, nor does focusing only on who may or may not be most disproportionately affected by a given injustice, and that's my entire goddamn point. At some point the rubber has to meet the road, people have to stop infighting, acknowledge shared struggles exist, and organize to eliminate them. Otherwise, not only does progress fail to happen, but in all likelihood society regresses...just like it has for the past thirty years.

I was responding to YOUR constant use of 'kyriarchy' though and how you are using it to dismiss sexism and intersectionality. You are using kyriarchy to deny the problems of sexism against women.

I have pointed out your strawman, I am not going to throw myself upon it. Stop trying.

Your last paragraph is not wrong, but I do not believe you believe in what you just said. I do not think you want to solve the problem, I think you just want to criticize those who point the problem out.

Satinavian:

Saelune:

The expectations in America vs your country (still don't know which btw), but then you pretended we were never talking about America and criticized me for taking issue with this example of sexism. Now we're talking about being uncivil to groups who not only don't do anything to stop their members bad behavior, but actively encourage it. All this cause I pointed out the sexist cause of men paying for women at restaurants.

It is Germany. I thought you knew.

I did not critisize you for taking issue with this example of sexism. I would take issue with it too, even if that might be cultural intolerance against Americans. I asked you (and others) if this is really still a thing because it isn't here and hasn't been for decades and thus would be one of those rare concrete examples of gender roles differing between western countries.

Saelune:
When most people say 'All Lives Matter' what they are actually doing is virtue signaling to seem progressive while actually telling black people to shut up about their problems cause 'its racist to acknowledge that black people have different problems than whites'.

Not that i had too much contact with those guys, but i agree with your assessment.

My initial draft of my response went on a long-winded tangent, so I will try to just summarize.

The US is a big place, way too big to properly compare it to any single European country. Ultimately, you must view each US State as if its its own country.

I don't know a lot about modern Germany honestly. I do hear it is a rather progressive place though, and I hope that is true. I do not know Germany's history with paying for women's food, but I don't doubt it is perhaps more common in the world than you realize. Maybe I am wrong though, but if I am, only about the world, not the US. It is still a very common expectation in the US.

Agema:

RobertEHouse:
So is it the assumption that group X is just sooo pathetic that they need others to prop them up?. Would that also not be a discredit for all the Women, LGBTQ's Disabled etc who actually have businesses?.

No, it's an assumption that systematic societal disadvantages exist such as low socioeconomic status, class, and conscious or unconscious discrimination.

Racism is also the notion of believing others are incapable of helping themselves because of themselves.

Racism is things like repeated studies that show things like black people of identical qualifications being less likely to be invited to inerview or offered a job. I'm sure they'd be much more able to help themselves if they weren't three times more likely to have their CV binned because their name doesn't look suitably majority typical.

Take this doozy from a report: "Most German workers (52%) say that their manager's gender doesn't make a difference to them, but of those who have a preference, many more would prefer a male (34%) to a female (14%) boss." Yeah. You're not telling me that attitude isn't slipping into people's hiring preferences at least sometimes.

Maybe you don't have the "right" accent or different cultural reference points, that make it harder to fit in at your workplace. Or you didn't go to the right school and lack the same networking to pull strings and grease the wheels for you. Maybe you're unfortunate enough to be of child-bearing age and your prospective boss doesn't want to pay maternity leave. Maybe it's just you're in a demographic group than earns on average 30% less than others, which makes you disproportionately likely to be worse educated, less healthy and brought up in a less supportive social milieu. Or just that the police like to pull people like you over and slap punishments on you more, so you're more likely to be inconvenienced, fined, even criminalised.

We all know this stuff exists. Why pretend otherwise?

No one is pretending, I am a realist, the world does not owe you or I anything. No one is responsible to the way an individual feels and reacts except them. Our births are not a certainty into this world, it's only though knocking off other sperm that we live. The same with life in general we want control but that is an illusion, it does not exist.

We sometimes get a short stick but either you adapt or simply you don't. The problem with generalized is it based around a belief that a whole group is unable to do anything. Ignoring the fact that the LGBTQ was formed by none outsiders. Or the American Disability Act created by the will of those disabled. League of Women, BMAS and others were not created from outside help, thank you, we did it on our own because we are capable. Beliving we all need to be coddled by others because we are fragile is a insult.

You're German report also underlines a fundamental flaw in the way people understand information. It can be used to generalize all German men as bigots. In the unintelligent hands, label every German man as a racist simply because they are German and a man. Even with pool or error listed, people don't know how to take information. They used it to enforce stereotyping in the cause of justice labeling all German men as bigots.Not realizing, that the one man they called out on the street as bigot. Has high functioning Autism and worked with to help the LGBTQ come to light.

Stats are not supposed to be the end all solution, working in a Ad Agency we know this. The man and women on the street does take everything at face value. They get a simplified generalized version of what we see because they don't have the time. They believe every bit of stat posted online or in the newspaper. Yet, besides getting a lopsided view of the world they do more harm than good.
That is why every time I post about a report I give you guys several links for people to read. Not expecting all but 0.01% to actually read them. It is also one reason why "fake News" anti vaccine or snake oil cures spread people don't research or read anything else. They generalize their thinking based upon what one group says, they don't think. Not even understanding the terminology of what Racism is which a perspective to Generalization of a whole GROUP.

ObsidianJones:
The number of Knife Offenses in UK during 2018 (39,818) and the Firearm incidents in America (56,887). For a population that's 5 times larger than the UK, those numbers are really close.

They're different fundamentally definitions, though. A "knife offence" in the UK includes stuff as basic as bearing an illegal knife on one's person, or using a knife for robbery with no physical harm. The equivalent "firearm incident" statistics for the USA means some form of injury or fatality inflicted with a firearm.

Hospital admissions for knife injuries in the UK is about 3000-4000 a year, and there are about 200 murders: this is going to be substantially more equivalent to the ~57k "firearm incidents" in the USA than the "knife offences" total, by representing physical harm inflicted by the relevant weapon.

* * *

RobertEHouse:

No one is pretending, I am a realist, the world does not owe you or I anything. No one is responsible to the way an individual feels and reacts except them. Our births are not a certainty into this world, it's only though knocking off other sperm that we live. The same with life in general we want control but that is an illusion, it does not exist.

The world doesn't owe us anything, no. But our fellow human beings are not the uncaring and non-sentient nature of the universe, and there are structures by which we expect things of each other. Like, for instance, obeying the law. And the idea that no-one is responsible for how others feel (and to a lesser extent) react is irrational and indefensible, unless you really want to claim no-one has ever done something to make you angry, happy, sad, etc.

We sometimes get a short stick but either you adapt or simply you don't. The problem with generalized is it based around a belief that a whole group is unable to do anything.

Since when does generalisation mean a group is unable to do anything themselves? I just don't get that.

You're German report also underlines a fundamental flaw in the way people understand information. It can be used to generalize all German men as bigots.

It can, but that would be a serious error: the report doesn't state that's what German men think, but what German workers think.

Secondly, it could be used to damn German workers as bigots and no doubt some people undoubtedly would do that. But what's the alternative? Not to have the information or discuss it at all because some people might intentionally or unintentionally misrepresent it?

Stats are not supposed to be the end all solution, working in a Ad Agency we know this. The man and women on the street does take everything at face value. They get a simplified generalized version of what we see because they don't have the time. They believe every bit of stat posted online or in the newspaper. Yet, besides getting a lopsided view of the world they do more harm than good.
That is why every time I post about a report I give you guys several links for people to read. Not expecting all but 0.01% to actually read them. It is also one reason why "fake News" anti vaccine or snake oil cures spread people don't research or read anything else. They generalize their thinking based upon what one group says, they don't think. Not even understanding the terminology of what Racism is which a perspective to Generalization of a whole GROUP.

Sure, stats are there to provide information, but proper use and analysis of those statistics can require appropriate skills.

But this seems to me to more about controlling information - "gatekeeping", if you like - to encourage effective transmission of information. This of course is nither very individualist or democratic. In fact, it suggests the Chinese or Russian models are the way forward.

Agema:

ObsidianJones:
The number of Knife Offenses in UK during 2018 (39,818) and the Firearm incidents in America (56,887). For a population that's 5 times larger than the UK, those numbers are really close.

They're different fundamentally definitions, though. A "knife offence" in the UK includes stuff as basic as bearing an illegal knife on one's person, or using a knife for robbery with no physical harm. The equivalent "firearm incident" statistics for the USA means some form of injury or fatality inflicted with a firearm.

Hospital admissions for knife injuries in the UK is about 3000-4000 a year, and there are about 200 murders: this is going to be substantially more equivalent to the ~57k "firearm incidents" in the USA than the "knife offences" total, by representing physical harm inflicted by the relevant weapon.

I'm more speaking about general criminal activity with weapons. How people keep talking about how violent and bloodthirsty Americans due to their love affair with guns when other countries are walking around armed in their own way.

The thought being passed around is that if you get rid of guns, violence will go away. Gun violence will go away. People will just start carrying knives, batons, and what have you. The idealistic idea that if we banish guns, things will get better is only marginally correct. But it's something people love to bash on about while ignoring how other cultures are also gearing up, getting ready for a fight as well.

It's the people that need help, not the laws.

ObsidianJones:

Agema:

ObsidianJones:
The number of Knife Offenses in UK during 2018 (39,818) and the Firearm incidents in America (56,887). For a population that's 5 times larger than the UK, those numbers are really close.

They're different fundamentally definitions, though. A "knife offence" in the UK includes stuff as basic as bearing an illegal knife on one's person, or using a knife for robbery with no physical harm. The equivalent "firearm incident" statistics for the USA means some form of injury or fatality inflicted with a firearm.

Hospital admissions for knife injuries in the UK is about 3000-4000 a year, and there are about 200 murders: this is going to be substantially more equivalent to the ~57k "firearm incidents" in the USA than the "knife offences" total, by representing physical harm inflicted by the relevant weapon.

I'm more speaking about general criminal activity with weapons. How people keep talking about how violent and bloodthirsty Americans due to their love affair with guns when other countries are walking around armed in their own way.

The thought being passed around is that if you get rid of guns, violence will go away. Gun violence will go away. People will just start carrying knives, batons, and what have you. The idealistic idea that if we banish guns, things will get better is only marginally correct. But it's something people love to bash on about while ignoring how other cultures are also gearing up, getting ready for a fight as well.

It's the people that need help, not the laws.

I mean, replacing every gun with a knife in the US *would* make it infinitely safer. There are no mass knifings

undeadsuitor:
I mean, replacing every gun with a knife in the US *would* make it infinitely safer. There are no mass knifings

Infinitely safer is a relative term.

There are quite a few mass stabbings. I've commonly heard it associated with China. We just passed the one year anniversary of a tragic event where nine students lost their lives to a mass stabbing in Shaanxi.

Vehicle attacks are sadly a thing, and an easy tool for anyone to make into a deadly terrorist move.

We had several bombers caught or who ended their lives in 2018 in the US. Mark Conditt, Cesar Sayoc, Houston Willis.

People who are unstable are going to find ways of expressing that damage to others unless they are found out. Focusing on the tool instead of the damaged person is just shifting the style of attack.

Speaking to comic books and movies, race vs. gender:

Non-White Men:
Black Panther: Billion.
Aquaman: Billion

Women:
Captain Marvel: Billion (Though, Carol Danvers was Ms. Marvel in the late 1970s. Early 1980s, the first female Captain Marvel was a black woman. With a dull costume, but still!)
image

Wonder Woman: 800 Million. Still a lot.

When reading comic books, I tended to read comics with male heroes. Not a lot of non-white heroes. Heck, even with all these Jews writing, drawing etc. comics in the early years, most characters were not. Batman Catholic? Wayne?

I've liked a lot of females in comics, but typically as supporting characters, like Kitty Pryde... JEW, Finally a good one! Sabra sucked. But except for the George Perez Wonder Woman run, I can't think of collecting them specifically.

Saelune:
Your last paragraph is not wrong, but I do not believe you believe in what you just said. I do not think you want to solve the problem, I think you just want to criticize those who point the problem out.

In other words, you admit your only defense is ad hominem. Appeals to motive being a subset of that family of fallacies. See, here's the issue with this. This attitude and this specific strategy, as OP stated and a sentiment I reflected, is shockingly common. In fact, I'd even argue it's the norm and preferred means of argument in contemporary activist discourse.

That's not a sign of a healthy activist landscape, mental state, or functioning theoretical foundation. That's dogmatic zeal. A word I specifically, intentionally, employed back on page two of this thread.

Absolutely, my intent is to criticize people who point out problems...then proceed to take no substantive action, or worse, actively sabotage attempts by others to take substantive action. In the case of the latter, it's particularly despicable when a movement or group that champions a shared struggle is sabotaged, because individuals or a certain group are frustrated or envious the movement or group is not all about them. Substantive being the key word, because activism absent organization and direct action to influence policy is a waste of time, attention, and money.

I make no attempt to hide that. In fact, I was pretty damn straightforward about it. If you don't like that, that's not my problem. For my part as an ex-activist, I'm way past the point of allowing this shit to fly unhindered, and the left's tolerance -- nay, endorsement -- of this sort of solipsistic, cannibalistic behavior is completely unacceptable.

Not while social and policy elites of the "left" laugh all the way to the bank at the cost of a rapidly devolving civil rights and liberties landscape for everyone. Not just women, not just PoC's, not just LGBTQIA's, not just historically-disadvantaged religious groups, everyone.

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
Your last paragraph is not wrong, but I do not believe you believe in what you just said. I do not think you want to solve the problem, I think you just want to criticize those who point the problem out.

In other words, you admit your only defense is ad hominem. Appeals to motive being a subset of that family of fallacies. See, here's the issue with this. This attitude and this specific strategy, as OP stated and a sentiment I reflected, is shockingly common. In fact, I'd even argue it's the norm and preferred means of argument in contemporary activist discourse.

That's not a sign of a healthy activist landscape, mental state, or functioning theoretical foundation. That's dogmatic zeal. A word I specifically, intentionally, employed back on page two of this thread.

Absolutely, my intent is to criticize people who point out problems...then proceed to take no substantive action, or worse, actively sabotage attempts by others to take substantive action. In the case of the latter, it's particularly despicable when a movement or group that champions a shared struggle is sabotaged, because individuals or a certain group are frustrated or envious the movement or group is not all about them. Substantive being the key word, because activism absent organization and direct action to influence policy is a waste of time, attention, and money.

I make no attempt to hide that. In fact, I was pretty damn straightforward about it. If you don't like that, that's not my problem. For my part as an ex-activist, I'm way past the point of allowing this shit to fly unhindered, and the left's tolerance -- nay, endorsement -- of this sort of solipsistic, cannibalistic behavior is completely unacceptable.

Not while social and policy elites of the "left" laugh all the way to the bank at the cost of a rapidly devolving civil rights and liberties landscape for everyone. Not just women, not just PoC's, not just LGBTQIA's, not just historically-disadvantaged religious groups, everyone.

You sure do like your big words.

Ok, so you're trying to claim you think civil rights organizations are working against themselves. Ok. So how does spiting them and the left benefit anyone then?

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
Your last paragraph is not wrong, but I do not believe you believe in what you just said. I do not think you want to solve the problem, I think you just want to criticize those who point the problem out.

In other words, you admit your only defense is ad hominem. Appeals to motive being a subset of that family of fallacies. See, here's the issue with this. This attitude and this specific strategy, as OP stated and a sentiment I reflected, is shockingly common. In fact, I'd even argue it's the norm and preferred means of argument in contemporary activist discourse.

That's not a sign of a healthy activist landscape, mental state, or functioning theoretical foundation. That's dogmatic zeal. A word I specifically, intentionally, employed back on page two of this thread.

Absolutely, my intent is to criticize people who point out problems...then proceed to take no substantive action, or worse, actively sabotage attempts by others to take substantive action. In the case of the latter, it's particularly despicable when a movement or group that champions a shared struggle is sabotaged, because individuals or a certain group are frustrated or envious the movement or group is not all about them. Substantive being the key word, because activism absent organization and direct action to influence policy is a waste of time, attention, and money.

I make no attempt to hide that. In fact, I was pretty damn straightforward about it. If you don't like that, that's not my problem. For my part as an ex-activist, I'm way past the point of allowing this shit to fly unhindered, and the left's tolerance -- nay, endorsement -- of this sort of solipsistic, cannibalistic behavior is completely unacceptable.

Not while social and policy elites of the "left" laugh all the way to the bank at the cost of a rapidly devolving civil rights and liberties landscape for everyone. Not just women, not just PoC's, not just LGBTQIA's, not just historically-disadvantaged religious groups, everyone.

Ok, so you're citing me a lot. So I'm going to clear a few things up.

One, you are reaching. I didn't have a conversation with Stock Feminist Number 3495. I had a conversation with my friend Sarah. I know her kids, her husband's a great guy, and her and I bonded over love of old 80's music. She is not an activist. I did not speak about activist. Due to a conversation I had with her, I'm genuinely asking if people think Race matters more to an individual's treatment, or does Sex matter more?

Two, I believe conversation is a substantive action. Breeding familiarity is more important for social change than all the facts in the world. Opinion taints facts. Samuel Morton did more harm to giant groups of people than any act of war. Craniometry was used to prove that whites were genetically smarter than all the other races, and blacks were at the bottom. Of course everyone loves hearing that they are superior, so people jumped on it and used it to Champion Slavery. Hell, it's almost a humanitarian effort to keep the Negroes in line. The absolute White Man's burden.

In the end, Science didn't change people's minds. It rarely does. We have recordings and proof of collapsing polar ice caps, rising water, year after year of hottest temperatures ever recorded... and we still can't come to a consensus of if Global Warming is a thing.

In the end, Laws didn't change people's minds. People raged that they were forced to deal with those they found beneath them. And a lot of the time, the police let them because they held the same beliefs.

What actually changes minds? Usually talking. Usually just showing that we are the same. A marriage to a new wife who brought in new ideas and who brought black people over for dinner took United States District Judge Julius Waties Waring from Son of an actual Confederate soldier to the man who penned a letter that was the basis for Brown v The Board of Education.

One of the reasons why I feel so betrayed about what Bill Cosby has done is that he soiled what he was. He was America's Dad at a time. He exemplified values in what seemed to be a wholesome manner. And he just so happened to be black. He's been making white audiences like him, and therefore change their opinions about the black people they had no real interaction with for decades. By talking, by showing we all are the same no matter what our background is.

To sum up... I asked a question about if I'm more my race or more my sex.

ObsidianJones:
People who are unstable are going to find ways of expressing that damage to others unless they are found out. Focusing on the tool instead of the damaged person is just shifting the style of attack.

Shifting it to one much less dangerous. People in the US tend to use guns to kill people because they are better at killing people.

Absolutely, you won't solve violent crime by tighter gun laws. You'll just prevent a lot of death and injuries.

ObsidianJones:
But if brought up, I feel most people would want to make it a conversation about the evils of guns instead of looking at the own backyard and thinking "... Yeah, might want to get on that before it gets out of hand...".

That's certainly a thing.

If we are talking online though, the US is the largest demographic here, one we are all familiar with. More people on this forum know about the US gun laws than any other country you can point at.

Additionally, I disagree that people in the US are exempt from that sort of thing. Lot of attention in the US (and the rest of the West) about gang-rape in India a few years back, rather overshadowing the gang-rapes in western high schools going to trial at about the same time.

ObsidianJones:

I'm more speaking about general criminal activity with weapons. How people keep talking about how violent and bloodthirsty Americans due to their love affair with guns when other countries are walking around armed in their own way.

The thought being passed around is that if you get rid of guns, violence will go away. Gun violence will go away. People will just start carrying knives, batons, and what have you. The idealistic idea that if we banish guns, things will get better is only marginally correct. But it's something people love to bash on about while ignoring how other cultures are also gearing up, getting ready for a fight as well.

It's the people that need help, not the laws.

People carry weapons to a large extent because they are afraid. But then, other people carrying weapons makes people more likely to be afraid. The other general problem with guns is the relatively easy lethality. If the UK has approximately 20 knife injuries for every fatality, and the equivalent in the USA is four gun injuries for every fatality... that's a fivefold reduction in mortality.

Gorfias:

Non-White Men:
Aquaman: Billion

Technically true, but on the other hand, Jason Momoa could pass as white readily enough that some people might not notice he's mixed race without it being pointed out to them.

Thaluikhain:
Shifting it to one much less dangerous. People in the US tend to use guns to kill people because they are better at killing people.

Absolutely, you won't solve violent crime by tighter gun laws. You'll just prevent a lot of death and injuries.

I'm so in favor of tighter gun laws, it's unbelievable. I think the bare minimum that should happen is a Yearly renewal of a Gun License. I think that yearly renewal can only come from A.) Proof of Firearm Compatible Safe and B.) Successful Competition of two separate classes, one of which has to deal with Firearm Discipline and Safety.

And that's just to be able to test to see if you can get the license renewed. I think there should be a minimum eye test along with a firearm test. It would be nice if everyone could get bull's eyes... but realistically, they should be at least able to get their shot at the target consistently.

Not to mention background checks. But I think I should mention my most extreme idea that in order to test for renewal, you should have your medications and be seen by a professional at least three times per year prior to give a rudimentary assessment on how you're doing mentally.

I don't think this is just a smart idea to make sure that the populace is better equipped to exercise their rights they constantly espouse, but it's a damn sure great way to add jobs and money to the community. The best estimates is that there's nearly 5 times amount of guns in the US.

Imagine if you had to do this test for. Each. Gun. I think that would limit how many guns some people would actually keep.

Money to the economy, A better mentality trained Population, Possibly less guns out there, AND people get to keep their Second Amendment Rights in tact. That feels like a win/win.

The (thankful) issue is that we don't have the data to see if Car attacks would match or supersede injuries if people were forced to only use them as weapons. We know that over 40,000 deaths happened in 2018 due to Traffic Fatalities. It's hard to compare that number accurately with Firearms, I realize, because we can never know how many of those deaths could include suicide by Auto accident. We have at least an approximate number of suicide by firearm.

For the most part, you have to TRY to kill someone with a Gun. You have to pick it up and aim it at someone. There's some effort involved, even in an accidental shooting for the most part. That's compared to 40,000 deaths, the majority of them by accident. The capability for violence is too massive to ignore, in all cases.

Don't misread me. I do not have any delusions that guns are anything but dangerous. They have two functions, hunting and warfare. And both of them come from the devices' ability to cause death. I really think they should be more tightly regulated. And I have no issue with that.

That's certainly a thing.

If we are talking online though, the US is the largest demographic here, one we are all familiar with. More people on this forum know about the US gun laws than any other country you can point at.

Additionally, I disagree that people in the US are exempt from that sort of thing. Lot of attention in the US (and the rest of the West) about gang-rape in India a few years back, rather overshadowing the gang-rapes in western high schools going to trial at about the same time.

Didn't we have a discussion about Steubenville, Ohio? I know we talked about Brock Turner and the Du Pont Heir. I think we've alluded to Savannah.

Anyway, my original point was to Satinavian's comment about losing respect or opinion about America after reading about it here on the forums. The point is we call out our own mess, but I don't see other countries on this forum doing the same. I talked about the upswing in Hate Crimes in the UK, to which I reasonably assumed no one would talk about that because I think people are just used to it now. I used the Knife offense and Gun incident as an example of how if the situation ever came up, all other points would be lost as people would just focus on the guns. Because it's the biggest win that can shut down a conversation, and airing out American laundry seems to be a pass time.

Theorem not proven, but test yielded positive results.

ObsidianJones:
I talked about the upswing in Hate Crimes in the UK, to which I reasonably assumed no one would talk about that because I think people are just used to it now.

Outside aspects of global interest, there isn't enough critical mass on the fourm to get people talking about most non-American topics. Start a thread on a topic like that, it dies in ~10 posts.

Agema:

Outside aspects of global interest, there isn't enough critical mass on the fourm to get people talking about most non-American topics. Start a thread on a topic like that, it dies in ~10 posts.

I was about to say something like this. I mean, just look at the number of posts you get here about Trump, someone who's going to be in office for up to 8 years, versus the Brexit thread, which is pretty much the biggest political event in UK history for aaaages. It's a very US-centric forum.

I notice no one offered thoughts and prayers for Freddie Starr.

ObsidianJones:

undeadsuitor:
I mean, replacing every gun with a knife in the US *would* make it infinitely safer. There are no mass knifings

Infinitely safer is a relative term.

There are quite a few mass stabbings. I've commonly heard it associated with China. We just passed the one year anniversary of a tragic event where nine students lost their lives to a mass stabbing in Shaanxi.

Vehicle attacks are sadly a thing, and an easy tool for anyone to make into a deadly terrorist move.

We had several bombers caught or who ended their lives in 2018 in the US. Mark Conditt, Cesar Sayoc, Houston Willis.

People who are unstable are going to find ways of expressing that damage to others unless they are found out. Focusing on the tool instead of the damaged person is just shifting the style of attack.

Okay. Where does this idea come from? 'Getting rid of guns gets rid of all violence'. Clearly it's a strawman argument. Also, all your evidence about other types of violence doesnt negate a discussion around gun laws. It does point to violence being a multi-faceted issue.

This is the same as the argument that criminals will take over if you get rid of guns. How many countries has this happened in? So is the argument that gun laws get rid of all gun. This hasnt been true in any country. Mostly, they target rifles and making more stringent requirements for getting them

ObsidianJones:
To put it in a non-asinine way, We're Rabble-rousers and we'll call out shit when we see it. Even if it's our own. Other countries don't really do that.

We'll certainly do such things so long as they are within the limited spectrum of debate that is allowed. We'll make a grand show of it. But please don't say anything about our murderous foreign policy until it's at least five years too late.

Gethsemani:

Dreiko:

Any conversation I've seen where "marginalized" people discussed their concept of an "ally" they were talking about what some on the right would describe as a cucked white dude who is there to lend support because their whiteness lends credibility to their voices but someone who is not to be a leader or offer foundational contributions to the effort because that is by definition not his place. I don't know what else you call that but subservient.

Sure you could call it subservient. But imagine a corporation if you will, one that operates in a really sensitive market and under some serious constraints, say healthcare. Imagine that this corporation has to pick out a new board of directors, do you think they'd want to choose those guys with business degrees, a literature major and someone who focused on sports psychology or would they want doctors, nurses, healthcare administrators and other people who know the workings of healthcare?

The same applies to marginalized groups. Feminists generally don't want men to be their figureheads by the simple virtue that men don't quite understand the challenges facing women. Black people don't want white people to be the greatest proponents of BLM because white people can't get the particular kind of problems black people face, even if said white person is from the same socioeconomic strata.

You can call it subservience, if you want to be melodramatic. You probably should call it a desire to ensure that the best suited people get to be at the front. The best suited for social movements will always be those who suffer oppression, discrimination or injustice, not the people on the sidelines who might empathize but haven't suffered it themselves. That's not to say that white men (to be really typical) can't make important contributions to feminism or ending racism, but they shouldn't expect to be at the front of a movement that's not about them. To do so is, if you will allow me to be really Tumblrina SJW, a really good definition of White Male Privilege.

Yeah, that's just incorrect, and racist.

White people came up with the idea of ending slavery. I'm sure their empathy works just fine. I'm sure if someone is white they can still be the best for the job. I'm not fond of segregating people like that. I don't think meritocracy allows for such an approach.

I also understand why someone fine with being treated like that would be looked at derisively and called names, because as much as I'm willing to help someone, I won't be enthused at being seen as inherently less capable of being helpful due to my arbitrary characteristics. Especially when I could be better than other people at it. The best case scenario is that every single white ally is a really bad activist and just acknowledges that literally every other person in the organization is better at it than them, but I don't think that's very likely.

There's this unproven implied notion here that having first hand experience of a particular group's issues makes one more suitable to solving them. I seen absolutely no support for that argument. Knowing how bad someone has it doesn't make you capable of devising a plan to fix that issue, it just makes you more aware of one of the myriad of facets going into the problem. All the rest of them, they've nothing to do with the actual experience of the people and are more logistical or political.

Someone needs just be aware of those issues. You can listen to those people and take their experiences into account. You don't have to be one of them yourself in order to know how to most effectively utilize this information in a way that produces results best for the community.

This is the literal foundation of representative democracy. You have the one person who does things but there's advisors who collect data from all over and inform them about it. I see no reason why a black rights organization can't function under that system when the US government and most of the free world does.

Ultimately, this feels like an attempt at exercising power for power's sake. Also it may be some sort of test where you see if your allies are fine with being subservient to you and in so doing confirm their true intentions. It's still a bad way to run your organization, doubly so if you purport to be concerned with racism and dislike hypocrisy.

Dreiko:

White people came up with the idea of ending slavery.

Go home Dreiko, you're drunk.

White people were the only ones able to do anything about slavery in America because minorities were marginalized, especially the slaves. The ideas from slave were NOT valued or even heard. You can tell their attitude though as they kept running away. The slaves thought slavery was terrible and wanted to abolish it but you will never hear about because who cares about beings who aren't 'actually people.' A black person 'couldn't' come up with the idea becuase they didn't have any power or voice.

trunkage:

Dreiko:

White people came up with the idea of ending slavery.

Go home Dreiko, you're drunk.

White people were the only ones able to do anything about slavery in America because minorities were marginalized, especially the slaves. The ideas from slave were NOT valued or even heard. You can tell their attitude though as they kept running away. The slaves thought slavery was terrible and wanted to abolish it but you will never hear about because who cares about beings who aren't 'actually people.' A black person 'couldn't' come up with the idea becuase they didn't have any power or voice.

See, I disagree with that.

Sure, enslaved blacks escaped, they didn't want to BE slaves. Not wanting to be a slave yourself is not the same as slavery ending. Most everyone doesn't want to be the slave, even those who thought slavery is awesome and fought a civil war to retain it would have tried to escape if it came to be that they were slaves somehow. That's not enough to show that someone's against slavery, that's just showing they're against being the slave themselves.

Anti-slavery movements from people who weren't themselves slaves, from people against slavery as a thing and not merely against it being perpetrated on them, begun in the UK. Before that lots of peoples had both been enslaved and held/sold slaves but they never seemed to end slavery when it was within their capacity to be the owner and not the slave up until that point.

Dreiko:

White people came up with the idea of ending slavery.

Do you think Fredrick Douglas is a fairy tale?

trunkage:

ObsidianJones:

undeadsuitor:
I mean, replacing every gun with a knife in the US *would* make it infinitely safer. There are no mass knifings

Infinitely safer is a relative term.

There are quite a few mass stabbings. I've commonly heard it associated with China. We just passed the one year anniversary of a tragic event where nine students lost their lives to a mass stabbing in Shaanxi.

Vehicle attacks are sadly a thing, and an easy tool for anyone to make into a deadly terrorist move.

We had several bombers caught or who ended their lives in 2018 in the US. Mark Conditt, Cesar Sayoc, Houston Willis.

People who are unstable are going to find ways of expressing that damage to others unless they are found out. Focusing on the tool instead of the damaged person is just shifting the style of attack.

Okay. Where does this idea come from? 'Getting rid of guns gets rid of all violence'. Clearly it's a strawman argument. Also, all your evidence about other types of violence doesnt negate a discussion around gun laws. It does point to violence being a multi-faceted issue.

This is the same as the argument that criminals will take over if you get rid of guns. How many countries has this happened in? So is the argument that gun laws get rid of all gun. This hasnt been true in any country. Mostly, they target rifles and making more stringent requirements for getting them

... Once you show me where I suggested anyone coming close to stating the notion of "Getting rid of guns gets rid of all violence", I'll respond.

As far as I've seen, I've only stated that removing the tools will still leave damaged people to try to do their acts.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here