Existing While Black: A Growing Concern

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

tstorm823:

Lil devils x:

Also for those asking the full details, the interaction wasnt very complicated. We walked by, they started yelling, we asked them how old they were, they replied "old enough", kept yelling, and we rolled our eyes and kept walking

THIS is her exact words of the events, and yes they make sense. Chances are, from the girls demeanor the girl who was being filmed, not the girl filming was the one who asked them how old they were and then when they gave her their smart arse remarks she stared at them blankly with the "Really?!" expression and then rolling her eyes so they kept yelling at her and as she walked away she was like " I'm so tired already" because she has no intention of dealing with that right now. Yes that makes perfect sense from a girls POV. I think you are trying to make more of it than it is. Pubescent boys in groups often scream randomly at girls, it is just a thing that happens.

Pubescent boys in groups often scream MAGA at girls? Is that what you think they yelled in the first place? I'm assuming it was some variant of catcalling. So like, you think it went:

Wooo woo, hey baby!
Ugh, how old ARE you?
Old enough!
... [eye roll]
MAGAAAAAAA!

That's not an interaction that makes sense to me.

ALSO, I am not sure why you think Black face and Tomahawk chants are " not enough to be racist" traditions. Hell I went to an extremely wealthy, overwhelmingly white High School in the south and that would not have been tolerated, like at all and of course it would be viewed as racist. There would have been protests at my school if that were to happen and all hell would break loose. I have no clue why anyone would think otherwise considering the history there.

Cause woah, I never said what your quote placement implies. I never said those aren't racist. I've called them racism, I've called them bad. What I've said is that they aren't, from all of what I've seen, anything you could call "traditions". Something's not a tradition if you do it once. Like, you say there'd be protests if kids did blackface, but would there be protests if they did blackface and then got disciplined and told to never do it again? You think that the defense these kids have gotten means they won't be reprimanded for tomahawk chopping at a Native American, but the initial reaction of their diocese strongly suggests otherwise.

I know they've said that the blackface was part of a tradition, but the tradition wasn't wearing blackface, it was doing theme nights at basketball games. Everyone wear black was a theme. It went to a bad place. They seem to have not done that theme since. The tradition isn't the racism, and the racism isn't encouraged.

EDIT: Have you also seen what former students there have been posting about the place?

Call me cynical, I have no faith in random twitter users. I have some faith in this setting, where we're somewhat anonymous and gain little to nothing from lies. It doesn't take a genius to realize badmouthing Covington High is going to get thousands of likes and retweets this week, and I doubt it's verifiable that many of these people even attended the school.

Maybe Phillips wants them to apologize fortreating ANYONE with disrespect and try to be more respectful to all persons rather than "just to him." Expecting to teach our youth to carry themselves in a respectful manner and treat others with respect is something that really should be a given.

Even that's not a reasonable thing if that's his intention. When the kid in question says he doesn't feel he was disrespectful, and wants to talk to Phillips, Phillips said that's not an apology, so no thanks. It hardly matters who the apology is desired for, if you're turning down the opportunity to teach the youth, you're not doing it to teach the youth.

"Perhaps if the Vatican were to host a gathering, I'd be willing to go." - Nathan Phillips

The guys were all geared up in MAGA crap, they were likely randomly yelling MAGA at anyone within hearing reach. There is no telling what all they yelled before the girls asked them how old they were, guys do not just yell things about sex, they yell all sorts of stuff. I had some guy screaming " puff the magic dragon!" at me once from a bench. They yell random crap to try and make people look at them and likely do not even think about it before it comes blurting out of their mouth.

That was the whole point of the video that was posted on the schools website, and the defense of both the blackface and the tomahawk was that they had considered them "school traditions" not intended to be racist.

Here, since you already informed me that you hadn't seen what I was talking about, this clarifies it better for you:

which showed numerous students covered in black paint present at several basketball games

Based on comments in the BluegrassPreps message board, the intent of the black body paint was not racial but was instead a school tradition related to "black out" games, during which fans wore black to support the team. That being said, at least one person in the thread posited a connection to racist minstrel shows from the 19th century that used blackface on white actors to depict African Americans unfavorably. "That guy on the right looks like he might have been researching minstrelsy before the game," one post read.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covington-catholic-black-paint/

These were actual traditions that the school proudly posted on their website before they took it down over these incidents.

It was the former students who have been posting proof of incidents, not just their witness accounts.

Yea, you do have to admit disrespect when you were disrespectful in order to apologize, otherwise that is not an apology in the first place. This kids Mom was the one blaming this on " Muslims" when there were not even Muslims present. I am not seeing that Phillips is wrong on that.

Lil devils x:

Here, since you already informed me that you hadn't seen what I was talking about, this clarifies it better for you:

which showed numerous students covered in black paint present at several basketball games

Based on comments in the BluegrassPreps message board, the intent of the black body paint was not racial but was instead a school tradition related to ?black out? games, during which fans wore black to support the team. That being said, at least one person in the thread posited a connection to racist minstrel shows from the 19th century that used blackface on white actors to depict African Americans unfavorably. ?That guy on the right looks like he might have been researching minstrelsy before the game,? one post read.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covington-catholic-black-paint/

No, I have seen that. Watch the video in that article, it's right there. It quite certainly does not show numerous students covered in black paint present at several basketball games, it shows students covered in black paint at one of several basketball games. Snopes is wrong with that sentence, but they posted the source material with it, so no harm, no foul.

These were actual traditions that the school proudly posted on their website before they took it down over these incidents.

No, the tradition is having themes that everyone follows. The video shows different themes over several years. To list: Braveheart, Grade School (might require some explanation, Catholic High Schools draw from multiple school districts, so this would be everyone wearing clothes to represent the grade school they went to), Jerseys, Operation Grace White (a childhood brain cancer charity), Whiteout, Beach Clothes, Christmas, Toga, Business Man, Nerds, Hunting Gear, Blackout, Blueout. Only one of those games involved black paint. Dressing to a theme is the tradition, not blackface.

And Snopes says it's related to "blackout games," plural, even though the post it's half quoting says "must have been a black out" because blackout games aren't in any way specific to Covington Catholic High School. High schools and colleges have games where all the students dress in one color regularly.

Yea, you do have to admit disrespect when you were disrespectful in order to apologize, otherwise that is not an apology in the first place. This kids Mom was the one blaming this on " Muslims" when there were not even Muslims present. I am not seeing that Phillips is wrong on that.

You're right that it wasn't an apology, we've established that. "I want to talk to you, but only if you apologize first" isn't teaching kids about respect. That is, at best, just segregating out kids who won't apologize for things and declaring them lost causes.

Kerg3927:
I think a lot of moderates who didn't even like Trump or his platform voted for him just for that reason.

Nope. The mere definition of moderate implies they don't do that. Only the extremists ruin their own country just to own the other side.

CaitSeith:

Kerg3927:
I think a lot of moderates who didn't even like Trump or his platform voted for him just for that reason.

Nope. The mere definition of moderate implies they don't do that. Only the extremists ruin their own country just to own the other side.

By moderate, I meant centrists, voters who were on the fence, swing voters, the people who actually decide elections, who are by definition not extremists. So if they were actually considering voting for Trump to begin with, i.e. they were on the fence, they probably didn't see it as something that would "ruin their own country." I think a significant number of those voters didn't really like either candidate, but they really, really didn't like the self-righteous, smug, hate-filled extremists on the left, so they thought, I have to vote for somebody, might as well vote for the candidate that pisses off those people.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/how-the-left-created-donald-trump-214472

Kerg3927:

CaitSeith:

Kerg3927:
I think a lot of moderates who didn't even like Trump or his platform voted for him just for that reason.

Nope. The mere definition of moderate implies they don't do that. Only the extremists ruin their own country just to own the other side.

By moderate, I meant centrists, voters who were on the fence, swing voters, the people who actually decide elections, who are by definition not extremists. So if they were actually considering voting for Trump to begin with, i.e. they were on the fence, they probably didn't see it as something that would "ruin their own country." I think a significant number of those voters didn't really like either candidate, but they really, really didn't like the self-righteous, smug, hate-filled extremists on the left, so they thought, I have to vote for somebody, might as well vote for the candidate that pisses off those people.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/how-the-left-created-donald-trump-214472

Did you read that entire article? And at no point did you roll your eyes at the very obvious political bias?

Seriously, that thing reads like a Sarah Sanders memo. It talks about how "the left" (someone complaining of mass labels resorting to mass labels? Shocking.) shut down conversation by calling people racist but not a mention of the rising use of racial rhetoric in the Republican party. It briefly mentions the problems faced by LGBT and minorities only to remind everyone that "most Americans put such concerns at the bottom of the list.", which I guess means that they don't matter. Here's a quote for you:

Trump?s rise in popularity?and ultimately his election to the presidency?should be seen as a long-building reaction to grass-roots liberal activism that came to dominate the cultural landscape and claim victory after victory in the social arena, whether the issue was abortion or gay marriage or transgender rights, always accompanied by that same disdain for right-wing views as worthy of the Stone Age.

Disdain for "stone age right-wing views" such as "homosexuality is immoral" ? Yeah, people do disdain that view, because its ridiculous. There's no "well I suppose we agree to disagree" with people who challenge the basis for other's existence. If I thought that marriage was immoral, conservatives would not "agree to disagree" if I started funding superpacs to make marriage illegal. Ditto with finding natural birth immoral and insisting everyone use IVF. If I went to a conservative university and gave a speech arguing that being straight is immoral, do you think they would let me speak?

I have an alternative theory on the election of Donald Trump to the presidency: its the natural consequence of decades (perhaps centuries) of deification of the wealthy and priveliged. To the point where a readily apparent unintelligent buffoon can be elected to the "highest office in the land" because "Well, he is rich. He must be smart to be rich. He lives in a gold tower, just like I want to but never will do, what a hero of the working class."

As for the campuses that the author frets about so frequently in the article, note the utter lack of sourcing or figures. Because in reality, there are a marginal number of incidents involving "social justice" in comparison to the sheer number of U.S. students. While you are at it, note the utter lack of sourcing for any other claims whatsoever as well.

On the topic of universities, the suggestion that its somehow elitist or negative to protest a speech given by Condolezza "I enabled the Iraq war and failed to solve the North Korean nuclear crisis twice" Rice is just ridiculous.

Kerg3927:
By moderate, I meant centrists, voters who were on the fence, swing voters, the people who actually decide elections, who are by definition not extremists. So if they were actually considering voting for Trump to begin with, i.e. they were on the fence, they probably didn't see it as something that would "ruin their own country." I think a significant number of those voters didn't really like either candidate, but they really, really didn't like the self-righteous, smug, hate-filled extremists on the left, so they thought, I have to vote for somebody, might as well vote for the candidate that pisses off those people.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/how-the-left-created-donald-trump-214472

You often talk about how vile and rude the left is. Do you ever stop and see what adjectives you use for them? Do you want to talk about Hate Filled? I'm not a fan of Republican ideals. But I respect them. I do not use as many derogatory terms for people I actually hate compared to how you always have to describe the left.

You want to talk Hate-Filled? More people died to Right-Wing Hate than any other type of Hate. In spitting distance of me, Four teens were stopped with Bombs and 23 guns before their plan of attacking a Islamic community was realized. A community that is harassed habitually by Right-Wing Extremist. Hate Groups are trying to get into politics running as Republicans.

Hell, studies have been done. Where do you see high numbers of hate groups? Where you find high numbers of Conservatives.

The study finds that, not surprisingly, the geography of organized hate is shaped by factors like race and ethnicity, education, poverty, religion, and political conservatism. Organized hate is concentrated in places that are poorer, less educated, less diverse, and whiter, more religious, and more conservative.

You don't like how the Left talks. And I get that. But the Conservative Political Leaning has been studied and proven to have ties with actual Hate Groups who have harmed individuals. Not with talk and smugness, but with violence and death... usually followed by Talk and Smugness, because they feel they are untouchable.

Kerg3927:

CaitSeith:

Kerg3927:
I think a lot of moderates who didn't even like Trump or his platform voted for him just for that reason.

Nope. The mere definition of moderate implies they don't do that. Only the extremists ruin their own country just to own the other side.

By moderate, I meant centrists, voters who were on the fence, swing voters, the people who actually decide elections, who are by definition not extremists.

Nope. Most of them voted for third-party candidates. The same percentage that swinged from Republican to Democrat in the first Obama's election did from Democrat to third party in Donald's.

Kerg3927:

CaitSeith:

Kerg3927:
I think a lot of moderates who didn't even like Trump or his platform voted for him just for that reason.

Nope. The mere definition of moderate implies they don't do that. Only the extremists ruin their own country just to own the other side.

By moderate, I meant centrists, voters who were on the fence, swing voters, the people who actually decide elections, who are by definition not extremists. So if they were actually considering voting for Trump to begin with, i.e. they were on the fence, they probably didn't see it as something that would "ruin their own country." I think a significant number of those voters didn't really like either candidate, but they really, really didn't like the self-righteous, smug, hate-filled extremists on the left, so they thought, I have to vote for somebody, might as well vote for the candidate that pisses off those people.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/how-the-left-created-donald-trump-214472

So the kind of centrists who think 'kill some black people' is the compromise between 'kill all black people' and 'kill no black people'?

ineptelephant:
Did you read that entire article? And at no point did you roll your eyes at the very obvious political bias?

Seriously, that thing reads like a Sarah Sanders memo. It talks about how "the left" (someone complaining of mass labels resorting to mass labels? Shocking.) shut down conversation by calling people racist but not a mention of the rising use of racial rhetoric in the Republican party. It briefly mentions the problems faced by LGBT and minorities only to remind everyone that "most Americans put such concerns at the bottom of the list.", which I guess means that they don't matter. Here's a quote for you:

Trump?s rise in popularity?and ultimately his election to the presidency?should be seen as a long-building reaction to grass-roots liberal activism that came to dominate the cultural landscape and claim victory after victory in the social arena, whether the issue was abortion or gay marriage or transgender rights, always accompanied by that same disdain for right-wing views as worthy of the Stone Age.

Disdain for "stone age right-wing views" such as "homosexuality is immoral" ? Yeah, people do disdain that view, because its ridiculous. There's no "well I suppose we agree to disagree" with people who challenge the basis for other's existence. If I thought that marriage was immoral, conservatives would not "agree to disagree" if I started funding superpacs to make marriage illegal. Ditto with finding natural birth immoral and insisting everyone use IVF. If I went to a conservative university and gave a speech arguing that being straight is immoral, do you think they would let me speak?

I have an alternative theory on the election of Donald Trump to the presidency: its the natural consequence of decades (perhaps centuries) of deification of the wealthy and priveliged. To the point where a readily apparent unintelligent buffoon can be elected to the "highest office in the land" because "Well, he is rich. He must be smart to be rich. He lives in a gold tower, just like I want to but never will do, what a hero of the working class."

As for the campuses that the author frets about so frequently in the article, note the utter lack of sourcing or figures. Because in reality, there are a marginal number of incidents involving "social justice" in comparison to the sheer number of U.S. students. While you are at it, note the utter lack of sourcing for any other claims whatsoever as well.

On the topic of universities, the suggestion that its somehow elitist or negative to protest a speech given by Condolezza "I enabled the Iraq war and failed to solve the North Korean nuclear crisis twice" Rice is just ridiculous.

I don't agree with everything in that article. I just threw it in as an example of someone else saying the gist of what I am saying, i.e. the left put Trump in the White House. I should have made that clear.

My point is that it was white, working class moderates who tilted the election. And a significant number of those people voted for Obama, but they changed their vote. If Democrats want to regain the White House, they need to ask themselves why. And "because they are all obviously racist/sexist" is not the answer. IMO, being too quick to call people who disagree with them racist/sexist/homophobic or "deplorable" is what got them in this situation to begin with.

I also think poor, white, working class people got sick of everything from the left being about minority groups, with nobody talking about their struggles, unemployment in the rust belt, globalization shipping union jobs to other countries, etc. Being told how "privileged" you are when you're poor and struggling to keep your head above water. They felt alienated by the Democratic Party that used to have their back.

If Democrats aren't going to learn anything and just double down on their smug "anyone who disagrees with me is deplorable" stance, that's playing right into Trump's hands, IMO.

ObsidianJones:
You often talk about how vile and rude the left is. Do you ever stop and see what adjectives you use for them? Do you want to talk about Hate Filled? I'm not a fan of Republican ideals. But I respect them. I do not use as many derogatory terms for people I actually hate compared to how you always have to describe the left.

You want to talk Hate-Filled? More people died to Right-Wing Hate than any other type of Hate. In spitting distance of me, Four teens were stopped with Bombs and 23 guns before their plan of attacking a Islamic community was realized. A community that is harassed habitually by Right-Wing Extremist. Hate Groups are trying to get into politics running as Republicans.

Hell, studies have been done. Where do you see high numbers of hate groups? Where you find high numbers of Conservatives.

The study finds that, not surprisingly, the geography of organized hate is shaped by factors like race and ethnicity, education, poverty, religion, and political conservatism. Organized hate is concentrated in places that are poorer, less educated, less diverse, and whiter, more religious, and more conservative.

You don't like how the Left talks. And I get that. But the Conservative Political Leaning has been studied and proven to have ties with actual Hate Groups who have harmed individuals. Not with talk and smugness, but with violence and death... usually followed by Talk and Smugness, because they feel they are untouchable.

I'm not a fan of most Republican ideals, either. But yes, I think extremists on the left are just as full of hate as extremists on the right. No, they're not blowing up buildings and stuff, yet. Right now it's just hateful rhetoric, but historically similar ideology and hard line thinking has led to mass murder and genocide on a colossal scale. And that's because a lot of what fuels their anger is jealousy, the shadow of greed, that is, as Yoda said.

CaitSeith:

Kerg3927:

CaitSeith:

Nope. The mere definition of moderate implies they don't do that. Only the extremists ruin their own country just to own the other side.

By moderate, I meant centrists, voters who were on the fence, swing voters, the people who actually decide elections, who are by definition not extremists.

Nope. Most of them voted for third-party candidates. The same percentage that swinged from Republican to Democrat in the first Obama's election did from Democrat to third party in Donald's.

This is what I'm talking about...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/upshot/the-obama-trump-voters-are-real-heres-what-they-think.html

Kerg3927:

ineptelephant:
Did you read that entire article? And at no point did you roll your eyes at the very obvious political bias?

Seriously, that thing reads like a Sarah Sanders memo. It talks about how "the left" (someone complaining of mass labels resorting to mass labels? Shocking.) shut down conversation by calling people racist but not a mention of the rising use of racial rhetoric in the Republican party. It briefly mentions the problems faced by LGBT and minorities only to remind everyone that "most Americans put such concerns at the bottom of the list.", which I guess means that they don't matter. Here's a quote for you:

Trump?s rise in popularity?and ultimately his election to the presidency?should be seen as a long-building reaction to grass-roots liberal activism that came to dominate the cultural landscape and claim victory after victory in the social arena, whether the issue was abortion or gay marriage or transgender rights, always accompanied by that same disdain for right-wing views as worthy of the Stone Age.

Disdain for "stone age right-wing views" such as "homosexuality is immoral" ? Yeah, people do disdain that view, because its ridiculous. There's no "well I suppose we agree to disagree" with people who challenge the basis for other's existence. If I thought that marriage was immoral, conservatives would not "agree to disagree" if I started funding superpacs to make marriage illegal. Ditto with finding natural birth immoral and insisting everyone use IVF. If I went to a conservative university and gave a speech arguing that being straight is immoral, do you think they would let me speak?

I have an alternative theory on the election of Donald Trump to the presidency: its the natural consequence of decades (perhaps centuries) of deification of the wealthy and priveliged. To the point where a readily apparent unintelligent buffoon can be elected to the "highest office in the land" because "Well, he is rich. He must be smart to be rich. He lives in a gold tower, just like I want to but never will do, what a hero of the working class."

As for the campuses that the author frets about so frequently in the article, note the utter lack of sourcing or figures. Because in reality, there are a marginal number of incidents involving "social justice" in comparison to the sheer number of U.S. students. While you are at it, note the utter lack of sourcing for any other claims whatsoever as well.

On the topic of universities, the suggestion that its somehow elitist or negative to protest a speech given by Condolezza "I enabled the Iraq war and failed to solve the North Korean nuclear crisis twice" Rice is just ridiculous.

I don't agree with everything in that article. I just threw it in as an example of someone else saying the gist of what I am saying, i.e. the left put Trump in the White House. I should have made that clear.

My point is that it was white, working class moderates who tilted the election. And a significant number of those people voted for Obama, but they changed their vote. If Democrats want to regain the White House, they need to ask themselves why. And "because they are all obviously racist/sexist" is not the answer. IMO, being too quick to call people who disagree with them racist/sexist/homophobic or "deplorable" is what got them in this situation to begin with.

I also think poor, white, working class people got sick of everything from the left being about minority groups, with nobody talking about their struggles, unemployment in the rust belt, globalization shipping union jobs to other countries, etc. Being told how "privileged" you are when you're struggling to keep your head above water. They felt alienated by the Democratic Party that used to have their back.

If Democrats aren't going to learn anything and just double down on their smug "anyone who disagrees with me is deplorable" stance, that's playing right into Trump's hands, IMO.

ObsidianJones:
You often talk about how vile and rude the left is. Do you ever stop and see what adjectives you use for them? Do you want to talk about Hate Filled? I'm not a fan of Republican ideals. But I respect them. I do not use as many derogatory terms for people I actually hate compared to how you always have to describe the left.

You want to talk Hate-Filled? More people died to Right-Wing Hate than any other type of Hate. In spitting distance of me, Four teens were stopped with Bombs and 23 guns before their plan of attacking a Islamic community was realized. A community that is harassed habitually by Right-Wing Extremist. Hate Groups are trying to get into politics running as Republicans.

Hell, studies have been done. Where do you see high numbers of hate groups? Where you find high numbers of Conservatives.

The study finds that, not surprisingly, the geography of organized hate is shaped by factors like race and ethnicity, education, poverty, religion, and political conservatism. Organized hate is concentrated in places that are poorer, less educated, less diverse, and whiter, more religious, and more conservative.

You don't like how the Left talks. And I get that. But the Conservative Political Leaning has been studied and proven to have ties with actual Hate Groups who have harmed individuals. Not with talk and smugness, but with violence and death... usually followed by Talk and Smugness, because they feel they are untouchable.

I'm not a fan of most Republican ideals, either. But yes, I think extremists on the left are just as full of hate as extremists on the right. No, they're not blowing up buildings and stuff, yet. Right now it's just hateful rhetoric, but historically similar ideology and hard line thinking has led to mass murder and genocide on a colossal scale. And that's because a lot of what fuels their anger is jealousy, the shadow of greed, that is, as Yoda said.

CaitSeith:

Kerg3927:

By moderate, I meant centrists, voters who were on the fence, swing voters, the people who actually decide elections, who are by definition not extremists.

Nope. Most of them voted for third-party candidates. The same percentage that swinged from Republican to Democrat in the first Obama's election did from Democrat to third party in Donald's.

This is what I'm talking about...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/upshot/the-obama-trump-voters-are-real-heres-what-they-think.html

There is more to those numbers than that. For example, the reason why republicans failed at being able to repeal the ACA, was that some of those who previously thought that they wanted it repealed realized they didn't because they literally did not know what it was. Turns out they actually demanded the ACA and wanted Obamacare repealed because of the propaganda, having no clue they were the same thing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/upshot/one-third-dont-know-obamacare-and-affordable-care-act-are-the-same.html

Once they tried to repeal it, their constituents let them know loud and clear that was not what they had in mind. In addition, MOST people want universal healthcare:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most-americans-now-support-medicare-for-all-and-free-college-tuition.html

Now, from your link above:

RACIAL RESENTMENT Using this and other data, political scientists have argued that racial resentment is the strongest predictor of whether voters flipped from Mr. Obama to Mr. Trump, and the biggest driver of Trump support among these voters.

Yes, racial resentment is the strongest predictor of the Obama-Trump vote in this survey data. White, working-class Obama voters with racially conservative views were very likely to flip to the Republicans.

So yes, race was a major factor in voters shifting, although not the only factor.

Lil devils x:

RACIAL RESENTMENT Using this and other data, political scientists have argued that racial resentment is the strongest predictor of whether voters flipped from Mr. Obama to Mr. Trump, and the biggest driver of Trump support among these voters.

Yes, racial resentment is the strongest predictor of the Obama-Trump vote in this survey data. White, working-class Obama voters with racially conservative views were very likely to flip to the Republicans.

So yes, race was a major factor in voters shifting, although not the only factor.

Continuing the paragraph...

For example, Mrs. Clinton won just 47 percent of white Obama voters without a college degree who disagreed with the idea that "white people in the U.S. have certain advantages because of the color of their skin." In contrast, she retained 88 percent of white Obama voters without a college degree who agreed that white people have certain advantages.

Nonetheless, voters with high racial resentment did not necessarily represent the preponderance of the Obama-Trump vote, because Mr. Obama had already lost nearly all such voters by 2012. To take the prior example: 49 percent of white, no-college Obama-Trump supporters at least somewhat disagreed with the notion that white people had certain advantages.

So poor white voters who disagree that white people have advantages are racist? Simply because they don't feel particularly advantageous while living out their poor, shitty lives?

Why do you want so badly for racism to be "rampant?" So you can shoot those people in the back of the head Bolshevik-style and not feel guilty?

One of the reasons is it harder to be a person of color is the crap school funding in the US. Schools are funded by property tax not statewide or nationally for most of the funding.

So minority-majority schools are under-funded. An example of institutional racism.

And don't even get me started on those corporate fucks at the charter schools.

Kerg3927:

Lil devils x:

RACIAL RESENTMENT Using this and other data, political scientists have argued that racial resentment is the strongest predictor of whether voters flipped from Mr. Obama to Mr. Trump, and the biggest driver of Trump support among these voters.

Yes, racial resentment is the strongest predictor of the Obama-Trump vote in this survey data. White, working-class Obama voters with racially conservative views were very likely to flip to the Republicans.

So yes, race was a major factor in voters shifting, although not the only factor.

Continuing the paragraph...

For example, Mrs. Clinton won just 47 percent of white Obama voters without a college degree who disagreed with the idea that "white people in the U.S. have certain advantages because of the color of their skin." In contrast, she retained 88 percent of white Obama voters without a college degree who agreed that white people have certain advantages.

Nonetheless, voters with high racial resentment did not necessarily represent the preponderance of the Obama-Trump vote, because Mr. Obama had already lost nearly all such voters by 2012. To take the prior example: 49 percent of white, no-college Obama-Trump supporters at least somewhat disagreed with the notion that white people had certain advantages.

So poor white voters who disagree that white people have advantages are racist? Simply because they don't feel particularly advantageous while living out their poor, shitty lives?

Why do you want so badly for racism to be "rampant?" So you can shoot those people in the back of the head Bolshevik-style and not feel guilty?

I want racism to not be rampant, the problem is it still is. Why do you want to deny that racism is a serious problem? I have seen entirely too much racism on so many levels, there is no way I could be in denial about it's current severity. I don't have blinders on pretending like this shat isn't happening non stop still.

Although education and wealth are commonly related, that does not necessarily mean it is. Even at my High School reunion it was apparent that some who are well off and have middle and upper middle class families did not need to get a college degree. Whether they dropped out, goofed off or chose to travel the world instead, they have families that take care of them. They are technically still considered working class, but are in no way "poor" nor do they have the same issues as those who are truly on their own and have little or nothing to fall back on. Even my friends who were " couch hopping" still were better off than those who are forced into much worse situations. To claim they are necessarily poor is misunderstanding the severity of what being poor actually is.

In addition, a few of the guys I went to school with that did not bother going to college are actually very well off. One invented an ink and got a patent, and made millions and didn't see any reason to. Another's parents owned a jewelry store and he is just went into the family business, then we have the guy whose parents literally helped him gain ownership of an electric company. The issue is, even without a college degree, there are many who still are very well off due to family wealth rather than even those with a degree. Now of course there are many who are genuinely poor, however, it has been shown that not only are black people more likely to be poorer than white people, a black person is still much worse off than a poor white person in the a same situation.

White people not realizing they have advantages and are better off than a black person in the same situation does not mean that is actual reality. They do not realize how bad Black people have it because they have not experienced it. Oddly though Black people in worse situations are also more optimistic than white people. Why do you think that is?

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-are-black-poor-americans-more-optimistic-than-white-ones/
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/sep/13/median-wealth-of-black-americans-will-fall-to-zero-by-2053-warns-new-report
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/15/african-americans-are-the-only-racial-group-in-u-s-still-making-less-than-they-did-in-2000/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f4f0720ef970
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/milwaukee-segregation-wealthy-black-families.html
http://www.nareb.com/racism-alive-well-housing/
https://qz.com/1040841/poor-whites-feel-worse-about-life-than-poor-blacks-even-though-theyre-better-off/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/18/upshot/black-white-wealth-gap-perceptions.html

Why do you want to pretend this isn't a serious problem that needs to be addressed?

Gergar12:
One of the reasons is it harder to be a person of color is the crap school funding in the US. Schools are funded by property tax not statewide or nationally for most of the funding.

So minority-majority schools are under-funded. An example of institutional racism.

And don't even get me started on those corporate fucks at the charter schools.

Yea, Education on all levels in the US is a mess. Not only the funding, but the continued segregation, inequality in quality of education and opportunities, private, public and charter school mess on top of the crushing $1.5 Trillion in student debt.

How are people expected to ever get their footing when they will be in debt for the rest of their lives while they are not even making monthly bills from paycheck to paycheck increasing debt further with additional loans and having to put necessities to survive on credit cards. They have no savings not due to being frivolous, it is they spend everything they have just to have basic necessities.

The entire situation is a catastrophe and the current administration and GOP states are making it so much worse by cutting funding further and trying to make education quality go to the highest bidder. I see this getting so much worse, and am not optimistic at this time of seeing it get better any time soon.

Kerg3927:
snip

Pretty bold accusation. We don't want racism to be rampant; we want the opposite. We don't want to execute people, we want them to live along without senseless fear, anger and hatred towards others. Ignoring the problem won't accomplish that; it won't get rid of the hatred, it'll only cause more suffering. If you truly believe we want to see the world worst than it really is to have an excuse to execute people; then you need to get that head of yours examined (or at least take a break from the Internet and spend some time in the real world for while).

CaitSeith:

Kerg3927:
snip

Pretty bold accusation. We don't want racism to be rampant; we want the opposite. We don't want to execute people, we want them to live along without senseless fear, anger and hatred towards others. Ignoring the problem won't accomplish that; it won't get rid of the hatred, it'll only cause more suffering. If you truly believe we want to see the world worst than it really is to have an excuse to execute people; then you need to get that head of yours examined (or at least take a break from the Internet and spend some time in the real world for while).

The alt-right echo chamber really does whip people up into this hysterical frenzy that 'liberalsss' will settle for nothing less than their complete holocaust-like eradication. It's mass mental-illness and needs to stop, because the real-world consequences are their inevitable mass-shooting events are seen as justified self-defense.

Being too poor to afford registration so being left to walk off into dangerous weather while the officer says racist BS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZiOSp2JnoQ

"Black girl magic" WTF?

Lil devils x:
The issue is, even without a college degree, there are many who still are very well off due to family wealth rather than even those with a degree. Now of course there are many who are genuinely poor, however, it has been shown that not only are black people more likely to be poorer than white people, a black person is still much worse off than a poor white person in the a same situation.

So I think I can sum up your position by saying that your main source of anger is that people from well off families have advantages, and, statistically, black families are less likely than white families to be well off, so it's unfair. I don't dispute these facts, and I also agree that it's unfair. Life is inherently unfair.

But it is impossible to get rid of class advantages without a communist totalitarian state that leads to enslavement and holocaust. Anyone who has studied history knows this to be pretty well established. The track record of systems designed with equality of outcomes in mind is 100% tragedy. And why would you want to change our current, admittedly imperfect, system into a tragedy?

And while you are raging against that particular inequality, I have to ask, why aren't you raging against all these other, very similar, inequalities that inevitably form in a free market? Where is your sympathy for short people? Ugly people? Fat people? Bald people? And people will poor posture? What about stupid people?

https://www.businessinsider.com/if-you-have-any-of-these-20-physical-features-your-pay-check-will-probably-be-higher-2011-2

The fact is, there is a ton of diversity among populations, and it's almost never all neat and tidy along the lines of race and gender like some currently want to believe. And the outcomes are never going to be equal for them all, unless we want to lose all of our freedoms.

Kerg3927:

Lil devils x:
The issue is, even without a college degree, there are many who still are very well off due to family wealth rather than even those with a degree. Now of course there are many who are genuinely poor, however, it has been shown that not only are black people more likely to be poorer than white people, a black person is still much worse off than a poor white person in the a same situation.

So I think I can sum up your position by saying that your main source of anger is that people from well off families have advantages, and, statistically, black families are less likely than white families to be well off, so it's unfair. I don't dispute these facts, and I also agree that it's unfair. Life is inherently unfair.

But it is impossible to get rid of class advantages without a communist totalitarian state that leads to enslavement and holocaust. Anyone who has studied history knows this to be pretty well established. The track record of systems designed with equality of outcomes in mind is 100% tragedy. And why would you want to change our current, admittedly imperfect, system into a tragedy?

And while you are raging against that particular inequality, I have to ask, why aren't you raging against all these other, very similar, inequalities that inevitably form in a free market? Where is your sympathy for short people? Ugly people? Fat people? Bald people? And people will poor posture? What about stupid people?

https://www.businessinsider.com/if-you-have-any-of-these-20-physical-features-your-pay-check-will-probably-be-higher-2011-2

The fact is, there is a ton of diversity among populations, and it's almost never all neat and tidy along the lines of race and gender like some currently want to believe. And the outcomes are never going to be equal for them all, unless we want to lose all of our freedoms.

It is a matter of despair. Forcing others into despair and for what purpose? It is not just about family wealth, it is about how two people in the same position are not treated anywhere near equally regardless of wealth. It is far from impossible to balance out class advantages, and absurd to suggest horrors such as holocaust as ever being an option. Quit being such an extremist. Let's take Norway for example, They managed to make all their citizens millionaires, although the people are not exactly allowed to spend the money due to choosing to save it for later, they have been and very well could spend that money on the people.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-millionaires/all-norwegians-become-crown-millionaires-in-oil-saving-landmark-idUSBREA0710U20140108

Currently the 1% in the US have enough hoarded to literally make every single person, citizen or not in the US wealthy. Why do we have such a large portion of the population suffering when we have the ability to solve all these problems if we simply choose to address it via taxation.

Why do you think this is an "either/or" issue? Why do you think I am not discussing other inequalities? Why should we ignore any of it instead of try to make things better long term? Different cultures have dealt with these very issues in different ways and there is no reason why barbaric greed should be encouraged to continue when we are capable of changing these things for the better.

This isn't exactly like I am ignoring the problems now is it?
https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.1056546-Sex-Appeal-and-You#24286056

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1056590-Ableism-Disease-and-Disabilities

You accomplish changing these things by education. It doesn't happen immediately, it happens slowly over time. The first steps to doing so though is by discussing these issues openly rather than choosing to ignore it and pretend it doesn't matter. Instead we have more people willing to try and to make these things change for the better by fronting this for what it is and doing something about it. The more people who expand their understanding on how to change these things the faster things will change.

Kerg3927:

Lil devils x:
The issue is, even without a college degree, there are many who still are very well off due to family wealth rather than even those with a degree. Now of course there are many who are genuinely poor, however, it has been shown that not only are black people more likely to be poorer than white people, a black person is still much worse off than a poor white person in the a same situation.

So I think I can sum up your position by saying that your main source of anger is that people from well off families have advantages, and, statistically, black families are less likely than white families to be well off, so it's unfair. I don't dispute these facts, and I also agree that it's unfair. Life is inherently unfair.

But it is impossible to get rid of class advantages without a communist totalitarian state that leads to enslavement and holocaust. Anyone who has studied history knows this to be pretty well established. The track record of systems designed with equality of outcomes in mind is 100% tragedy. And why would you want to change our current, admittedly imperfect, system into a tragedy?

And while you are raging against that particular inequality, I have to ask, why aren't you raging against all these other, very similar, inequalities that inevitably form in a free market? Where is your sympathy for short people? Ugly people? Fat people? Bald people? And people will poor posture? What about stupid people?

https://www.businessinsider.com/if-you-have-any-of-these-20-physical-features-your-pay-check-will-probably-be-higher-2011-2

The fact is, there is a ton of diversity among populations, and it's almost never all neat and tidy along the lines of race and gender like some currently want to believe. And the outcomes are never going to be equal for them all, unless we want to lose all of our freedoms.

You know, when... well eveywhere got rid of slavery that it cost every citizen more for all items. You know what it didnt do? Cause totalitarianism or any holocaust (well maybe you can count the lynchings). We got rid of class advantage and it didn't hurt the people on top that much. In fact, eventually it made the rich richer. Guess what the slavers were saying before emancipation? 'Oh, it'll destroy society as we know it. How will the economy survive? Don't tread on me.' Etc. Guess what. That didnt happen

Also, just becuase you are critical of Capitalism doesn't automatically make you a Communist. That's not how reality works. You can want a change without any totalitarian nonsense

Lastly, many people dont have freedom due to physical characteristics right now in Capitalism. And they never will. It's to your own benefit to help them OR they will overthrow your oppression (even if it wasnt intentional). How about you find a way to make freedom happen for everyone instead of yourself. Not for them but as a protection of your own freedom. If you take other people freedom away (eg. Trans rights or same sex marriage etc), they will take your in retaliation. You know, because karma.

Kerg3927:

But it is impossible to get rid of class advantages without a communist totalitarian state that leads to enslavement and holocaust. .

You're just stringing words together that don't even all fit right.

Ok, my turn, the matriarchal patriarchy of the anti-Semitic league of Jews who love capitalism by hating money.

But anyways, socialism is a thing though. And what is neat about socialism, is you can still have rich people, you can still have nicer things than your neighors. The point of socialism isnt to bring everyone up down, it is to make sure the bottom rung isnt a death sentence, it is to make sure our poorest people can atleast know they can survive and be fed and clothed and have a place to sleep. And that goes for poor black people, poor white people, poor men, women, children, poor straight people, poor gay people, and so on.

Kerg3927:

And while you are raging against that particular inequality, I have to ask, why aren't you raging against all these other, very similar, inequalities that inevitably form in a free market? Where is your sympathy for short people? Ugly people? Fat people? Bald people? And people will poor posture? What about stupid people?

This is a strawman. Making a point to say 'black people are treated unfairly' doesn't mean we don't care about everyone else being treated unfairly. Guess what! Equality means equal. And when you fight for equality, you fight for literally everyone.

But if you want to play this game, then where is yours? You put it on lildevils, but now I am putting it on you? Where is your empathy for black people? Where is your empathy for muslims? For LGBT people? Where is your empathy for me?

Lil devils x:
It is far from impossible to balance out class advantages, and absurd to suggest horrors such as holocaust as ever being an option. Quit being such an extremist.

That's the thing. I don't think I'm being an extremist. I'm looking at history and that's what it tells me.

I see people spouting this grossly oversimplified view of the world in which there are only two kinds of people: 1) evil straight white male oppressors; and 2) good women and minority groups who are oppressed. It's straight up Marxism. The only difference is that instead of bourgeoisie vs. proletariat, it's straight white males vs. everyone else.

IMO, the intent of this oversimplification is to create an enemy that people can point to and use to incite outrage among the populace. In Marxism, the goal was to incite class war, which would lead to a violent overthrow of the government, which then somehow would lead to utopia. But that's not how it turned out, ever. It always led to the opposite of utopia, hell on earth.

This 21st century version of Marxism, I'm not sure what it's end goal is, except to divide and create conflict, if not all out race war. I guess it's also hoping for utopia. But since utopia is impossible, all we're left with is the hate, conflict, and polarization it creates.

Lil devils x:
Let's take Norway for example, They managed to make all their citizens millionaires, although the people are not exactly allowed to spend the money due to choosing to save it for later, they have been and very well could spend that money on the people.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-millionaires/all-norwegians-become-crown-millionaires-in-oil-saving-landmark-idUSBREA0710U20140108

That money is owned by the government, not the people. The U.S. has the same thing, except ours is negative, ha. We share $22 trillion in debt, or about -$70,000 per person.

Lil devils x:
Currently the 1% in the US have enough hoarded to literally make every single person, citizen or not in the US wealthy. Why do we have such a large portion of the population suffering when we have the ability to solve all these problems if we simply choose to address it via taxation.

Why do you think this is an "either/or" issue? Why do you think I am not discussing other inequalities? Why should we ignore any of it instead of try to make things better long term? Different cultures have dealt with these very issues in different ways and there is no reason why barbaric greed should be encouraged to continue when we are capable of changing these things for the better.

This isn't exactly like I am ignoring the problems now is it?
https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.1056546-Sex-Appeal-and-You#24286056

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1056590-Ableism-Disease-and-Disabilities

You accomplish changing these things by education. It doesn't happen immediately, it happens slowly over time. The first steps to doing so though is by discussing these issues openly rather than choosing to ignore it and pretend it doesn't matter. Instead we have more people willing to try and to make these things change for the better by fronting this for what it is and doing something about it. The more people who expand their understanding on how to change these things the faster things will change.

I'm all for redistibution of wealth through taxation on corporations and the wealthy. Within reason. You don't want to kill the golden goose, by putting our country at a severe economic disadvantage globally. And I'm all for spending more on education. I consider myself to be fairly liberal on most issues. What I don't like is when people confuse class inequalities with race and gender inequalities, and then point the finger at straight white males and say it's all their fault. That's racist and sexist. And I don't like racism and sexism.

A lot of it is simply the approach used, IMO. It's one thing to say that black people tend to be disadvantaged, and we should do something to help them out. It's quite another to say all black people are oppressed, and it's all white people's fault, so fuck them, and then demand immediate reparations. One approach is constructive. The other is hate speech.

Kerg3927:

Lil devils x:
It is far from impossible to balance out class advantages, and absurd to suggest horrors such as holocaust as ever being an option. Quit being such an extremist.

That's the thing. I don't think I'm being an extremist. I'm looking at history and that's what it tells me.

I see people spouting this grossly oversimplified view of the world in which there are only two kinds of people: 1) evil straight white male oppressors; and 2) good women and minority groups who are oppressed. It's straight up Marxism. The only difference is that instead of bourgeoisie vs. proletariat, it's straight white males vs. everyone else.

IMO, the intent of this oversimplification is to create an enemy that people can point to and use to incite outrage among the populace. In Marxism, the goal was to incite class war, which would lead to a violent overthrow of the government, which then somehow would lead to utopia. But that's not how it turned out, ever. It always led to the opposite of utopia, hell on earth.

This 21st century version of Marxism, I'm not sure what it's end goal is, except to divide and create conflict, if not all out race war. I guess it's also hoping for utopia. But since utopia is impossible, all we're left with is the hate, conflict, and polarization it creates.

Here's the thing. The most important part of what has been said has been encapsulated when you said this

I don't think

If anyone has paid attention to my post lately, it's about perception. How people see things via their bias instead of facts. What you think is separate from what others think, and it's all due to bias.

In such, you go on to state a grossly oversimplified view of a world broken down by evil straight white male oppressors and everyone else. The problem is, I have not seen one person here stating because people are white or straight or male do they become evil. We talk about the Government, and the banks, and the police, and whatnot. And through history, they have been controlled by white men (hell, we don't know how many were even straight). But no one here is making the simplification that because they are white males, all they want to do is evil.

That is a gross oversimplification to the majority of our standpoints. I'm sure you can find news articles and op-eds that strictly say that, that all white men are evil. I know they are out there. Just as I can find the same that blame women for rape and minorities for all the evils in the world.

We have an option here. We can either deal directly with the people in front of us, or we can look and talk past them, focused solely on our perceptions.

Let's put it this way. I'm not sure if you're white or male, but say that you are. And say that you're tired of this perception that because you're white and male and straight that you have to deal with all this hate and new disadvantages heaped upon you at this day and age. That even if there are some white males who are in power who are trying to keep people down to their differences, that's not you and you don't deserve any backlash from it as you didn't sign off on it.

I frankly understand. It's the same feeling that I get that prevents me from wearing what clothes I want, from allowing my emotions out for fear of people seeing me as a big dangerous minority, and that makes me code switch every time I meet someone to make sure that they don't have to fear anything from me. I know there have been people who have my gender and my skin color who fucked up. But I'm still in a culture that thinks it's perfectly acceptable to police me or keep me under surveillance because others have fucked up.

A common excuse for whenever a police officer kills or harms an unarmed black man is how hard the job is and look at Chicago. We're trying to justify a human being's actions sometimes thousands of miles removed from "the dangerous area". We associate all of those people as a monolith, so if there was some trouble somewhere, they are all likely to be just as dangerous. I think that's wrong. Just like I'm sure you think it's wrong that 'evil White straight men' are the boogymen of this current time. Even if we can link a lot of harm done by White straight men, that doesn't mean all White straight men are like that, am I right?

trunkage:
You know, when... well eveywhere got rid of slavery that it cost every citizen more for all items. You know what it didnt do? Cause totalitarianism or any holocaust (well maybe you can count the lynchings). We got rid of class advantage and it didn't hurt the people on top that much. In fact, eventually it made the rich richer. Guess what the slavers were saying before emancipation? 'Oh, it'll destroy society as we know it. How will the economy survive? Don't tread on me.' Etc. Guess what. That didnt happen

That's because they simply converted from a slave system to a wage system, and the larger dynamic didn't change much. Black people gained the basic rights of white laborers, e.g. the company owner couldn't just beat and rape them any time he wanted any more, which was of course a huge improvement. When an employee left work, he could do what he wanted more or less, instead of remaining under the strict supervision of his employer 24/7/365. But otherwise, I don't think things immediately changed much for them. They still worked the fields as before, but received a small wage, and then had to use all of that wage to scrounge for their own food, clothing, and shelter rather than having it provided for them. In some ways things were probably worse. If they got hurt or sick and couldn't work or got laid off, they starved, just like their white laborer counterparts in the North. Whereas slaves were a valuable investment for plantation owners, so they usually didn't just let them starve, like they wouldn't let a horse starve. It wasn't until unions fought for and secured workers rights that things really improved, for all workers.

trunkage:
Also, just becuase you are critical of Capitalism doesn't automatically make you a Communist. That's not how reality works. You can want a change without any totalitarian nonsense

I'm saying that many of the tactics and ideologies currently being used by the far left is just a reskinned form of Marxism. It is similarly based upon hate, and it similarly touts an impossible utopia (equality of outcomes for everyone) as its goal.

trunkage:
Lastly, many people dont have freedom due to physical characteristics right now in Capitalism. And they never will. It's to your own benefit to help them OR they will overthrow your oppression (even if it wasnt intentional). How about you find a way to make freedom happen for everyone instead of yourself. Not for them but as a protection of your own freedom. If you take other people freedom away (eg. Trans rights or same sex marriage etc), they will take your in retaliation. You know, because karma.

I think trans people should have the same rights as everyone else, and I think anyone who opposes same sex marriage is an idiot. As far as freedom, I'm not sure what you mean. We have freedom. Of course, that includes the freedom to starve if one doesn't work, although we do have safety nets in place to help those who can't work, though there is probably room for improvement in that area.

Saelune:
But if you want to play this game, then where is yours? You put it on lildevils, but now I am putting it on you? Where is your empathy for black people? Where is your empathy for muslims? For LGBT people? Where is your empathy for me?

I have empathy for anyone who suffers, and I think we should take steps to lessen the suffering in the world.

What I am against is indiscriminate demonizing of straight white males as a group. I think the main problems many (not all) black people face is due to the environment and culture they are born into. But there is nobody alive who owned slaves. Most of the Jim Crow era people are also dead from old age. We didn't put black people in the situation they are in. If people want to talk about things we can do to help them out, that's great. And I think most white people are for that, as long as you're not pointing a hateful finger at them and demonizing them for the sins of their forefathers. I seriously doubt that you'll find many white people who are happy with the situation in poor black neighborhoods.

ObsidianJones:
If anyone has paid attention to my post lately, it's about perception. How people see things via their bias instead of facts. What you think is separate from what others think, and it's all due to bias.

100% agree. We have some in this thread who think racism is "rampant." And others who think it's relatively rare. And that's a big part of the problem. The former think the latter are downplaying it, and the latter think the former is exaggerating.

ObsidianJones:
In such, you go on to state a grossly oversimplified view of a world broken down by evil straight white male oppressors and everyone else. The problem is, I have not seen one person here stating because people are white or straight or male do they become evil. We talk about the Government, and the banks, and the police, and whatnot. And through history, they have been controlled by white men (hell, we don't know how many were even straight). But no one here is making the simplification that because they are white males, all they want to do is evil.

That is a gross oversimplification to the majority of our standpoints. I'm sure you can find news articles and op-eds that strictly say that, that all white men are evil. I know they are out there. Just as I can find the same that blame women for rape and minorities for all the evils in the world.

This goes back to the perception thing. When someone says it's "rampant," I take that as saying that the majority or most white people are racist. When someone says that many black people are poor and stay poor because of continuing systemic racism, that's pointing a hateful finger at current white people and saying it's all your fault. When someone says that all white people are privileged, again, it is a straight slap in the face to the millions and millions of white people who didn't grow up with many privileges.

ObsidianJones:
We have an option here. We can either deal directly with the people in front of us, or we can look and talk past them, focused solely on our perceptions.

Let's put it this way. I'm not sure if you're white or male, but say that you are. And say that you're tired of this perception that because you're white and male and straight that you have to deal with all this hate and new disadvantages heaped upon you at this day and age. That even if there are some white males who are in power who are trying to keep people down to their differences, that's not you and you don't deserve any backlash from it as you didn't sign off on it.

I frankly understand. It's the same feeling that I get that prevents me from wearing what clothes I want, from allowing my emotions out for fear of people seeing me as a big dangerous minority, and that makes me code switch every time I meet someone to make sure that they don't have to fear anything from me. I know there have been people who have my gender and my skin color who fucked up. But I'm still in a culture that thinks it's perfectly acceptable to police me or keep me under surveillance because others have fucked up.

A common excuse for whenever a police officer kills or harms an unarmed black man is how hard the job is and look at Chicago. We're trying to justify a human being's actions sometimes thousands of miles removed from "the dangerous area". We associate all of those people as a monolith, so if there was some trouble somewhere, they are all likely to be just as dangerous. I think that's wrong. Just like I'm sure you think it's wrong that 'evil White straight men' are the boogymen of this current time. Even if we can link a lot of harm done by White straight men, that doesn't mean all White straight men are like that, am I right?

Right. Indiscriminate racism and hate should not be countered by indiscriminate racism and hate in the other direction. All that does is divide and polarize us, while nothing gets done to actually help the real problems.

Kerg3927:

Saelune:
But if you want to play this game, then where is yours? You put it on lildevils, but now I am putting it on you? Where is your empathy for black people? Where is your empathy for muslims? For LGBT people? Where is your empathy for me?

I have empathy for anyone who suffers, and I think we should take steps to lessen the suffering in the world.

What I am against is indiscriminate demonizing of straight white males as a group. I think the main problems many (not all) black people face is due to the environment and culture they are born into. But there is nobody alive who owned slaves. Most of the Jim Crow era people are also dead from old age. We didn't put black people in the situation they are in. If people want to talk about things we can do to help them out, that's great. And I think most white people are for that, as long as you're not pointing a hateful finger at them and demonizing them for the sins of their forefathers. I seriously doubt that you'll find many white people who are happy with the situation in poor black neighborhoods.

Good thing straight white males as a group are not being demonized. Organizations and groupings of straight white males are, such as a majority of the Republican party, the NRA, MRAs, Neo-nazis, and the KKK.

People still live today who were alive during segregation. And anyone who has pride in the confederate flag has pride in slavery.

Plenty of straight men who are abused cause of the color of their skin. Plenty of white men who are abused because of their sexuality, but they are excluded when straight white men convene for their own pity party against everyone else.

To those with privilege, equality feels like oppression.

Kerg3927:

trunkage:
You know, when... well eveywhere got rid of slavery that it cost every citizen more for all items. You know what it didnt do? Cause totalitarianism or any holocaust (well maybe you can count the lynchings). We got rid of class advantage and it didn't hurt the people on top that much. In fact, eventually it made the rich richer. Guess what the slavers were saying before emancipation? 'Oh, it'll destroy society as we know it. How will the economy survive? Don't tread on me.' Etc. Guess what. That didnt happen

That's because they simply converted from a slave system to a wage system, and the larger dynamic didn't change much. Black people gained the basic rights of white laborers, e.g. the company owner couldn't just beat and rape them any time he wanted any more, which was of course a huge improvement. When an employee left work, he could do what he wanted more or less, instead of remaining under the strict supervision of his employer 24/7/365. But otherwise, I don't think things immediately changed much for them. They still worked the fields as before, but received a small wage, and then had to use all of that wage to scrounge for their own food, clothing, and shelter rather than having it provided for them. In some ways things were probably worse. If they got hurt or sick and couldn't work or got laid off, they starved, just like their white laborer counterparts in the North. Whereas slaves were a valuable investment for plantation owners, so they usually didn't just let them starve, like they wouldn't let a horse starve. It wasn't until unions fought for and secured workers rights that things really improved, for all workers.

trunkage:
Also, just becuase you are critical of Capitalism doesn't automatically make you a Communist. That's not how reality works. You can want a change without any totalitarian nonsense

I'm saying that many of the tactics and ideologies currently being used by the far left is just a reskinned form of Marxism. It is similarly based upon hate, and it similarly touts an impossible utopia (equality of outcomes for everyone) as its goal.

trunkage:
Lastly, many people dont have freedom due to physical characteristics right now in Capitalism. And they never will. It's to your own benefit to help them OR they will overthrow your oppression (even if it wasnt intentional). How about you find a way to make freedom happen for everyone instead of yourself. Not for them but as a protection of your own freedom. If you take other people freedom away (eg. Trans rights or same sex marriage etc), they will take your in retaliation. You know, because karma.

I think trans people should have the same rights as everyone else, and I think anyone who opposes same sex marriage is an idiot. As far as freedom, I'm not sure what you mean. We have freedom. Of course, that includes the freedom to starve if one doesn't work, although we do have safety nets in place to help those who can't work, though there is probably room for improvement in that area.

Sorry, can't break this up. My computer kicked it and am trying to do this on a phone. So your first paragraph talks about how you replaced one system with another. I'd agree, but probably point out that this is far bigger shift than you believe. They were now human and they weren't before. They were also able to own things and they had Rights. But your problem arises from the fact that Marx proposed a system that could take over from Capitalism just like wages system took over from slacery. Now, if you going to suggest that changing Capitlaism piece meal is a way better way to do it rather than the whole system at one time, I would agree. Capitlaism is far more complex than Marx saw it, and trying to change the whole system at once lead to a whole heap of bugs cropping up at the same time. In Capitlaism, it's done one at a time, which is much more sensible. Unfortunately, Capitlism is far too Utopian too, and has too many injustices but a whole reboot will just make different injustices pop up.

As to Far-Left people, I think a lot of them are called Marxists. I don't think a lot of them actually are Marxists. It seems any criticism of Capiltism or suggesting you shouldn't bully makes you a Marxists. I have been infestigating Zizek, who is a prominent (and actual) Maxists. Zizek points out that one of Marxists treatise was apparently about Communionism being all about Free Speech. Clearly that didn't show up in Soveit style states, but then if you know anything about Lenin, I'm not suprised. He bombed Menshiveks and Tsarists alike, along with Bolshevik allies who didn't agree with him. I haven't read this treatise yet (I'm still on Theory of Moral Sentiment by Adam Smith and it's a bit of a slog) so I can't confirm. But Zizek does completely condem any violent enforcement of Marxism, which I'd gather is an evolution from Marxism, as Marx wanted to reeducate and then thought enforcement wouldn't be necessary. I don't know how Zizek would make a state without ANY physical violence (not even police) but perhaps the point is that there wouldn't be a state. We could could live freely without government influence becuase there is no government.

Also, Marxism was about treating people equally. Leninism and Trotskyism was about destroying people who disagreed with them (even before they took power, and Trotsky was way more violent than Lenin). Marxism wanted re-eduction which sounds as creepy as what China is doing to their Muslim population at the moment. But then I've been indoctrinated by my society and its Capitalist. So... Yeah, thinking about how my thoughts have been manipulated since childhood is pretty creepy too...

Saelune:
Good thing straight white males as a group are not being demonized. Organizations and groupings of straight white males are, such as a majority of the Republican party, the NRA, MRAs, Neo-nazis, and the KKK.

People still live today who were alive during segregation. And anyone who has pride in the confederate flag has pride in slavery.

Plenty of straight men who are abused cause of the color of their skin. Plenty of white men who are abused because of their sexuality, but they are excluded when straight white men convene for their own pity party against everyone else.

To those with privilege, equality feels like oppression.

Yeah, and this post is a prime example of the main point I was trying to make in this thread. You do a disservice to your cause. You are actively sabotaging it and moving things in a backwards direction, because when you exaggerate and attack those you deem "privileged," you immediately lose all credibility and piss off those who don't think they are personally doing anything wrong. If the left ever wants to make progress, they need to denounce hateful attitudes like this and sit down and talk about solutions to these problems in practical terms.

I'm not some right-winger on here butting heads with the left. I am a moderate leftist giving my opinion to the far left about how they are going about things entirely wrong, to the detriment of what they claim to be fighting for.

trunkage:
Sorry, can't break this up. My computer kicked it and am trying to do this on a phone. So your first paragraph talks about how you replaced one system with another. I'd agree, but probably point out that this is far bigger shift than you believe. They were now human and they weren't before. They were also able to own things and they had Rights. But your problem arises from the fact that Marx proposed a system that could take over from Capitalism just like wages system took over from slacery. Now, if you going to suggest that changing Capitlaism piece meal is a way better way to do it rather than the whole system at one time, I would agree. Capitlaism is far more complex than Marx saw it, and trying to change the whole system at once lead to a whole heap of bugs cropping up at the same time. In Capitlaism, it's done one at a time, which is much more sensible. Unfortunately, Capitlism is far too Utopian too, and has too many injustices but a whole reboot will just make different injustices pop up.

As to Far-Left people, I think a lot of them are called Marxists. I don't think a lot of them actually are Marxists. It seems any criticism of Capiltism or suggesting you shouldn't bully makes you a Marxists. I have been infestigating Zizek, who is a prominent (and actual) Maxists. Zizek points out that one of Marxists treatise was apparently about Communionism being all about Free Speech. Clearly that didn't show up in Soveit style states, but then if you know anything about Lenin, I'm not suprised. He bombed Menshiveks and Tsarists alike, along with Bolshevik allies who didn't agree with him. I haven't read this treatise yet (I'm still on Theory of Moral Sentiment by Adam Smith and it's a bit of a slog) so I can't confirm. But Zizek does completely condem any violent enforcement of Marxism, which I'd gather is an evolution from Marxism, as Marx wanted to reeducate and then thought enforcement wouldn't be necessary. I don't know how Zizek would make a state without ANY physical violence (not even police) but perhaps the point is that there wouldn't be a state. We could could live freely without government influence becuase there is no government.

Also, Marxism was about treating people equally. Leninism and Trotskyism was about destroying people who disagreed with them (even before they took power, and Trotsky was way more violent than Lenin). Marxism wanted re-eduction which sounds as creepy as what China is doing to their Muslim population at the moment. But then I've been indoctrinated by my society and its Capitalist. So... Yeah, thinking about how my thoughts have been manipulated since childhood is pretty creepy too...

I was once fascinated by Marx in college, when I was younger and more naive (I'm 44). I've read Das Kapital, and took an upper division economics course where we studied it. There was a time when I was ready to pick up a rifle and join the revolution if it ever kicked off. I've also studied Russian and Chinese history. I have a history degree.

I believe Karl Marx was a good man. A brilliant man. He described capitalism with all its flaws pretty accurately for the time. He saw extreme injustice and suffering in the capitalist factories of Europe and wanted to help those people. But his solution just didn't work, and it led to the torture, murder, and starvation of 100 million people. I think if Marx were alive today, he would be appalled and mortified at the suffering and death that his writings caused.

The whole problem with Marxism is human nature, which is to be selfish to one's own interests and to one's family and friends' first. As a tribal and social species, we do have other communal tendencies, but self, friends, and family almost always come first. For communism to work, this part of our nature would have to be removed, through behavioral programming or something similar (see Walden Two, by B.F. Skinner). But I'm not sure that's possible on a national scale, and some would say not even desirable. I think our self-interest is too ingrained on an evolutionary level. And how many people would volunteer to be behaviorally programmed. Anybody? Which means it would have to be done by force.

Marx also failed to see the power of unions. Yes, the workers organized, but not to overthrow the government, but to instead secure better conditions for themselves. Compromise killed Marx's predictions in the West, and luckily so, because we've fared far better than those who actually went through with a Marxist revolution.

I also believe Lenin and Trotsky probably had good intentions. They believed they were fighting for a better world. But I think they were also imbued with hate, for the "bourgeoisie" who were exploiting the working class, which was soon expanded to anyone who opposed them, as you pointed out. And that hate led to them to using any means necessary, including the murder of millions, to achieve their utopian goals. Yes, Stalin was recent history's greatest monster, but there were millions of innocents butchered in the Russian Civil War before Stalin ever took power. I see that same hate in many of the "SJW's" who inhabit the internet today, and it is not a good thing. The far left likes to decry the hate groups on the far right, but what about the hate on the far left? Just as dangerous, IMO.

Kerg3927:

Saelune:
But if you want to play this game, then where is yours? You put it on lildevils, but now I am putting it on you? Where is your empathy for black people? Where is your empathy for muslims? For LGBT people? Where is your empathy for me?

I have empathy for anyone who suffers, and I think we should take steps to lessen the suffering in the world.

What I am against is indiscriminate demonizing of straight white males as a group. I think the main problems many (not all) black people face is due to the environment and culture they are born into. But there is nobody alive who owned slaves. Most of the Jim Crow era people are also dead from old age. We didn't put black people in the situation they are in. If people want to talk about things we can do to help them out, that's great. And I think most white people are for that, as long as you're not pointing a hateful finger at them and demonizing them for the sins of their forefathers. I seriously doubt that you'll find many white people who are happy with the situation in poor black neighborhoods.

This is not actually true. Yes, there are still people alive who have owned slaves. Yes there are still people alive who participate in illegal slavery in the US. Yes there are still people alive who were prevented from attending school as children due to racial violence. Yes there are still people today that were affected by these things being carried out against their families.

Sadly, in the US, Not everywhere progressed as other areas. When slaves were freed, they were left with nothing, not even the family structure to rebuild their families and many of their families still are suffering in poverty even now due to this. Some areas took a very long time and have still never recovered. I do not think you understand the full scope of this. I don't think many understand until they see things for themselves first hand. When I bartended in college, the Beach Club I worked at used to be a plantation. Not too far from that plantation still exists run down "shanty town" where a large portion of the areas black population STILL reside. This is very common in the south. Who exactly actually showed up to help them rebuild their families?

Who exactly here has demonized anyone btw?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H8d7IMkRFs
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/fort-worth/article218681600.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/10/17/this-map-shows-where-the-worlds-30-million-slaves-live-there-are-60000-in-the-u-s/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bda92e9af5ec
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_contemporary_Africa
http://blackyouthproject.com/black-people-held-slavery-deep-south-late-1960s/
https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/02/mississippi-officially-abolishes-slavery-ratifies-13th-amendment/
https://www.newsweek.com/2018/03/30/school-segregation-america-today-bad-1960-855256.html
https://www.vox.com/2018/3/5/17080218/school-segregation-getting-worse-data

You treat this like it is some distant memory. That is not the case.

Kerg3927:
100% agree. We have some in this thread who think racism is "rampant." And others who think it's relatively rare. And that's a big part of the problem. The former think the latter are downplaying it, and the latter think the former is exaggerating.

So, at times like these, we should rely on impartial third parties. Such as the FBI, who say for the third consecutive year, Hate Crimes are on the rise.

The FBI gets nothing out of reporting these things. Especially with a Government that cut funding towards fighting groups like the KKK and enforcing Civil Rights. So if they notice an uptick, I'm going to say it's more than just simply conjecture.

This goes back to the perception thing. When someone says it's "rampant," I take that as saying that the majority or most white people are racist. When someone says that many black people are poor and stay poor because of continuing systemic racism, that's pointing a hateful finger at current white people and saying it's all your fault. When someone says that all white people are privileged, again, it is a straight slap in the face to the millions and millions of white people who didn't grow up with many privileges.

To the black people are poor and saty poor because of continuing systemic racism, that's true. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights published their findings that education where minorities are present are still underfunded. Hell, the often-quoted den of evil and villiany Chicago sued the state because of underfunding minority education. A Judge tossed the lawsuit, not because he found it wrong, but in his own words:

"The Court is not oblivious to the fiscal challenges confronting CPS," Valderrama wrote in his opinion. "To say that the State's current scheme of funding public education is broken is to state the obvious. Plaintiffs' Complaint, however, as constituted is not the vehicle to redress this inequity"

Simply put, The judge knows that they are right, but the problem outreaches the courts' ability to do anything about it.

Multiple studies show that if you have an ethnic name, you probably won't get a job. For a good deal of minorities, they are damned. From education to just finding a job, they are stuck. And it is due in no small part to racist or prejudiced ideas. It's sad that white people feel guilty about that, but it's even sadder that not only can minorities barely get out of the situation, but will be considered an evil and/or violent race if they need to do criminal stuff to survive.

And to the privilege issue? That's a definition problem, not perception.

Take a case of a man getting shot but having the bullet miss all the internal organs. Full recovery. No issues. That man is lucky.

Take the same case, but the bullet misses him. The man is still lucky.

You take privilege to mean one thing. And if it doesn't meet your criteria, everyone is wrong. That is not reality. Privilege doesn't mean you all have mansions. It means white people have infinitely more chances than minorities. Privilege means that no matter how many white people crash the economy, vote against the environment, become active shooters, or what have you... there is no monolith.

No one will fear a white person walking into the restaurant, pulling their children down for fear of that gun coming out and shooting up the place. Even though statistically, if it were to happen it would be a white man walking in. But a white male doesn't have that pinned on their chest. A black man, however, has to carry every news story, every wife's tale, and all of media around them like an anchor around their neck. Minorities do not have the same privilege of being an individual like a white person has.

Also, White people have the privilege to ignore. It's not happening to them, so it's not a problem. As long as the education is fine for their children, education is fine for every child. As long as the police treat them correctly, the police are an innocent and upstanding organization. As long as there aren't groups gunning for them, there are no problems.

I can't ignore if someone wants to call the cops on me because I'm a scary minority. Lil Devils X can't ignore if a guy decides he doesn't have to respect her as a woman. All of my transgendered, gay, and queer people in this forum can't just ignore if groups of people band together to strip them of their rights and even worse. We don't have that privilege.

Probably most importantly, White people have the privilege of power. If all of white people voted a single way, that gets done. No minority can say the same. That is a privilege that it's a slap in the face to pretend that isn't game changing in all levels. Whites only have that. That's more important than millions of dollars, because if you get enough of the same voices together, you control what happens to Millions of dollars .

Lastly, a white person has the luxury of defining situations and having it stick. Many people have said what I said. Not that it's about being rich and well off, but not having to deal with what minorities have to deal with all the time. White people for the most part have the privilege of definition. BLM started with one simple goal: Arrest blacks if you have to, but don't instantly 'solve' the situation with a trigger pull.

Or, as they say.

We are working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise.

We affirm our humanity, our contributions to this society, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.

The call for Black lives to matter is a rallying cry for ALL Black lives striving for liberation.

Then white people got together and said "...Nah, they don't mean that. They want to overthrow the police." Minorities can't even have their beliefs be defined by themselves. They have to have white people accept it. And if white people don't, they get another definition put to them.

That's how Black Lives Matter went from a voice trying to fight that we're not killed within two seconds of police rolling up on the scene to Extremist Group.

And really, is such a thing extreme? Or is it sad that in this day and age, we need a group fighting for such a basic right?

Right. Indiscriminate racism and hate should not be countered by indiscriminate racism and hate in the other direction. All that does is divide and polarize us, while nothing gets done to actually help the real problems.

And you're right. But pointing things out isn't indiscriminate racism or hate. That's like if a Arsonist gets caught, brought to jail, and his defense isn't that he didn't do it, but it's because he's fat that he's being discriminated against.

There's racism. Our own government reports on it. Turning a blind eye to it because one doesn't want to see it doesn't make it better. In fact, it makes it worse. It gives people carte blanche to continue with what they are doing, because no one is speaking out about it. If you don't see it, again, I can't convince you to change your perception.

But likewise, given that a vast majority of people here not only see it, but feel it in our daily lives... It's quite unfair for you to ask us to change our perception to yours while still suffering the affects, no?

Kerg3927:

trunkage:
Sorry, can't break this up. My computer kicked it and am trying to do this on a phone. So your first paragraph talks about how you replaced one system with another. I'd agree, but probably point out that this is far bigger shift than you believe. They were now human and they weren't before. They were also able to own things and they had Rights. But your problem arises from the fact that Marx proposed a system that could take over from Capitalism just like wages system took over from slacery. Now, if you going to suggest that changing Capitlaism piece meal is a way better way to do it rather than the whole system at one time, I would agree. Capitlaism is far more complex than Marx saw it, and trying to change the whole system at once lead to a whole heap of bugs cropping up at the same time. In Capitlaism, it's done one at a time, which is much more sensible. Unfortunately, Capitlism is far too Utopian too, and has too many injustices but a whole reboot will just make different injustices pop up.

As to Far-Left people, I think a lot of them are called Marxists. I don't think a lot of them actually are Marxists. It seems any criticism of Capiltism or suggesting you shouldn't bully makes you a Marxists. I have been infestigating Zizek, who is a prominent (and actual) Maxists. Zizek points out that one of Marxists treatise was apparently about Communionism being all about Free Speech. Clearly that didn't show up in Soveit style states, but then if you know anything about Lenin, I'm not suprised. He bombed Menshiveks and Tsarists alike, along with Bolshevik allies who didn't agree with him. I haven't read this treatise yet (I'm still on Theory of Moral Sentiment by Adam Smith and it's a bit of a slog) so I can't confirm. But Zizek does completely condem any violent enforcement of Marxism, which I'd gather is an evolution from Marxism, as Marx wanted to reeducate and then thought enforcement wouldn't be necessary. I don't know how Zizek would make a state without ANY physical violence (not even police) but perhaps the point is that there wouldn't be a state. We could could live freely without government influence becuase there is no government.

Also, Marxism was about treating people equally. Leninism and Trotskyism was about destroying people who disagreed with them (even before they took power, and Trotsky was way more violent than Lenin). Marxism wanted re-eduction which sounds as creepy as what China is doing to their Muslim population at the moment. But then I've been indoctrinated by my society and its Capitalist. So... Yeah, thinking about how my thoughts have been manipulated since childhood is pretty creepy too...

I was once fascinated by Marx in college, when I was younger and more naive (I'm 44). I've read Das Kapital, and took an upper division economics course where we studied it. There was a time when I was ready to pick up a rifle and join the revolution if it ever kicked off. I've also studied Russian and Chinese history. I have a history degree.

I believe Karl Marx was a good man. A brilliant man. He described capitalism with all its flaws pretty accurately for the time. He saw extreme injustice and suffering in the capitalist factories of Europe and wanted to help those people. But his solution just didn't work, and it led to the torture, murder, and starvation of 100 million people. I think if Marx were alive today, he would be appalled and mortified at the suffering and death that his writings caused.

The whole problem with Marxism is human nature, which is to be selfish to one's own interests and to one's family and friends' first. As a tribal and social species, we do have other communal tendencies, but self, friends, and family almost always come first. For communism to work, this part of our nature would have to be removed, through behavioral programming or something similar (see Walden Two, by B.F. Skinner). But I'm not sure that's possible on a national scale, and some would say not even desirable. I think our self-interest is too ingrained on an evolutionary level. And how many people would volunteer to be behaviorally programmed. Anybody? Which means it would have to be done by force.

Marx also failed to see the power of unions. Yes, the workers organized, but not to overthrow the government, but to instead secure better conditions for themselves. Compromise killed Marx's predictions in the West, and luckily so, because we've fared far better than those who actually went through with a Marxist revolution.

I also believe Lenin and Trotsky probably had good intentions. They believed they were fighting for a better world. But I think they were also imbued with hate, for the "bourgeoisie" who were exploiting the working class, which was soon expanded to anyone who opposed them, as you pointed out. And that hate led to them to using any means necessary, including the murder of millions, to achieve their utopian goals. Yes, Stalin was recent history's greatest monster, but there were millions of innocents butchered in the Russian Civil War before Stalin ever took power. I see that same hate in many of the "SJW's" who inhabit the internet today, and it is not a good thing. The far left likes to decry the hate groups on the far right, but what about the hate on the far left? Just as dangerous, IMO.

Here's some food for thought. Tsar Nicholas II executed over a million people in the decade leading to the first Revolution. The Gulags were just as bad as after the Revolution but I have no nunbers on actual deaths. Similarly he cared not one whit about his people and they starved. But the Revolution covered his tracks. He carelessly wasted his people during WW1 and if not for either Revolution, he might have been worse than Stalin.

Marx was always worried about Communism in Russia, thinking that should be the last place it should sprout. And this is not to justify Stalin or any mass murderer. Leopold is just as bad as Victoria who is just as bad as Nixon. Once you're responsible for millions of death, it doesnt matter what your crappy politics is. You've taken it further than any reasonable person could.

Edit: I'm currently more worried about fascist wearing swastikas. Becuase I dont see to many people waving a hammer and sickle. Most Lefties realise the Soviet system was bad. Far too many on Right haven't learnt that Nazis are bad. When the hammer and sickle comes out, I'll back you. Until then, I'll focus on literal Nazis

trunkage:

Kerg3927:

trunkage:
Sorry, can't break this up. My computer kicked it and am trying to do this on a phone. So your first paragraph talks about how you replaced one system with another. I'd agree, but probably point out that this is far bigger shift than you believe. They were now human and they weren't before. They were also able to own things and they had Rights. But your problem arises from the fact that Marx proposed a system that could take over from Capitalism just like wages system took over from slacery. Now, if you going to suggest that changing Capitlaism piece meal is a way better way to do it rather than the whole system at one time, I would agree. Capitlaism is far more complex than Marx saw it, and trying to change the whole system at once lead to a whole heap of bugs cropping up at the same time. In Capitlaism, it's done one at a time, which is much more sensible. Unfortunately, Capitlism is far too Utopian too, and has too many injustices but a whole reboot will just make different injustices pop up.

As to Far-Left people, I think a lot of them are called Marxists. I don't think a lot of them actually are Marxists. It seems any criticism of Capiltism or suggesting you shouldn't bully makes you a Marxists. I have been infestigating Zizek, who is a prominent (and actual) Maxists. Zizek points out that one of Marxists treatise was apparently about Communionism being all about Free Speech. Clearly that didn't show up in Soveit style states, but then if you know anything about Lenin, I'm not suprised. He bombed Menshiveks and Tsarists alike, along with Bolshevik allies who didn't agree with him. I haven't read this treatise yet (I'm still on Theory of Moral Sentiment by Adam Smith and it's a bit of a slog) so I can't confirm. But Zizek does completely condem any violent enforcement of Marxism, which I'd gather is an evolution from Marxism, as Marx wanted to reeducate and then thought enforcement wouldn't be necessary. I don't know how Zizek would make a state without ANY physical violence (not even police) but perhaps the point is that there wouldn't be a state. We could could live freely without government influence becuase there is no government.

Also, Marxism was about treating people equally. Leninism and Trotskyism was about destroying people who disagreed with them (even before they took power, and Trotsky was way more violent than Lenin). Marxism wanted re-eduction which sounds as creepy as what China is doing to their Muslim population at the moment. But then I've been indoctrinated by my society and its Capitalist. So... Yeah, thinking about how my thoughts have been manipulated since childhood is pretty creepy too...

I was once fascinated by Marx in college, when I was younger and more naive (I'm 44). I've read Das Kapital, and took an upper division economics course where we studied it. There was a time when I was ready to pick up a rifle and join the revolution if it ever kicked off. I've also studied Russian and Chinese history. I have a history degree.

I believe Karl Marx was a good man. A brilliant man. He described capitalism with all its flaws pretty accurately for the time. He saw extreme injustice and suffering in the capitalist factories of Europe and wanted to help those people. But his solution just didn't work, and it led to the torture, murder, and starvation of 100 million people. I think if Marx were alive today, he would be appalled and mortified at the suffering and death that his writings caused.

The whole problem with Marxism is human nature, which is to be selfish to one's own interests and to one's family and friends' first. As a tribal and social species, we do have other communal tendencies, but self, friends, and family almost always come first. For communism to work, this part of our nature would have to be removed, through behavioral programming or something similar (see Walden Two, by B.F. Skinner). But I'm not sure that's possible on a national scale, and some would say not even desirable. I think our self-interest is too ingrained on an evolutionary level. And how many people would volunteer to be behaviorally programmed. Anybody? Which means it would have to be done by force.

Marx also failed to see the power of unions. Yes, the workers organized, but not to overthrow the government, but to instead secure better conditions for themselves. Compromise killed Marx's predictions in the West, and luckily so, because we've fared far better than those who actually went through with a Marxist revolution.

I also believe Lenin and Trotsky probably had good intentions. They believed they were fighting for a better world. But I think they were also imbued with hate, for the "bourgeoisie" who were exploiting the working class, which was soon expanded to anyone who opposed them, as you pointed out. And that hate led to them to using any means necessary, including the murder of millions, to achieve their utopian goals. Yes, Stalin was recent history's greatest monster, but there were millions of innocents butchered in the Russian Civil War before Stalin ever took power. I see that same hate in many of the "SJW's" who inhabit the internet today, and it is not a good thing. The far left likes to decry the hate groups on the far right, but what about the hate on the far left? Just as dangerous, IMO.

Here's some food for thought. Tsar Nicholas II executed over a million people in the decade leading to the first Revolution. The Gulags were just as bad as after the Revolution but I have no nunbers on actual deaths. Similarly he cared not one whit about his people and they starved. But the Revolution covered his tracks. He carelessly wasted his people during WW1 and if not for either Revolution, he might have been worse than Stalin.

Marx was always worried about Communism in Russia, thinking that should be the last place it should sprout. And this is not to justify Stalin or any mass murderer. Leopold is just as bad as Victoria who is just as bad as Nixon. Once you're responsible for millions of death, it doesnt matter what your crappy politics is. You've taken it further than any reasonable person could.

Edit: I'm currently more worried about fascist wearing swastikas. Because I dont see to many people waving a hammer and sickle. Most Lefties realize the Soviet system was bad. Far too many on Right haven't learnt that Nazis are bad. When the hammer and sickle comes out, I'll back you. Until then, I'll focus on literal Nazis

No kidding.. It isn't like The Soviets were even using actual communism anyhow as they still hoarded the wealth at the top and let the people starve. That is by no means " divided equally or by need" and in no way was for the benefit of the people and their future. The only actual communist systems I am aware of are tribal systems, and yea they have actually worked well, even the leaders had the same share as everyone else rather than take more for themselves. The whole idea of hoarding shat and killing off the people has nothing to do with communism, it is corruption, which is happening rampantly in capitalist societies as well. more have been killed by capitalism than by any other means. Invading, slaughtering, pillaging and enslaving Africa, Australia, and the Americas was all a capitalist venture. The ranch wars in the US, range wars, railroad wars, Mob boss gangster blood baths.. The US has a long trail of blood in the name of capitalism. There has never been free market capitalism, it is a lie. The government has always been controlled by one side or the other and determines the winners and losers. They killed people took their lands if they did not agree to move off them or give them to them. Sadly, this really never fully ended either, we had a corrupt DA here who was jailing people to take their land as well here got a slap on the wrist for a lesser offense and was out of jail in no time no that long ago. When you let capitalists run the country, they wield it as a weapon the same as any other corrupt government does to fatten their own pockets.

When 2/3rds of terrorism in the US is by right wing extremists, it is a bit asinine to be worried about the left trying to give everyone healthcare and feed and house the poor getting "out of hand".

Lil devils x:

trunkage:

Kerg3927:

I was once fascinated by Marx in college, when I was younger and more naive (I'm 44). I've read Das Kapital, and took an upper division economics course where we studied it. There was a time when I was ready to pick up a rifle and join the revolution if it ever kicked off. I've also studied Russian and Chinese history. I have a history degree.

I believe Karl Marx was a good man. A brilliant man. He described capitalism with all its flaws pretty accurately for the time. He saw extreme injustice and suffering in the capitalist factories of Europe and wanted to help those people. But his solution just didn't work, and it led to the torture, murder, and starvation of 100 million people. I think if Marx were alive today, he would be appalled and mortified at the suffering and death that his writings caused.

The whole problem with Marxism is human nature, which is to be selfish to one's own interests and to one's family and friends' first. As a tribal and social species, we do have other communal tendencies, but self, friends, and family almost always come first. For communism to work, this part of our nature would have to be removed, through behavioral programming or something similar (see Walden Two, by B.F. Skinner). But I'm not sure that's possible on a national scale, and some would say not even desirable. I think our self-interest is too ingrained on an evolutionary level. And how many people would volunteer to be behaviorally programmed. Anybody? Which means it would have to be done by force.

Marx also failed to see the power of unions. Yes, the workers organized, but not to overthrow the government, but to instead secure better conditions for themselves. Compromise killed Marx's predictions in the West, and luckily so, because we've fared far better than those who actually went through with a Marxist revolution.

I also believe Lenin and Trotsky probably had good intentions. They believed they were fighting for a better world. But I think they were also imbued with hate, for the "bourgeoisie" who were exploiting the working class, which was soon expanded to anyone who opposed them, as you pointed out. And that hate led to them to using any means necessary, including the murder of millions, to achieve their utopian goals. Yes, Stalin was recent history's greatest monster, but there were millions of innocents butchered in the Russian Civil War before Stalin ever took power. I see that same hate in many of the "SJW's" who inhabit the internet today, and it is not a good thing. The far left likes to decry the hate groups on the far right, but what about the hate on the far left? Just as dangerous, IMO.

Here's some food for thought. Tsar Nicholas II executed over a million people in the decade leading to the first Revolution. The Gulags were just as bad as after the Revolution but I have no nunbers on actual deaths. Similarly he cared not one whit about his people and they starved. But the Revolution covered his tracks. He carelessly wasted his people during WW1 and if not for either Revolution, he might have been worse than Stalin.

Marx was always worried about Communism in Russia, thinking that should be the last place it should sprout. And this is not to justify Stalin or any mass murderer. Leopold is just as bad as Victoria who is just as bad as Nixon. Once you're responsible for millions of death, it doesnt matter what your crappy politics is. You've taken it further than any reasonable person could.

Edit: I'm currently more worried about fascist wearing swastikas. Because I dont see to many people waving a hammer and sickle. Most Lefties realize the Soviet system was bad. Far too many on Right haven't learnt that Nazis are bad. When the hammer and sickle comes out, I'll back you. Until then, I'll focus on literal Nazis

No kidding.. It isn't like The Soviets were even using actual communism anyhow as they still hoarded the wealth at the top and let the people starve. That is by no means " divided equally or by need" and in no way was for the benefit of the people and their future. The only actual communist systems I am aware of are tribal systems, and yea they have actually worked well, even the leaders had the same share as everyone else rather than take more for themselves. The whole idea of hoarding shat and killing off the people has nothing to do with communism, it is corruption, which is happening rampantly in capitalist societies as well. more have been killed by capitalism than by any other means. Invading, slaughtering, pillaging and enslaving Africa, Australia, and the Americas was all a capitalist venture. The ranch wars in the US, range wars, railroad wars, Mob boss gangster blood baths.. The US has a long trail of blood in the name of capitalism. There has never been free market capitalism, it is a lie. The government has always been controlled by one side or the other and determines the winners and losers. They killed people took their lands if they did not agree to move off them or give them to them. Sadly, this really never fully ended either, we had a corrupt DA here who was jailing people to take their land as well here got a slap on the wrist for a lesser offense and was out of jail in no time no that long ago. When you let capitalists run the country, they wield it as a weapon the same as any other corrupt government does to fatten their own pockets.

When 2/3rds of terrorism in the US is by right wing extremists, it is a bit asinine to be worried about the left trying to give everyone healthcare and feed and house the poor getting "out of hand".

Capitalism has two advantage. It tends to spread out the killings so no one person can get blame for it, like we can blame Hitler or Mao AND have they have an institution (corporations and its structure) where if a company kills thousands of people, no one at the company gets jailed. I mean, Thalidomide killed 5000 kids and NO ONE WENT TO JAIL. Sure, the company had to pay compensation, but a lot of those compensation lead to not guilty verdict. And I can bet that those compensations didn't come out of any senior executives pockets. Capitalism: putting prices on babies so your free to kill them.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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