Jump to content

The Race Issue: Is it going too far? Has Disney hopped on the train now too?


Anacybele
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

LMAO

First off, no, this is 100000% false. Prisons are a good source of slavery. Guess who gets disproportionately thrown into prison? And guess how legal it is?

(It's pretty fucking legal)

Second off, slavery isn't the only form of oppression. Segregation exists. You know Terry Bradshaw's career started not long after the Civil Rights act of 1968? And you know segregation is still happening? And you know how black people make far lower wages and have far lower wealth than their white counterparts on average?

They modified slavery to fit the constitution. That's all.

I'm just going to leave this stuff here because I'm not going to continue this with you. I have not ever had a good experience trying to debate anything with you, whether it's this or NFL games.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/3100-inmates-to-be-released-as-trump-administration-implements-criminal-justice-reform/2019/07/19/7ed0daf6-a9a4-11e9-a3a6-ab670962db05_story.html

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/19/politics/first-step-act-prisoners-released-doj/index.html

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article223414935.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 308
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

4 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

That has very little to do with anything I've said. Especially since it was Congress that passed it with a veto-proof majority... Trump did jack and shit.

Quote

I have not ever had a good experience trying to debate anything with you, whether it's this or NFL games.

🙂 you were against the kneeling, banned from my server for racism, and now you're complaining about mass protests. Of course you'll have an awful time.

Edited by Lord Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lord Raven said:

That has very little to do with anything I've said. Especially since it was Congress that passed it with a veto-proof majority...

You literally just mentioned that a lot of people, dis-proportionally blacks, were unfairly imprisoned. I posted stuff saying a lot of prisoners were released for various reasons. Many of them would be black.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

You literally just mentioned that a lot of people, dis-proportionally blacks, were unfairly imprisoned. I posted stuff saying a lot of prisoners were released for various reasons. Many of them would be black.

Also, 3100 prisoners being released... is meaningless, when there's millions of people in prison in the US. 53k over 10 years released from federal prison... is a meaningless number, too.

A veto-proof majority means that no matter what Donald Trump does it's going to pass. You could put the corpse of Reagan there as president and the bill would pass. There's like a million other points and you focus on the one that claims prisons are another form of slavery, and you attack it in the completely wrong way.

You don't have a good time arguing because you try to win and you argue in favor of the racist. 

4 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

As far as the wealth gap goes, exactly how much effort that people are going to close it?

You can start by reducing the value of housing. You can also start by enacting housing policies that make it easier for poor people to get affordable housing. You can also allow black people in your school district instead of making weird penis shaped districts to prevent it.

Otherwise, really nothing. Police work for suburban whites (anyone "weird" or "sketchy" or "dark skinned" you don't want around? remove them), and having black neighbors reduces the value of your house. These are known things.

Edited by Lord Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

You literally just mentioned that a lot of people, dis-proportionally blacks, were unfairly imprisoned. I posted stuff saying a lot of prisoners were released for various reasons. Many of them would be black.

It's the equivalent of a dripping faucet. Step one is decriminalizing non-violent drug offenses (at least for non-harmful drugs like marijuana) and retroactively freeing prisoners incarcerated for these offenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

And being tried for murder isn't enough of an fear for them?

...almost never happens...

(and even rarer that if it does, the case results in a jury conviction at trial)


See Tamir Rice.
See also Philando Castile. 
See also Freddy Grey. 
See also Breona Taylor. 
See also Alton Sterling.
See also John Crawford.
See also Stephon Clark.
See also Eric Garner.

Etc., etc. etc...

Being tried for murder is enough to fear, if it happens consistently and consistently results in murderer cops winding up behind bars.

As of now--it doesn't. 
 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Anacybele Sorry if I came in late on this, and wow, late is like an hour or something this really blew up! I generally agree with your overall point of corporations trying to censor and stuff, but in this particular case, I don't think that's actually what Disney is doing. Which is strange, as they clearly have done that sort of thing in the past (Looking at you, Star Wars qq). I think this is more opportunism. With everything shut down due to covid, there isn't a better time to do renovations and updates that would normally interrupt regular business. I suspect this is something they've wanted to do for a while. If I worked for Disney's marketing department, I'd want to have a big update or announcement ready for when things open back up to attempt to draw people out. Again, I don't know for sure this is what's going on, but it takes the same number of logical leaps to get to an opportunistic marketing department as it does bending the knee to the woke mob. Tho it's possible that it's a combination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, in regards to the removal of the Song of the South ride... good. Song of the South doesn't deserve to be celebrated. It's place in history is that of a black stain and a cautionary tale.

 

And the removal of Confederate monuments is also good. They belong in museums where they can be properly contextualized, not on street corners to be celebrated.

 

And anyone in possession of a traitor flag has no right to call anyone else un-American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Burklight said:

@Anacybele Sorry if I came in late on this, and wow, late is like an hour or something this really blew up! I generally agree with your overall point of corporations trying to censor and stuff, but in this particular case, I don't think that's actually what Disney is doing. Which is strange, as they clearly have done that sort of thing in the past (Looking at you, Star Wars qq). I think this is more opportunism. With everything shut down due to covid, there isn't a better time to do renovations and updates that would normally interrupt regular business. I suspect this is something they've wanted to do for a while. If I worked for Disney's marketing department, I'd want to have a big update or announcement ready for when things open back up to attempt to draw people out. Again, I don't know for sure this is what's going on, but it takes the same number of logical leaps to get to an opportunistic marketing department as it does bending the knee to the woke mob. Tho it's possible that it's a combination.

Yeah, this is fair. It just kind of bothers me that we may never know for sure, you know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

And the removal of Confederate monuments is also good. They belong in museums where they can be properly contextualized, not on street corners to be celebrated.

"...to be celebrated and to be hung over the heads of people of color like the proverbial sword of Damocles"

Fixed it for ya 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

Yeah, this is fair. It just kind of bothers me that we may never know for sure, you know?

I see where you're coming from, but I prefer to stay out of the "The other side is conspiring against people like me!" kind of thinking. It's probably true some of the time, but I think most of the time people and corporations are just looking out for their own perceived best interests. With everything as polarized as it is, I think it's important to take a step back and ask yourself questions like "Is there an innocent, or at least reasonable/acceptable explanation for this?" Often times there is.

Now, when rioters start breaking windows, robbing stores and beating people in the streets, I can't come up with what I think is an acceptable reason for that. But it's still important to do the thought experiment because it will reduce the lazy thinking most people fall into like, for example:

  • Putting companies making semi shady decisions in the same category as literal rioters
  • Putting police officers who actually have no credible defense (George Floyd) in the same category as police officers who were probably acting in self defense. And while we're at it, conflating both of those with systemic problems (when I say "systemic," in this context, I'm specifically talking about things written into law that probably shouldn't be) like no knock warrants (Breona Taylor).
  • Conflating peaceful protesters with literal rioters. 

The list goes on and on. The people I know who actually think these things through tend to be better informed, and more importantly, happier people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Burklight said:

Putting police officers who actually have no credible defense (George Floyd) in the same category as police officers who were probably acting in self defense

The issue is that police who likely were ACTUALLY acting in self-defense when they slaughtered a civilian are in the vast minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Burklight said:

I see where you're coming from, but I prefer to stay out of the "The other side is conspiring against people like me!" kind of thinking. It's probably true some of the time, but I think most of the time people and corporations are just looking out for their own perceived best interests. With everything as polarized as it is, I think it's important to take a step back and ask yourself questions like "Is there an innocent, or at least reasonable/acceptable explanation for this?" Often times there is.

Now, when rioters start breaking windows, robbing stores and beating people in the streets, I can't come up with what I think is an acceptable reason for that. But it's still important to do the thought experiment because it will reduce the lazy thinking most people fall into like, for example:

  • Putting companies making semi shady decisions in the same category as literal rioters
  • Putting police officers who actually have no credible defense (George Floyd) in the same category as police officers who were probably acting in self defense. And while we're at it, conflating both of those with systemic problems (when I say "systemic," in this context, I'm specifically talking about things written into law that probably shouldn't be) like no knock warrants (Breona Taylor).
  • Conflating peaceful protesters with literal rioters. 

The list goes on and on. The people I know who actually think these things through tend to be better informed, and more importantly, happier people.

Well yeah, of course. I never say all cops or bad or all protesters are bad. I'm just against the needlessly violent ones. Even though Lord Raven would tell you otherwise, I'm not against things like Colin Kaepernick wanting to protest either. I just don't agree with how he did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject about the protests and riots, personally, I feel that while it's true that some part of it is due to wanting to discredit the movement or just take advantage of the situation, the other part is simply fueled by genuine desperation. As others have pointed out, this is a problem that has persisted for years, even centuries. Many people don't simply decide to just riot one day. It's the culmination of pent-up frustrations after the peaceful and lawful ways have failed.

As it stands, I feel that this quote from Martin Luther King Jr. stands true even to this day.

The last sentence, in particular, brings up a very good point one must not ignore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

Even though Lord Raven would tell you otherwise, I'm not against things like Colin Kaepernick wanting to protest either. I just don't agree with how he did it.

"Even though Raven will tell you otherwise, I agree with protests, I just don't agree with the kneeling."

I can pull up loads of proof that this is false, by statements that come out of your own mouth. You dismissed Bob Costas' take on it because he was being "too critical" of Trump.

Don't try to save face. You can own up to things and admit you were wrong, and people would think better of you. But everyone I know... is groaning that you made a thread on race relations, while denying anything and everything. I mean, it makes sense you voted for Trump -- he does all the same bullshit, he sat back and whined about negative coverage instead of doing anything in favor of the protests or to combat COVID19.

Edited by Lord Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lord Raven said:

The issue is that police who likely were ACTUALLY acting in self-defense when they slaughtered a civilian are in the vast minority.

Maybe. But to act like the setup and reasoning for all of them are the same and fit a narrative perfectly is lazy thinking. As someone who would like to see significantly less innocent people die, like most other sane people, I'd like to see some changes. The problem is you have to look at each incident as it's own unique thing if you want to be able to actually point out something that could be done to prevent it.

The Breona Taylor thing is a decent example. While it's likely most of the individual cops involved in that needed better training and shouldn't be working anymore, I think you need to take a step back and think about how that happened. You have a law that say police can enter someone's house without being dressed as police and don't have to announce themselves. How is the home owner suppose to tell the difference between that and an armed robbery? They literally can't, and in states that have castle doctrine laws, there's no version of this that doesn't end up in a shoot out. That's a serious problem I'd like to see never happen again, but it doesn't fit the overall narrative so it generally isn't discussed that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

Well yeah, of course. I never say all cops or bad or all protesters are bad. I'm just against the needlessly violent ones. Even though Lord Raven would tell you otherwise, I'm not against things like Colin Kaepernick wanting to protest either. I just don't agree with how he did it.

Oh, sorry if I implied that I thought you were. You're pretty clearly not, that's why I used those examples to make the point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Burklight said:

Oh, sorry if I implied that I thought you were. You're pretty clearly not, that's why I used those examples to make the point. 

Don't worry, I didn't think you were, I just more or less wanted to say I agreed with you. And glad that you see I'm in the right here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Burklight said:

1. Maybe. But to act like the setup and reasoning for all of them are the same and fit a narrative perfectly is lazy thinking. As someone who would like to see significantly less innocent people die, like most other sane people, I'd like to see some changes. The problem is you have to look at each incident as it's own unique thing if you want to be able to actually point out something that could be done to prevent it.

2. The Breona Taylor thing is a decent example. While it's likely most of the individual cops involved in that needed better training and shouldn't be working anymore, I think you need to take a step back and think about how that happened. You have a law that say police can enter someone's house without being dressed as police and don't have to announce themselves. How is the home owner suppose to tell the difference between that and an armed robbery? They literally can't, and in states that have castle doctrine laws, there's no version of this that doesn't end up in a shoot out. That's a serious problem I'd like to see never happen again, but it doesn't fit the overall narrative so it generally isn't discussed that way.

1. In general, if a group of people have power over another, then they need to be extra-scrutinized for any single action they take. You need trust between civilians and local law enforcement agencies. There's been a large history of abuse from officers. If even 10-20% of officers are abusive, hell if even 1-2% of officers are abusive, and nothing is done to hold them accountable, the whole thing is rotten and erodes trust.

Ultimately, the police need to protect and serve. And as it stands, many who fail at both don't suffer consequences.

That and, fuck it, police are attacking peaceful protesters to the point where some journalists are blinded for daring to record things. Some PDs are straight up being ordered to cover body cams. Many officers who murder and carry body cams don't face accountability and get hired in the next county over.

And finally, the previous administration created a police oversight committee towards the later part of its time, and that whole thing was eroded by the current administration because the current administration would suck a cock with a thin blue line on it if the opportunity presented itself.

There's also countless stories of officers getting fired for trying to stop a shooting, for trying to do the right thing, for talking against superiors who preferred to take the brutality route, for speaking out and complaining to superiors about a fellow officer's conduct, etc. ACAB comes about because of the erosion of trust and how the lack of accountability doesn't create an environment for a good officer to thrive. You're either complicit with abuse or you're not an officer in many many places.

EDIT: then they get blackballed

2. That's not the only thing. It doesn't explain why black communities are a ton more likely to be overpoliced to begin with, or how black people receive harsher punishments for the same crime, and black people are more likely to be caught than white people, etc.

Edited by Lord Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Anacybele said:

I'm not against things like Colin Kaepernick wanting to protest (either). I just don't agree with how he did it.

You don't have a protest when the aggrieved party and the party concerned are in concurrence over the venue. You have a compromise or a dialogue.

Protests are supposed to make people uncomfortable, because it's precisely that comfort that prevents people from looking beyond the status quo. You can't expect people who have bore the brunt of centuries of discrimination, marginalization, and outright fuckery to "be nice." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

1. In general, if a group of people have power over another, then they need to be extra-scrutinized for any single action they take. You need trust between civilians and local law enforcement agencies. There's been a large history of abuse from officers. If even 10-20% of officers are abusive, hell if even 1-2% of officers are abusive, and nothing is done to hold them accountable, the whole thing is rotten and erodes trust.

Ultimately, the police need to protect and serve. And as it stands, many who fail at both don't suffer consequences.

That and, fuck it, police are attacking peaceful protesters to the point where some journalists are blinded for daring to record things. Some PDs are straight up being ordered to cover body cams. Many officers who murder and carry body cams don't face accountability and get hired in the next county over.

And finally, the previous administration created a police oversight committee towards the later part of its time, and that whole thing was eroded by the current administration because the current administration would suck a cock with a thin blue line on it if the opportunity presented itself.

2. That's not the only thing. It doesn't explain why black communities are a ton more likely to be overpoliced to begin with, or how black people receive harsher punishments for the same crime, and black people are more likely to be caught than white people, etc.

1. Not going to go into any real detail on this, but I basically agree with your overall point of people in positions of power needed to be held to a higher standard. Most cops live up to that, but even if "most cops" is 99% of them, we have like 7 million cops iirc. 1% of that is still an outrageously large number of potential problems, particularly if we aren't holding them to account. And I think the public in general would give police more wiggle room in scenarios where they probably deserve it if they actually held themselves accountable when they should.  

2. It was just one example. I'm not suggesting it would solve all the problems. There's a bunch of different problems. I was just saying they need to be dealt with one at a time instead of treating it as an overall narrative, because it's more productive.

7 minutes ago, Karimlan said:

Protests are supposed to make people uncomfortable, because it's precisely that comfort that prevents people from looking beyond the status quo. You can't expect people who have bore the brunt of centuries of discrimination, marginalization, and outright fuckery to "be nice." 

I think this is a mistake, unfortunately. Protests are suppose to persuade people. At least, the most effective ones throughout history have. I facepalm every time I see the protesters who just scream and hold up traffic, because I know every time they do that they probably alienated a ton of people who would have otherwise supported their cause, but ended up hating the protest because they were late for work that day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Burklight said:

I think this is a mistake, unfortunately. Protests are suppose to persuade people. At least, the most effective ones throughout history have. I facepalm every time I see the protesters who just scream and hold up traffic, because I know every time they do that they probably alienated a ton of people who would have otherwise supported their cause, but ended up hating the protest because they were late for work that day.

Well, tough. Tell that to people who have been marginalized to insignificance and see how you like their reactions.

Forget about having a code for protest. There is no such thing, not for the people who have been thrown under the boss for so long. I'm not a nu metal guy, but I echo Mudvayne's sentiment for this kinda thinking:

"Middle finger is the flag I wave when I'm silenced!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Burklight said:

Protests are suppose to persuade people. At least, the most effective ones throughout history have.

They did not.

These current protests are like two orders of magnitude better received than the MLK protests. Those protesters back then were hosed down, threatened, demonized and bumped lynching too.

Anyone who tells you that most of the country was inspired and won over by MLK is a liar. The FBI tried to silence him, blackmail him with mistresses, and they eventually straight up shot the guy.

No protest for rights has ever been peaceful, nice, or convincing. And frankly this country did almost nothing to fight racism after the end of slavery, whereas Germany fucking banned depictions of Nazis and made it a point to educate their children on the horrors of Hitler and the horrors that their country executed to prevent us from doing it again.

Meanwhile snowflakes are complaining about statues of Confederates and slave owners going down.

 

It also doesn't help that dumbasses like Paul Ryan listen to Bulls on Parade as a song to get amped up at the gym... Instead of listening to the line that de la Rocha says repeatedly stating "some of those who work forces... Are the same that burn crosses."

A song like Bulls on Parade is mainstream and most people ignore the message. How much more blatant can protests get before people pay attention????

Edited by Lord Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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