Jump to content

General US Politics


Ansem

Recommended Posts

I don't think Lushen understands the idea of what oppression is, as I've been reading his comments and it's been a matter of we've been through this argument before, so why bring it up again instead of reading the old points?

I'm 100% serious. We've covered this with you before. The means of protest always being inadequate. The requirements for the truth being riots, because peaceful protests happened for weeks with no acknowledgment. The purpose is to make people feel uncomfortable, because being nice does not get people to take you seriously

You need to read Letters from a Birmingham Jail before you get up on your high horse about this. You say you do not support Trump nor do the people around you, yet I continue to see you here defending exactly what Trump does. Why don't you just call yourself a Trump supporter at this point? You are literally supporting Trump in the majority of the things you say here. You claim it's because we're wrong and you're being a moderate voice, but as it stands a moderate voice is one that happens to oppose the way Trump conducts himself. You're acting like being against Trump for our own reasons or being opposed to Trump is some kind of sacrilege, like all Trump supporters do.

And they tend to say "I don't support Trump" like we're supposed to care that you supposedly don't support him. Your points contradict your lack of support for him.

At any rate, I'll leave with a quote from MLK Jr. that exactly talks about people like you, Lushen, and realize how divisive protest always have been.

Quote

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Are you the white moderate this statement is addressing? It sure seems like this, if I'm being generous.

Very recently even, they interviewed a man who was alive during the Civil Rights Movement and they said that they weren't racist and one sentence later (literally) stated that he hated "Martin Luther Coon." People hated the Civil Rights movement. People hated women's suffrage. You're telling these people -- who are often black people -- to sit down and shut up because their protests will never work, even though it's shown that this kind of thing does work.

There's more worth looking at!

Quote

"In spite of my shattered dreams of the past, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause, and with deep moral concern, serve as the channel through which our just grievances would get to the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed. I have heard numerous religious leaders of the South call upon their worshippers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers say, "follow this decree because integration is morally right and the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churches stand on the sideline and merely mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard so many ministers say, "those are social issues with which the gospel has no real concern.", and I have watched so many churches commit themselves to a completely other-worldly religion which made a strange distinction between body and soul, the sacred and the secular.

The churches weren't even on the Reverend's side!

So here we are moving toward the exit of the twentieth century with a religious community largely adjusted to the status quo, standing as a tail-light behind other community agencies rather than a headlight leading men to higher levels of justice."

Do you honestly believe that racism dissipates in insular rural communities only around a generation or two after the original civil rights movement? What about in government institutions? Change often takes generations and that's assuming the generations are actively lead towards committing change.

And let me close this out with the fact that Kaepernick did his research and found that the most respectful form of protest here is kneeling -- he asked army veterans. Frankly, protest is the most patriotic thing possible in America, because this country became as it was due to protest of all sorts. In some cases, much more extreme protest like in the Boston Tea Party or a fuckin' war. And you people are complaining that these people want change and awareness by kneeling to the literal rebel flag of the United States?

Edited by Lord Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 14.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

12 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

<snip>

First off I don't think anyone has the right to claim whom I do and do not support.  Am I going to go with Trump over the liberal agenda 90% of the time?  Of course.  That doesn't mean I am absolutely thrilled that Trump was the Republican nominee.  And I don't think you can tell me what I think like you somehow know me better than myself. 

The reason this conversation has come up 3 or 4 times in this thread is because the left consistently causes problems by creating protests against conservatism as a whole.  I hate to bring up BLM all the time, but the fact is this was the first major stance the left has taken.  Since then there have been countless times where the left makes a big deal out of nothing and protests society for things individuals do.  I'm not aware of any case where a police officer got away with murder.  I am aware of plenty of cases where police officers are either killed or sent death threats because of the left's demonizing  of the police force as a whole.  I'm fine when a liberal says that police brutality has happened but the concept of "Black Lives Matter" implies that there is an overwhelming amount of people think that black lives don't matter (most conservatives) which I think is more insulting than it is constructive. 

That being said if you don't want to talk about BLM I can talk about student protests, Antifa, school administrations, radical feminists (the ones that clearly believe Men > Woman), etc. all of which are highly flawed.

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Lushen said:

The reason this conversation has come up 3 or 4 times in this thread is because the left consistently causes problems by creating protests against conservatism as a whole.

Because conservatism is intended to preserve the status quo, which needs to shift and sometimes needs to be defied so that society can improve and not stagnate. Conservatism invites stagnation always, and without the left to keep the right moving forward, nothing changes, and people will often be no better than they were before. Most of the time they will be none the worse, but you can't always be sure of that. Being conservative essentially means being dedicated to not changing anything, even when it's obvious that change is good. However, most leftist ideologies barring classical liberalism tend to want to change all or nothing, so I can at least see where you are coming from, but sometimes radical change is better than none, especially if something beneficial is gained that can never be taken away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Police get away with murder all the time. With all the literally hundreds of police killings that have occurred about 4 police officers have ever been successfully prosecuted. I would link to at least half a dozen cases where the police officer shot a person dead with zero provocation/justification but to be honest I already did that at least twice in this thread and both times my examples were ignored.

Trump has been anti-NFL for years; his issues with the NFL extend back nearly 40 years. He won a lawsuit against them. This isn't just about taking the knee. This is also a handy distraction from all the hurricane relief issues, etc.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Yes there is. What we want to be looking at are the laws governing the conduct of state and local police. Lawful use of force statutes. Professional liability standards. Rules of administrative procedure for responding to reports of police misconduct. Prosecutorial burdens of proof and defenses available at trial, where an officer faces criminal charges for wrongful deaths caused by inappropriate use of force.

You're not wrong, definitely, but in my mind the root of the problem remains the distrust between Black communities and the police, that is mostly the fault of the police to be honest. Because, ultimately, to actually enact police reform we need a willing general population, which I don't see us as having yet. God, I don't think this country will be around when I die, just too many fundamental structural issues to deal with and a government comically unable or unwilling to deal with them. Ah well, I'm going to bed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Because conservatism is intended to preserve the status quo, which needs to shift and sometimes needs to be defied so that society can improve and not stagnate. Conservatism invites stagnation always, and without the left to keep the right moving forward, nothing changes, and people will often be no better than they were before. Most of the time they will be none the worse, but you can't always be sure of that. Being conservative essentially means being dedicated to not changing anything, even when it's obvious that change is good. However, most leftist ideologies barring classical liberalism tend to want to change all or nothing, so I can at least see where you are coming from, but sometimes radical change is better than none, especially if something beneficial is gained that can never be taken away.

This is actually scientifically proven false.  Liberals are generalized to be more authoritarian in their nature. In the same article, liberals are also analyzed to have behaviors corresponding to social desirability which explains perfectly why we see more protests coming from the left than the right. 

 

Anyways, on Trump you will not hear me say that Trump's comments were at all wise.  I don't think Trump needed to bring politics into the NFL and I certainty don't think it was his place.  I also don't think the NFL needed to side with the left since from a business perspective it is entirely idiotic and from a societal standpoint sports and culture are supposed to unite people with different political backgrounds and now it is encouraging more political division in society.

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lushen said:

a & b) "First of all, while I'm not saying that the Alt-Right is representative of the entire right-wing political spectrum, I'm absolutely not discounting their influence."

You didn't even choose the right bit here. You said that I would probably ignore the influence of antifa and SJWS, which is what I was talking about there. You attacked me based on an assumption of what my position would be on an issue that isn't being discussed i.e. off-topic and putting words in my mouth, and now you've taken my words out of context.

5 hours ago, Lushen said:

c & d) So your solution to respond to my argument is to claim I did exactly what you are doing right at this moment.  I've said this before but logical fallacies are guidelines, not rules to live by.  If person A lies 1,000 times and person B has never lied, logical fallacies tell us this doesn't mean that person B isn't lieing right now.  But guess what?  Claiming that person A is probably the one lieing is a perfectly valid argument and the logical fallacy man would not have any logical skills to say otherwise.  Logical fallacies suggest you the fallacy cannot be PROVEN true, that doesn't mean it's not a valid argument.

And again, you completely fail to address my point. If the only thing you can say in your defence is 'but what about the SJWs?!?!' and lying about the point I'm trying to make by saying I think all conservatives are evil, then you have no argument.

20 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Anyways, on Trump you will not hear me say that Trump's comments were at all wise.  I don't think Trump needed to bring politics into the NFL and I certainty don't think it was his place.  I also don't think the NFL needed to side with the left since from a business perspective it is entirely idiotic and from a societal standpoint sports and culture are supposed to unite people with different political backgrounds and now it is encouraging more political division in society.

1) They didn't side with 'the left'. They sided with their athletes in regards to whether or not they should be allowed to protest by kneeling. Supporting the right to protest is about as apolitical a stance as once can take.

2) as blah said earlier, expecting our cultural media to be apolitical is complete rubbish. There has literally never been a period in our history when art and politics weren't intermingled. Not to mention that, again, as blah said above, if our media was apolitical and toothless our media would be composed of nothing but meaningless and generic drivel.

Edited by Magus of Flowers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Magus of Flowers said:

You didn't even choose the right bit here. You said that I would probably ignore the influence of antifa and SJWS, which is what I was talking about there. You attacked me based on an assumption of what my position would be on an issue that isn't being discussed i.e. off-topic and putting words in my mouth.

I didn't put words in your mouth.  I pointed out words that didn't come out of your mouth and words that did come out of your mouth.

 

16 minutes ago, Magus of Flowers said:

1) They didn't side with 'the left'. They sided with their athletes in regards to whether or not they should be allowed to protest by kneeling. Supporting the right to protest is about as apolitical a stance as once can take.

2) as blah said earlier, expecting our cultural media to be apolitical is complete rubbish. There has literally never been a period in our history when art and politics weren't intermingled. Not to mention that, again, as blah said above, if our media was apolitical and toothless our media would be composed of nothing but meaningless and generic drivel.

1) Encouraging NFL players to kneel with their team as a direct result of Trump's tweets is "siding with the left".  Allowing Kappernick to have socks depicting police as pigs but not allowing Tim Tebow to be a christian is siding with the left.  ESPN's siding with the left started long before the kneeling.

2) So here you say that they did not side with the left all the while in 1) saying there has "literally" never been a period where art and politics weren't intermingled. The only option left is that they sided with the right...Correct?  If they have to side with someone because there has "literally never been a period..." and they didn't side with the left, they must have sided with the right?

Either way, 5 years ago when I watched football (rarely), me and my friends never brought up politics.  Now we do.  I think this is very bad for society. 

12 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

...which has absolutely nothing to do with conservatism being the preservation of the status quo, so I don't know why you're presenting that as though it's a rebuttal.

Conformity to government at the expense of personal freedom (Authoritarian) is siding with the status quo.  The status quo is government legislature and court decisions that tells us what we can/can't do and what is right/wrong.

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I didn't put words in your mouth.  I pointed out words that didn't come out of your mouth and words that did come out of your mouth.

Your saying 'I bet you'd say this, which makes you a hypocrite'. If you're going to try and make me out to be a hypocrite for not directly condemning 'SJWs' and antifa when we're talking about right-wing politics i.e. when they aren't a subject of discussion, you're putting words in my mouth. You wanna talk about them? Go make the topic.

21 minutes ago, Lushen said:

1) Encouraging NFL players to kneel with their team as a direct result of Trump's tweets is "siding with the left".  Allowing Kappernick to have socks depicting police as pigs but not allowing Tim Tebow to be a christian is siding with the left.  ESPN's siding with the left started long before the kneeling.

I don't know why you think siding with the players as a direct result over Trump's tweet is taking a political stance. They didn't encourage their players to kneel over his many directly right-wing stances, they encouraged them to kneel after he said they shouldn't be allowed to and that they should be fired for doing it. If you thinking siding with your players over whether or not they have the right to protest is 'siding with the left', then that says more about you then it does the NFL.

21 minutes ago, Lushen said:

2) So here you say that they did not side with the left all the while in 1) saying there has "literally" never been a period where art and politics weren't intermingled. The only option left is that they sided with the right...Correct?  If they have to side with someone because there has "literally never been a period..." and they didn't side with the left, they must have sided with the right?

Or it could be a matter of libertarianism vs. authoritarianism. Not everything is a matter of left vs. right you know, especially when it comes to what degree the first amendment is applicable in a current situation.

21 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Conformity to government at the expense of personal freedom (Authoritarian) is siding with the status quo.  The status quo is government legislature and court decisions that tells us what we can/can't do and what is right/wrong.

So if people were encouraging conformity to government at the cost of personal freedom for the sake of putting Socialism into practice, is that pro-status quo? No, it'd be authoritarianism. Whether or not something is pro-status quo or not is judged by theirs stance on social issues. Conservatism is pro-tradition/traditional values, so therefore it is pro-status quo.

Edited by Magus of Flowers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I didn't put words in your mouth.  I pointed out words that didn't come out of your mouth and words that did come out of your mouth.

 

1) Encouraging NFL players to kneel with their team as a direct result of Trump's tweets is "siding with the left".  Allowing Kappernick to have socks depicting police as pigs but not allowing Tim Tebow to be a christian is siding with the left.  ESPN's siding with the left started long before the kneeling.

2) So here you say that they did not side with the left all the while in 1) saying there has "literally" never been a period where art and politics weren't intermingled. The only option left is that they sided with the right...Correct?  If they have to side with someone because there has "literally never been a period..." and they didn't side with the left, they must have sided with the right?

Either way, 5 years ago when I watched football (rarely), me and my friends never brought up politics.  Now we do.  I think this is very bad for society. 

Conformity to government at the expense of personal freedom (Authoritarian) is siding with the status quo.  The status quo is government legislature and court decisions that tells us what we can/can't do and what is right/wrong.

...we just spent the past 2 pages going over why libertarian/authoritarian is not the same as left/right. Courts and legislatures are conservative if they seek to restrict social change and liberal if they seek to promote it; not one-or-the-other by virtue of being institutions that legislate and interpret law. Go back and reread our discussion on communism vs. facism if you don't understand this. 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

...we just spent the past 2 pages going over why libertarian/authoritarian is not the same as left/right.

Hey I wasn't involved in the study. They may not be the same but they found that liberals tend to be authoritarian. I'm aware of the difference but just because you can be an authoritarian right doesn't mean the trend that the left tends to be authoritarian is false.

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Hey I wasn't involved in the study. They may not be the same but they found that liberals tend to be authoritarian. I'm aware of the difference but just because you can be an authoritarian right doesn't mean the trend that the left tends to be authoritarian is false.

... I literally posted earlier about how in US politics, there's a clear right-authoritarian correlation in America right now. Your one linked study which managed to find both one thing and then another might reveal something about personalities but nothing about politics as they exist in practice. And in practice, Republicans are an undeniably authoritarian bunch. (Democrats are pretty authoritarian too, I'll grant, but Republicans are moreo, and Trump is crazy-hard-authoritarian. You said yourself that he's not even that right-wing and I agree; it's his authoritarianism which has made him one of the most despised politicians of recent memory.)

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016 (take with a grain of salt, I think political compass consistently puts people a bit too far to the right because of where their political view of the centre is, and Clinton to the right of Trump is particularly questionable, but even allowing for some uncertainty Trump's position is an eye-opener)

 

And... regardless of whether this is true or not in general, it's particularly tone-deaf to argue the left is more authoritarian when we are discussing an issue where Trump (and the right more generally) has taken the obviously more authoritarian stance of questioning the right of people to protest peacefully, which is about as authoritarian as you can get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

This is actually scientifically proven false.  Liberals are generalized to be more authoritarian in their nature. In the same article, liberals are also analyzed to have behaviors corresponding to social desirability which explains perfectly why we see more protests coming from the left than the right. 

Hey I wasn't involved in the study. They may not be the same but they found that liberals tend to be authoritarian. I'm aware of the difference but just because you can be an authoritarian right doesn't mean the trend that the left tends to be authoritarian is false.

The article also doesn't link to the journal which shows this. The article doesn't link to the methodology either.

This is fucking hilarious to me. Weren't you the one that said that you don't believe in journalism or research, even though you're presenting that to us now? The difference is that you're not linking the actual journalism or methodology, just the Washington Times' viewpoint on them, which may also potentially spin the actual journal. Where is the actual journal? Why was there a correction? What exactly was their "liberal" or "conservative" barometer which they used? Because from my understanding, liberalism and authoritarianism are more or less at odds with each other, and authoritarianism is more linked to conservatism than liberalism as it currently stands. Furthermore, left/right and authoritarian/libertarian are on different sets of axes, and what exactly they're defining as libertarian/authoritarian (as well as what you're defining) may also be at odds with what you're defining as such.

I can't take that article seriously when it doesnt link to the study.

Anyway, you believe this bullshit, but you don't believe it when I link to studies that have listed out their entire methodology and you just say "welp shrug I still don't believe what I'm seeing." I think you're just kinda using this thread to jerk yourself off but us non-conservatives keep getting in the way due to our facts and research.

Quote

Anyways, on Trump you will not hear me say that Trump's comments were at all wise.  I don't think Trump needed to bring politics into the NFL and I certainty don't think it was his place.  I also don't think the NFL needed to side with the left since from a business perspective it is entirely idiotic and from a societal standpoint sports and culture are supposed to unite people with different political backgrounds and now it is encouraging more political division in society.

The NFL sided with its players, not the left. At any rate, the sports teams were pretty much entirely united in protest; so in some ways, it actually did succeed in showing solidarity.

Even the owners were lining up with the players. This was most likely to distract from the fact that Aaron Hernandez's brain was literally mush when they examined him, but you clearly don't know what the players were actually doing. Sports is unifying; all of the players and owners are united in favor of free speech, tolerance, and fighting for equality under the law. Too bad the people at home are more split on it.

If we're being real though, the NFL's always been pissing people off, whether or it be due to using taxpayers to fund stadiums, threatening to move, or really shitty severance packages to the players. Or the whole clusterfuck that is the NCAA. It's actually quite exploitative, so to pain the NFL as a left leaning organization all of a sudden is quite hilarious and shows how out of touch you really are with reality.

Society is already divided. Stop pretending like this is doing anything. 1/3 of the country is conservative, 1/3 is moderate, 1/3 is liberal. The moderates are leaving the Republicans.

18 hours ago, Lushen said:

Have I experienced liberal teachers who have tried to weave politics into their lectures?  Yea.  Have I experienced conservative teachers?  Nope, can't name one.

I've experienced far more conservative teachers than liberal teachers. Please stop with this nonsense. There are states where teachers refuse to teach about evolution and sexual education, and those states are often full of conservative teachers or a very conservative student body. What liberal politics were in your lectures anyway? Be specific.

You've also ranted more and more about different shit that we've actually argued about in the past. Please stop trying to take the high ground and bring this up again despite the fact that you did not respond in the past to people bringing many points here. As for your direct reply to me;

3 hours ago, Lushen said:

First off I don't think anyone has the right to claim whom I do and do not support.  Am I going to go with Trump over the liberal agenda 90% of the time?  Of course.  That doesn't mean I am absolutely thrilled that Trump was the Republican nominee.  And I don't think you can tell me what I think like you somehow know me better than myself. 

Ever heard of "looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, they are a duck?" Well, you suck off the president, you defend the president against "the left," and you defend his actions and words, so you are supporting him even though you claim you do not. Your rhetoric and what you perceive to be your beliefs are at odds with one another. Of course, continuing on, if you support Trump over the "other side" 90% of the time, you are most likely a Trump supporter. List some instances in which you legitimately disagree with Trump.

3 hours ago, Lushen said:

The reason this conversation has come up 3 or 4 times in this thread is because the left consistently causes problems by creating protests against conservatism as a whole. 

This is how this shit works. The Tea Party were the right-wing version of whatever you're seeing now. There are always protests that go against our current president no matter who the president is, and your problem now is that you think Trump is something special when it comes to this. Yes, he is, because he is very hated, but the right had the Tea Party, so counter-presidential movements are always in existence.

3 hours ago, Lushen said:

I hate to bring up BLM all the time, but the fact is this was the first major stance the left has taken.  Since then there have been countless times where the left makes a big deal out of nothing and protests society for things individuals do.  I'm not aware of any case where a police officer got away with murder.

Shut up. We've explained to you repeatedly that BLM is not a result of nothing, we've shown you statistics and articles and countless anecdotes and yet you're still fucking denying it. Stop denying facts and posting bullshit facts. In fact, if you're going to say "big deal out of nothing" and "protests," then counter that argument about BLM that Shoblongoo was respectful enough to make towards you in great detail or just leave it be. I'm so sick of you marching into threads saying stuff like this and completely ignoring any finer or more detailed point, while contradicting yourself constantly just so you can act however you want.

And yes, many officers have gotten away with murder. That is the point.

Quote

I am aware of plenty of cases where police officers are either killed or sent death threats because of the left's demonizing  of the police force as a whole.  I'm fine when a liberal says that police brutality has happened but the concept of "Black Lives Matter" implies that there is an overwhelming amount of people think that black lives don't matter (most conservatives) which I think is more insulting than it is constructive.

I'm sorry but can you prove how widespread this is or are you just listening to fear mongering from right-wing publications that support your own narrative? Let me put into perspective how an ordinary citizen and a police officer should not be held to the same standard nor should they be placed in direct opposition to one another. Yet the actions of the police have led us to go "well they're just people who happen to shoot black people more because ??" and "we shouldn't trust the police because we have seriously trigger happy police officers."

And yes, our issue is that our police officers are seriously trigger happy, so even if somehow the police didn't disproportionately target the blacks, there are still issues with law enforcement.

FYI, you're clearly just listening to fear mongering, given that you posted the Washington Times simply to shit on liberals. You're not arguing with authoritarian liberals here, so why is it even relevant?

Quote

That being said if you don't want to talk about BLM I can talk about student protests, Antifa, school administrations, radical feminists (the ones that clearly believe Men > Woman), etc. all of which are highly flawed.

How much power do they have an have they had in any branch of government? What specific legislative agendas have they managed to actually protest in favor of that got passed?

I'm legitimately curious here, because these people have not gotten much done legislatively, and from my understanding this is a very very limited and selective issue. A conservative is not allowed to speak at one of the most liberal college campuses in the country (and yes, Berkeley is like where 90% of this shit happens, fyi) and suddenly colleges have an issue with free speech/expression. Meanwhile, there are right wing campuses that discriminate against gays and want to actively ban anything to do with gays on their campus and they're ignored despite doing something much much worse.

So please, tell me which "side" takes ownership of the Southern Strategy and still does it? Which "side" admitted their policy in the 70s was specifically to break up hippies and black people?

fyi - the Nixon administration vilified dissent from liberal parties in the 70s, which is why hippies and black people have such a bad name in modern culture, because the Southern Strategy was the Republican Party using dogwhistles to bring down the minorities and the disenfranchised because they successfully fought for their civil rights. So please, stop saying that the left and the right are equally bad, or the Democrats and Republicans are equally bad, or bringing up the Democrats when we're actively criticizing Republican leadership. These are all shitty arguments and it also makes you look worse for hopping on the Republican Party's dick because you somehow can't see which party has benefited from an insular mentality.

Edited by Lord Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nixon comparison is a particularly apt one. Trump is basically the worst of Nixon--the pettiness, the intolerance of dissent, the obsession with getting back st his "enemies"--without any of his redeeming qualities as a policy wonk or a statesman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nixon comparison is a particularly apt one. Trump is basically the worst of Nixon--the pettiness, the intolerance of dissent, the obsession with getting back st his "enemies"--without any of his redeeming qualities as a policy wonk or a statesman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most of what people have been saying is about racial inequality.  Let me provide some statistics as to why the left is misunderstanding the racial inequality of African Americans.

The Brookings Institution developed three rules to stay out of poverty.  Wait till you get married to have kids, graduate high school, and have a full time job.  In all ethnic groups, people who follow these three rules have a 2% chance to become poor.  75% will join the middle class.  On the other hand, failure to follow all three rules will give you a 76% chance to end up in poverty and only a 7% chance to join the middle class. [https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/]. 

The poverty rate of unmarried white woman was 22% in 2008 while the rate of married black couples was 7%.  Being single is worse than being black, and it's not surprising that an ethnic group where 73% of children are born out of wedlock happens to be the poorest.  [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_01.pdf].

Finally, the people with the biggest ethnic group by income in America are the Asian Americans.  They aren't white males, they're Asian families.  This is not by a small margin.  Asians have a medium household income 14K higher than white families acc't to data from 2015.    If America was rigged in such a way that only the white male could succeed, how is it that Asian Americans have surpassed them in terms of income?  And before you cite the idea that Blacks are poor because of slavery, I'd like to point out a more recent epidemic, Japanese concentration camps.  These would have been just as, if not more, damaging to the income today.  Yet, Japanese American families make 10K more than White American families.  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income]. 
All it takes is a half a generation to get a family out of poverty.

 

All of these statistics, and many more suggest that America does not have a problem with racial inequality and social justice.  It is very easy to not be poor.  Race doesn't make you poor, life decisions make you poor.  The reason there are a lot of minorities in poverty is because of culture, not race.  Minorities are more likely to grow up with a 17 year old mother who never graduated from college and they do the same because they don't know better.  Attributing poverty to race encourages people in these situations that there's nothing they can do but wait for protests to change legislature providing reverse racism to them. 

 

@Lord RavenNow its your turn.  You said there are many cases where a cop has gotten away with murder. Give me a recent example.

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I think most of what people have been saying is about racial inequality.  Let me provide some statistics as to why the left is misunderstanding the racial inequality of African Americans.

The Brookings Institution developed three rules to stay out of poverty.  Wait till you get married to have kids, graduate high school, and have a full time job.  In all ethnic groups, people who follow these three rules have a 2% chance to become poor.  75% will join the middle class.  On the other hand, failure to follow all three rules will give you a 76% chance to end up in poverty and only a 7% chance to join the middle class. [https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/]. 

The poverty rate of unmarried white woman was 22% in 2008 while the rate of married black couples was 7%.  Being single is worse than being black, and it's not surprising that an ethnic group where 73% of children are born out of wedlock happens to be the poorest.  [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_01.pdf].

Finally, the people with the biggest ethnic group by income in America are the Asian Americans.  They aren't white males, they're Asian families.  This is not by a small margin.  Asians have a medium household income 14K higher than white families acc't to data from 2015.    If America was rigged in such a way that only the white male could succeed, how is it that Asian Americans have surpassed them in terms of income?  And before you cite the idea that Blacks are poor because of slavery, I'd like to point out a more recent epidemic, Japanese concentration camps.  These would have been just as, if not more, damaging to the income today.  Yet, Japanese American families make 10K more than White American families.  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income].  All it takes is a half a generation to get a family out of poverty.

 

All of these statistics, and many more suggest that America does not have a problem with racial inequality and social justice.  It is very easy to not be poor.  Race doesn't make you poor, life decisions make you poor.  The reason there are a lot of minorities in poverty is because of culture, not race.  Minorities are more likely to grow up with a 17 year old mother who never graduated from college and they do the same because they don't know better.  Attributing poverty to race encourages people in these situations that there's nothing they can do but wait for protests to change legislature providing reverse racism to them. 

 

Now its your turn.  You said there are many cases where a cop has gotten away with murder. Give me a recent example.

Tamir Rice. Eric Garner. John Crawford. Darrien Hunt. (Darrien Hunt was a 22 year old African American cosplayer heading to an anime convention, shot 7 times by police who apparently mistook his cosplay gear for real weapons and interpreted his movements as "threatening." Just in case you think it could never happen to you, because you're a good little law abiding citizen.)

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

...Well it Looks like I'm going to have to start my Saturday Morning Calling Out Bullshit...

That's a heck of a morning, if I've got your time zone right!

If you want to quote multiple posts, use the little plus sign next to the Quote button.  Due to the sheer length of both posts, I'm going to leave them alone.

5 hours ago, Res said:

Trump has been anti-NFL for years; his issues with the NFL extend back nearly 40 years. He won a lawsuit against them. This isn't just about taking the knee. This is also a handy distraction from all the hurricane relief issues, etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is Yet Another Distraction while the FBI continues their investigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Tamir Rice. Eric Garner. John Crawford. Darrien Hunt. (Darrien Hunt was a 22 year old African American cosplayer heading to an anime convention, shot by police, who apparently mistook his cosplay gear for real weapons and interpreted his movements as threatening. By that standard I'm pretty sure most of the posters on this site could at some point be murdered by police officers under circumstances deemed reasonable by the courts, under current law)

Tamir Rice - Crime was not with the police officer.  The caller had originally stated that there was someone with a gun.  Afterwards, he said it was probably a kid with a fake gun but the police officers were not relayed this information until after the indecent.  The police officers said that when they asked for Tamir to put his hands up, he looked like he was going for his gun.  It's clear from the officer's emotional reaction that he did not intend to kill a 12 year old. 

Eric Garner - Handled appropriately by the department of justice.  The DOJ decided they were going to open a private investigation but a settlement (agreement) was reached before.  So even if Eric shouldn't have been killed, the DOJ could appropriately pick up the case and settle it on their own terms and reach a settlemnet.  This is actually proof that police cannot dismiss cases with no evidence, since the DOJ successfully got involved.

Darrien Hunt - On facebook he actually posted that he was going to get shot because he had a sword before the events.  Two witnesses said they saw him swinging the sword.  He was asked to put his sword away and he refused.  Why would you run for your life and still be carrying your sword?  I would have dropped it if I were running for my life.  Imagine your arms swinging around trying to run as fast as popular and you think the sword isn't going to slow you down?  And why would you run from a cop in the first place?  The safest thing to do if a cop is chasing you is to get on the ground with your hands on your head.  Anyways, he was running from his life and from the video it looks like he was running faster than the cop and would eventually be outside his range.  Now you have a guy swinging a sword around refusing to put it away running around in public.  Darrien hunt either wanted this to happen or was an idiot.

 

These cases are protected in the exact same manor as criminals are protected in court room.  You can not convict a cop with murder if there is no evidence that it wasn't self defense.  In the one instance that the police dismissed it without any reasoning, the DOJ interfered which shows how well our society handles these cases. Not every accidental shooting by a police officer is a crime.  We live in a principal of "innocent until proven guilty", if it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the officer wasn't acting in self defense their actions are cleared. If we jail police officers who can't prove they shot dead out of self defense, it would be a major hindrance to law enforcement and there would be more dead police.

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

The Brookings Institution developed three rules to stay out of poverty.  Wait till you get married to have kids, graduate high school, and have a full time job.  In all ethnic groups, people who follow these three rules have a 2% chance to become poor.  75% will join the middle class.  On the other hand, failure to follow all three rules will give you a 76% chance to end up in poverty and only a 7% chance to join the middle class. [https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/].

You say it like following these rules is piss-easy. It's one thing to say that graduating high-school helps reduce your chances of poverty, but considering that the majority of African-American students attend low-income schools, that's a lot harder than it sounds. On top of that, a poor education harms the chances of getting a job and a poor sex education leads to teen pregnancy.

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

Finally, the people with the biggest ethnic group by income in America are the Asian Americans.  They aren't white males, they're Asian families.  This is not by a small margin.  Asians have a medium household income 14K higher than white families acc't to data from 2015.    If America was rigged in such a way that only the white male could succeed, how is it that Asian Americans have surpassed them in terms of income?  And before you cite the idea that Blacks are poor because of slavery, I'd like to point out a more recent epidemic, Japanese concentration camps.  These would have been just as, if not more, damaging to the income today.  Yet, Japanese American families make 10K more than White American families.  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income]. 
All it takes is a half a generation to get a family out of poverty.

Japanese aren't even in the top 5 nationalities of Asian-Americans. Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese, Korean and Indian all have larger populations. What affects the Japanese isn't going to affect them.

Furthermore, simply listing median income doesn't really cover the whole picture. I could point out that Asian-Americans are less likely to be home owners than whites and more likely to live in poverty than whites.

Lastly, the notion that racial inequality is a zero-sum game is absurd. Just because one minority does better than whites in certain categories doesn't mean that the racial inequality experienced by other minorities isn't real.

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

It is very easy to not be poor. 

Easy to not be poor? Arguably. Easy to stop being poor? Absolutely not, especially considering that many African-Americans are born shot in the proverbial left foot.

Edited by Magus of Flowers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Magus of Flowers said:

Alas, the home ownership statistics are pretty old.  There was a housing bubble burst right around that time, so who knows what the numbers look like now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Magus of Flowers said:

You say it like following these rules is piss-easy. It's one thing to say that graduating high-school helps reduce your chances of poverty, but considering that the majority of African-American students attend low-income schools, that's a lot harder than it sounds. On top of that, a poor education harms the chances of getting a job and a poor sex education leads to teen pregnancy.

The rules I cited did not discriminate based on whether you attended a high-income school or a low-income school.  All you have to do is graduate high school.  And there are actual cases where it is made easier to do so in inner cities http://nypost.com/2015/08/09/teachers-say-they-feel-pressure-to-meet-citys-pass-quota/.  And while we all know that blacks are considerably poorer in a general sense than whites, the high school graduation rates for blacks are only 16% lower in the general case.  http://www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-high-school-graduation-rates-by-race-ethnicity.html

I don't know that sex education would really cause people to not get pregnant. I think most people learn from a very young age that getting pregnant is probably not a good idea and the issue is they do it anyways.  Kids who grew up from a parent who had a kid at 16 and struggled in poverty have seen first hand what pregnancy can do to their economic situation, I question how a course could make that clear.

That being said, I think you have brought up the actual solution.  The actual solution is not to spend billions of tax payer dollars financing failing schools and investing in sex ed programs and passing legislature that makes it easier for minorities to pass.  The solution, I believe, is to get people in the inner cities the hell out of the inner cities and integrate them more into other cultures.  Get rid of all legislature that gives them an advantage and allow them to intermingle more with other cultures that are more successful.  Clearly parents in inner cities are failing to teach their children how to be successful (because for the most part they don't know) so the solution is to bring them out of the inner cities to experience culture outside of inner city poverty.  Sadly, with the current drug situation in inner cities this causes (and caused in my HS) the introduction to drugs in schools systems outside of the inner cities.  Still, I think this problem would eventually go away as the segregation in culture (not race) dissolves. 

53 minutes ago, Magus of Flowers said:

Easy to not be poor? Arguably. Easy to stop being poor? Absolutely not, especially considering that many African-Americans are born shot in the proverbial left foot.

It's hard to stop being poor if you've violated one of thee rules I mentioned in my last post.  But the rules aren't hard to follow.

1) I have successfully graduated high school  - Which as I mentioned above that the increase difficulty for African Americans is not large enough to explain racial inequality in income
2) I have successfully not got a woman pregnant - This particular step  is actually easier to do and requires less effort than the alternative.
3) I have had a full time job. - Now I understand that it can be hard to find a full time job, but if you honestly couldn't find a job in your entire adult life and you have graduated high school you're doing something seriously wrong or you aren't really trying to get a job. 

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lushen said:

All of these statistics, and many more suggest that America does not have a problem with racial inequality and social justice.  It is very easy to not be poor.  Race doesn't make you poor, life decisions make you poor.  The reason there are a lot of minorities in poverty is because of culture, not race.

Holy crap, this is one of the most tone-deaf things I've seen posted on SF. If it were very easy to not be poor, we wouldn't have so many poor people. I dunno if you're intending this but it comes off as extreme victim-blaming, like the reason that people are poor is because they're stupid and/or lazy.

Look I get what you're saying about minorities in poverty to some extent; in particular, the single biggest predictor of poverty is the poverty of one's parents, and as you say that's basically because chldren tend to take after their parents in terms of behaviour. No argument there. (Although I do think this is one of the best arguments to be made for why we need a strong education system to try to narrow these gaps to better provide equal opportunity, and one of the plethora of reasons the current Republicans suck is they don't share this view.)

I don't know that sex education would really cause people to not get pregnant.

Is this a joke? Please tell me this is a joke.

Sex education = telling teenagers about birth control = they use birth control more shold they have sex = they get pregnant less. The logic could scarcely be clearer. Places that don't have sex education (or have "abstinence-only" sex education, which fails utterly at education and doesn't even succeed in increasing abstinence) have higher teen pregnancy rates. There are lots of studies which show this but here's one of the more indisputable proofs:

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

Scroll down to the chart and sort it by state. Poverty's a big predictor, certainly, which is why Washington DC is where it is, and it colours the rest of the list for sure. But look at what comes next. States with little to no sex education: some relatively well-off (Texas), some poor (Mississippi, Arkansas), and some in the middle (New Mexico, Oklahoma).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...