Jump to content

Johann

Member
  • Content Count

    2420
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Johann

  1. If you don't wanna deal with arguments, then don't bother talking. You're kinda showing your ass a bit with this. That there are other groups with similar power structures is obvious and doesn't need to be said. That a member of these groups can disagree with the consensus of that group is also obvious but misses the point that by still being a part of that group, they are enabling or supporting the group's ideas by virtue of providing the group itself with more power. For instance, it doesn't mean shit if a person disagrees with what Donald Trump does or says while still votes for him, as they are still an essential part of how Trump is granted power. How trite. I'll say it again: You don't get to be your own judge. What, do you mean like turn down a job offer or something? That wouldn't accomplish anything since you don't know who else is up for the job, let alone their race. If you have privilege, you use it to do all those things I listed with greater efficacy than those who do not. They ultimately didn't want to do it and the excuse you cited confirms that. You don't need to defend it. We're done talking about this. By all means, keep telling yourself you're making a positive change in the world when you're doing nothing.
  2. I hope you read the rest of what I wrote there, was hoping more for a direct response to that. Republicans and the police are not demographics (as black people, women, etc, are), but organized groups that require a consensus on their thinking and methods to exist at all. A person can't be a member of those organized groups without at least endorsing the prevailing ideology of that group in some way. No, not at all, and I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. Let me explain it again: People have subconscious biases that they might not be aware of. Saying "I don't see race" is to assume that you don't have any prejudices whatsoever, and ignore criticism if someone points out that you do. Failing to address any prejudices you may have perpetuates those prejudices and whatever impacts that may come about as a result of that. With that in mind, if you're not prejudiced, you don't have to announce it to the world, because it'll be clear if yo are to the people who are observing your actions. You don't get to be your own judge. I'm not sure if you're intending it to sound this way, but your question reads as "what are white people supposed to do, throw away their advantages? Lower themselves to the setbacks of black people?" The real aim is equity-- bringing the underprivileged up to the level of the privileged, not the other way around. People can vote, protest, support groups/movements that work against racist systems, educate themselves, pressure politicians and companies to understand and address these things, it's a long list. Basically everything about the the civil rights and BLM movements. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue for here. "Historical accuracy" in video games is just a dogwhistle. There's little expectation for realism in video games, and the capacity for them to be informative is nothing compared to what you could get from other mediums, like books. The argument that it takes up too much effort falls flat when they could've had half of the existing characters be women, rather than design M/F options for every single character. You really don't need to make weak excuses for their decisions, dude. Everything is inherently political. Posting in this section of the forums, especially this thread, is motivated by politics in some way. If you didn't care at all, you wouldn't be posting here. With a defeatist attitude like that, you have no hope of changing anything. No change was ever brought about by simply being nice. Disrupting is necessary and people, even the "nice" ones, are going to push back either because they don't understand or they're benefiting from the problem. Woof, you're really not the philosopher you think you are.
  3. I'm taking this to mean that you're reluctant to apply descriptions to any group on the basis that there may be outliers/exceptions, yes? While in most respects I agree with that, the key distinction for police and Republican politicians is that both groups are intrinsically defined by making a career (which they chose and can quit at any time) out of exerting power and authority in some form, defined by a set of ideas. As such, the power structures that they exist and operate in are intrinsically defined by the majority actions/opinions of those groups. An individual cop or Republican who speaks or acts contrary to the rest of their group has no meaningful sway and is either ignored, silenced, or removed from the group. A political party is more fluid since they, by necessity, change in reaction to the political landscape, but nevertheless the Republican party has an unparalleled ability to get their members to kowtow (the 2016 election has plenty of examples of this). Any meaningful dissent by a member within either of those groups is almost certainly going to require renouncing the group. Ah, you might be misunderstanding. Trying to ignore superficial qualities is good, but it only addresses your own prejudices. It can help to distinguish the terms: Prejudice can be defined as a personal bias towards a group (eg: "I don't like ____ people"). Anyone can be prejudiced, and it's easy to notice this behavior in ourselves or others. It's comparatively easy to fix and usually the point of fiction where people learn to respect people from other groups (eg: Path of Radiance racial tension between Jill and Lethe). Racism can be defined as something that causes a negative impact towards a group, such as through actions by individuals, or ongoing systemic oppression. Arguably, not every group can be racist towards certain other groups. By this definition, a black man not trusting white people is prejudiced, but if his actions have no meaningful impact on white people, then you could argue that it's not racism, but prejudice. It's helpful to not look at "racist" being a hard label for anyone other than those who embrace it (like KKK members) or constantly and consistently perform racist actions (like some politicians), and rather look at individual performing instances of racism (sometimes unintentionally). What separates personal prejudices from racism as a whole is that you might be doing something with absolutely sincere intentions, but causing negative impacts based on race. Technically, that's racism, but it doesn't make you a racist. The other part of it is that white people by default benefit from system racism, regardless of their opinions or awareness. A key thing to understand is that when you say "I'm not racist", you're really saying "I'm not prejudiced". You probably are doing your best to be mindful of your behavior. But it doesn't mean you're not susceptible to making mistakes or benefiting from racist systems. People who try to say they aren't racist when called out on something they did are really just trying to exempt themselves from criticism. In that sense, by claiming "I'm not racist", a person is saying they're above reproach. For what it's worth, history is often whitewashed or sugarcoated, so I think it's worth keeping a critical eye on something that uses accuracy as a defense. This might be getting a bit off-topic, so I don't know if we should keep discussing it here, but the bottom line is always that it's a conscious decision to add, cut, or ignore any design choices. Video game leads are overwhelmingly white (or coded white) male characters and it's both creatively stagnant and rather exclusionary towards audiences if they make little to no effort for diversity. Ah, don't be so sure, if you're participating in this thread, then you do care about politics, ultimately. I don't blame anyone for being burnt out by how shit the world can be and not wanting to get super involved all the time. Yet, there are still ways you can help improve other people's lives without dedicating much if you can, and at the very least, staying informed is invaluable. You're more than welcome to share those thoughts. ------------------------------- I guess I missed a super troll. It's too bad, cuz trolls give mad experience points. Thanks to all of you who had my back.
  4. Terms only oversimplify matters when people have simplified understanding of those terms. White privilege is easy to sum up, but there's a lot to unpack because of how far reaching the effects of racism are. Some of the issues present reach back decades or centuries, and resolving them requires, at the very least, identifying how those issues play out. This isn't as strong a point as you seem to think it is. People don't choose to be black, or female, or gay, etc, and among those groups there's a tremendous degree of diversity. But people do choose to be republicans or police. While their ideologies and intentions aren't uniform between members of either group, they are both, at their core, groups designed to wield power over others. That these two groups also are overwhelmingly controlled by people using that power violently and cruelly means that anyone else in that group is, to at least some degree, enabling that cruelty. It's good to acknowledge your blindspots and question your behavior regularly. Lots of people don't want to do that, and we all suffer for it. One thing to keep in mind is that black people don't get the ability to not think about race. A black person is confronted for their race in everything, whether normal everyday life like going to the store, or major milestones like college applications. When a white person says "I don't see race", what they're effectively saying is "I don't want to think/talk about racism", especially the racism that they may be guilty of or benefiting from. Hiring people is an extremely subjective process. It's not like people have RPG stats that you compare and calculate. Being "more qualified" is ambiguous; keep in mind that the impacts of racism aren't limited to "we picked the white guy over the black guy". Black people deal with extra hurdles throughout their entire lives. To have a practically identical resume as a white person requires the black person to do more or endure worse at nearly every turn. There are also some shady practices like pulling the listing and editing the requirements to match a specific applicant, so that they're the only one technically qualified, even if others who previously applied were as well. This is just one way people try to sweep their racism under a rug. Part of the reasoning behind Affirmative Action is that having a more diverse workplace is in the organization's best interest, as it means the workers have different perspectives to offer. It's also less about trying to "appease" groups and acknowledging that the markets/systems/etc favor straight white cis men over anyone else in basically every metric. If race/gender/sexuality/etc play a role in the story, then they should be cast appropriately. If not, there's no reason to not have diverse casting or characters. Having diverse casts helps normalize diversity. Development issues are a pretty weak excuse as for why there isn't more diversity. The bottom line is that the developers chose to skip over making diverse characters in favor of something else, which is very likely stemming from the lack of diversity in the industry. It's absolutely fair and right to not trust brands and companies (they're not your friends), but hey, a win is a win. If they remove racist thing, it still has a positive impact on the world, even if it was done for selfish reasons. Bottom line is impacts over intentions.
  5. Many local/state governments enforced lockdowns on restaurants, etc with threats of fines, losing their liquor license, etc. No need to involve the police, really. As @Excellen Browning pointed out, the BLM protests haven't been a problem. I posted some links in the COVID thread about a few major places not seeing any change in their downward trend of new cases, check 'em out: Minnesota Chicago DC
  6. Spark system? Did the players come up with a term that I missed? Is it in reference to the free 5* after 40 summons?
  7. Haha no, it belongs here. If you want to ask questions and discuss it further, by all means, be my guest.
  8. Republicans only care about having control over others. Their typical anti-union, anti-regulation thinking is based on how it limits their ability to dominate industries, and thus people. They like the police because they have the ability to subjugate people in a way that is generally accepted, or at least until recently. It's also why when they talk about handling crime, it's all about punishment and not about rehabilitation. Many cops share that thinking and vote Republican knowing they'll be given more power, whether through legal protections or through funding/equipment.
  9. All our spending means nothing if our allies don't trust us, which they don't. They are publicly talking about ways to address global threats without our support. If you're going to link an entire broad subject Wikipedia page like that, at least point to what I'm supposed to be focusing on. I'm all for spending on cyber defense, though I don't think we're that great at how we operate that. Here's the bottom line: Most of our military spending isn't about national security. It's about an empire built on neoliberalism. The same neoliberal thinking that pushes the US to spend absurd amounts of money on fighter jets so Lockheed Martin stock can stay up is also driving the housing market, the private health insurance market, and so on. Ultimately, the US government is more a vehicle to help maintain wealth for certain people than it is to provide basic human needs to as many people as possible. We've installed dictators when they do what we like and we've helped remove those get in the way of our profits. The empire relies on people, such as yourself, arguing that we need the military to be overwhelmingly powerful. It relies on you being afraid of the threat that Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran are all biding their time, waiting to strike. But even with a fraction of our military capabilities, these countries wouldn't dare start anything major because of the toll a direct conflict would take on them and/or their own profits. So instead, we have the weaponry to "police" to world, which is about as helpful to the rest of the world as our own police are to our people. That parallel is not a coincidence, as the same thinking that drives our military also drives our police force. Wanting to cut funding for both is to want to see an end to that abuse of power. You aren't listening at all, and I'm done wasting my time with you on this.
  10. Too late, I already called Tommy, he's all "fuck that internet guy"
  11. There is no such thing as politically neutral. At best, that means you're politically ignorant or politically selfish-- you either don't understand the discussion, or you don't really care. Or both.
  12. The video directly addresses your argument about peaceful protesting. You're doing yourself a huge disservice by not watching it, and also stifling the discussion we're trying to have with you.
  13. What was your post? What am I missing here? And why are you even posting if you're not going to engage with the materials we're presenting to you?
  14. You totally missed the point. Watch the video I posted. There is a limit to peaceful protesting when it's directly against a violent faction where there is no appealing to their morality. Even MLK and Ghandi said as much. Yeah no shit, that's not in dispute. Watch the video.
  15. If you can point to an example where that's been the case, I'd be intrigued, but otherwise it sounds like you're making an assumption about how many people are upset with the protests. Which mass peaceful protest are you referring to? What does that mean? You have so much to learn about how all of this works, but for now here's a short video that might help:
  16. It's not to persuade the people who are inconvenienced, it's to put the spotlight on an issue that people are ignoring or are unaware of. Outrageous behavior gets the discussion going. Saying you support their right to protest but not how they did it begs the question, "then what is the correct way to protest?" Anything that doesn't create disruption is going to be summarily ignored. Black people have been protesting for generations, and yet there are still the same age old existential dangers, which means something even more disruptive is necessary.
  17. I'd argue the entire HUD needs to be rebuilt from the ground up since the problems aren't limited to HOPE VI. The US under Trump is increasingly isolationist, which key allies like Germany, France, and Japan are seeing as a sign that they can't count on us. Even post-Trump, in their eyes, there's nothing ensuring that we wouldn't elect another isolationist. Russia and China have been utilizing more methods that a traditional military isn't prepared for, like hacking servers. China in particular is focusing more on soft power beyond its immediate sphere of influence, while the US is losing theirs. Focusing on addressing issues like housing, healthcare, education, etc with our money is part of improving the soft power the US has. I'm saying these problems are inherent to an under-regulated market. They will continue to exist unless the government address it, and if the government steps back, the problems will reemerge.
  18. No, it's not, nobody is breaking into your home because you're white. You're telling a different story all of a sudden. You're also mistaking the random acts of destruction for the actual protests. It doesn't delegitimize the protests nor does it mean you're a target. You are speaking out of a fear and assumptions. They are meant to, but they are anything but. Instead, they're effectively a special class of people who are largely immune to the laws they're supposed to uphold for everyone else, while being equipped physically and legally with the means to do whatever they want. Corruption is rampant, and there are also little to no effective mechanisms in place for "good" cops or regular people to challenge that corruption.
  19. This isn't about you or me or what we like or don't like. It's about removing things that normalize racism and the glorification of police. The protesters are largely non-violent. Police are responding to these non-violent protests with excessive force all across the country, and to retaliate with guns is basically suicide. The police are looking for an excuse to use even greater force. You'll need to show some receipts about that girl, I'll bet you the world that she wasn't shot by protestors. That's not what's happening. At all. Nobody has said this. If losing Splash Mountain and COPS is the worst thing that happens to you, consider yourself blessed.
  20. Except it's not perfectly good, and you're refusing to admit that because it's a thing you like. The beauty of this is that your opinion on the matter isn't going to stop Disney or other companies from looking at where they've fucked up and make changes. The protestors aren't murdering. On the contrary, they are being murdered. Some destruction is justifiable if you consider that there are limits to peaceful protesting when what they are against is a direct existential threat. Much of white America cares more about property than it does about the well-being black people, and destroying property is the only way to get their attention. You should also take note of what I said in the post right above yours regarding white supremacist groups inciting violence.
  21. @Anacybele No. No to all of that. The bottom line is, you have to ask yourself which you care more about-- Disney rides and video games, or enduring and ubiquitous racism and the wishes of the people who suffer every day of their lives because of it. Keep in mind that one of core issues with these riots is that black people are being killed by police while doing normal everyday things like going to the store. You have a genuine privilege if you get to ignore the discussion and relax, when the victims of police violence and racists can't. In that sense, everything is inherently political, including the decision to stay out of it. That's not to say "oh, how dare you!" for finding it stressful, confusing, and not knowing how to approach it, but you'll be doing yourself a huge favor if you make efforts to educate yourself. For what it's worth, theft and destruction as a result of the protests is complicated by the fact that, except when it's directly targeting things the protests are based on (like Confederate statues or police cruisers), it's often done by people who aren't protesting, but looking to start shit. White supremacists groups specifically went out of their way to incite violence and destruction in an effort to make the protestors look worse and give the cops an excuse for further force.
  22. It's not that it's wrong, per se, but solving the housing crisis would make buying/selling a home less of an investment vehicle, not because people couldn't, but because it wouldn't be necessary. Bear in mind that one of the loooong standing issues with the housing market is banks and lenders denying mortgages and loans to minorities. Buying a home is not as simple as you seem to think it is. The provision was removed by the Republican-controlled House in 1998. It was very much a deliberate choice. Here, do your own homework: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOPE_VI#Criticisms You do realize that no military person working today would ever go on the record criticizing the military budget, right? That'd be career suicide. I've already stated I don't have any interest in discussing Russia and China with you because your viewpoint is coming from an emotional place and and you're not really open to anything that pokes a hole in that. The market has no incentive to fix it. They have a very strong incentive to keep it as is, at the expense of the poor. It's really not complicated, dude. ----------------------------- If your answers on housing are just going to amount to "nah, I think it's fine" when I'm telling you that people's lives are being ruined daily, then we're all set here and your response is neither required nor welcome.
  23. Housing shouldn't be a commodity, and that extends to the middle-class homeowner as well. Not that it's their fault, we shouldn't be living in a world where you buy a home as a means of investment as opposed to just getting proper There's a flipside to that thinking-- HOPE VI, for instance, a government program designed to demolish slums and rebuild them, sounds pretty good on paper, until they took out the provision that they had to rebuild the same number of housing units. There was also an issue where the designation of "slum" was ambiguous, leading to a large amount of adequate condition low-income housing being destroyed in order to build new fancy units with a higher ROI for owners. Keep in mind that the overarching issue with gentrification is how it displaces poor people. I don't have any interest in discussing defense spending with you because we've done this song and dance many times before. I will, however, mention that the Pentagon and DOD people I talk to all agree that the military budget is absurdly higher than it needs to be and there'd be little to no impact on our global standing if we cut it significantly. Obligatory: It's true, we do need checks in the short term. The underlying issue is the neoliberal thinking of letting the market solve the problem when it's the source of the problem. The long term solution goes far beyond even building more housing, including a massive legislative overhaul. A number of major laws regarding public housing have been largely detrimental and instead favor private companies over middle-class owners and renters, and those laws need to be repealed or heavily amended.
  24. In some positive news, there haven't been any surges in places where there was mass protesting. In fact, rates of new cases have continued a downward trend. Some articles focusing on specific places: Minnesota Chicago DC
  25. You're arguing about whether or not it counts as a market failure, but that's besides the point-- it's a failure as a method of maximizing the amount of people housed. The market favors people who already have money and exploits those who don't. Historically, government involvement has been mixed in terms of efficacy, but the worst instances have always pushed for privatization of public housing. Wanting your home to appreciate in value is one thing, but to do so at the expense of poor people is vile. When it comes to tenants' rights, most lack the means or understanding to take legal action or prevent landlords from doing awful things. What exists for protecting renters isn't as effective as you seem to think it is. Read the whole thing instead of just looking at a map and jumping to conclusions. We're not going to have a direct war with China or Russia. Spending over $700 billion a year on defense doesn't help our diplomatic, information, or economic influence. The issue with simply giving people stimulus checks is that it means the government is just writing landlords checks while they continue to overcharge for rent. It doesn't fix the source of the problem. Creating extra conditions like requiring a certain level of income creates further problems as people's incomes rise or drop, as well as doing nothing for those most in need.
×
×
  • Create New...