U.S. Politics: Having a Good Time

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Why in the world, btw, did you assume I didn't know about the Tillerson - Moron contretemps, which BTW, Tillerson says he didn't say.  

It seemed to be a natural add-on to the link that you posted regarding someone else referring to Trump as a moron. 

I wouldn't deign to assume that you hadn't seen that. I would however be comfortably in assuming that Tillerson is lying when he denies having said it.   

[Seli]

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I identify as a moderate liberal. I'm having trouble understanding how anyone who calls themselves a liberal can be in favor of blocking the speech of others. It's kind of baked into the definition of the word. 

I am not calling myself a liberal, but am a close enough fit for US purposes. Personally, because I want a future where I can still exist and express myself. Which means we need to protect society against those who would destroy it, kill the likes of me, etc. This means limiting the speech of those who want to destroy the framework, social pressure works for some groups for others limiting is necessary.

It is a dangerous balance between killing freedom by not protecting it enough and using too strong methods to protect it and destroying it that way. But we know from history the dangers of racists, nazis, theocrats, so we know we need to be very wary of them.

[Bonnot OG]

Free speech absolutists are totally oblivious to the paradox of tolerance. 

[Morpheus]

Tillerson never actually refuted the moron claim

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 minutes ago, Seli said:

I am not calling myself a liberal, but am a close enough fit for US purposes. Personally, because I want a future where I can still exist and express myself. Which means we need to protect society against those who would destroy it, kill the likes of me, etc. This means limiting the speech of those who want to destroy the framework, social pressure works for some groups for others limiting is necessary.

It is a dangerous balance between killing freedom by not protecting it enough and using too strong methods to protect it and destroying it that way. But we know from history the dangers of racists, nazis, theocrats, so we know we need to be very wary of them.

Agreed. Again, I'm not an absolutist in regards to Free Speech. I do believe there are some common sense style strictures that can be placed on it. I am completely behind the ACLU requiring that protests be unarmed, or they won't support them for instance. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

26 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Free speech absolutists are totally oblivious to the paradox of tolerance. 

Is that the title of the new James Bond flick? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

You seem to be mixing up something like general bigotry with racism.  A member of the dominant culture might be the victim of bigotry but not racism.  A black person being mean to a white person at Target isn't an example of racism.

All white people benefit from white supremacy in some way.  This isn't the same as saying all white people are racist.   

The words have become synonymous at this point, both here and in general. I don't expect you to remember, but during the campaign I kept saying that Trump is clearly a bigot, but it's unclear if he's truly a racist (we sure know that he is now) and literally everyone on this forum said I was splitting hairs and that he is a racist. And yes, a white person can be the victim of racism, it's just significantly less common and impactful on the white person's life.

As to your line about all white people benefit from white supremacy, I agree, but with one small caveat. All white people don't benefit to the same degree. Take @Mexal and I for example. We're both white and Jewish. So yes, we and are families have benefited from white supremacy, but at the same time it's negatively impacted us in other ways. 

Lastly, we've seen several people make claims that white people can't experience racism and/or that all white people are racists. If your goal is to decrease racism in the United States, why would you want to start your argument with such hostile and controversial statements? You have to know that it's going to hurt your ability to persuade white people who struggle with understanding racial issues. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

As I said, it ultimately doesn't matter why you choose to support the Nazi side, only that you do so. 

That seems like a rather unfair interpretation of ME's larger argument, that free speech should largely be protected and that replacing free speech with political violence is almost always unacceptable. I think it's fair to disagree with that in the margins, but it's also a generally accepted view. I understand the counterargument you've made to this, and it has some validity, but you're never going to convince people that your view on the issue is the correct one if you start labeling people who disagree with you as Nazi sympathizers or other derogatory terms. Take old @NestorMakhnosLovechild for example. He no longer posts here, but I think he made a lot of interesting and correct arguments on SOME issues (others were just terrible). However, he rarely won people over, and that's by and large because he was demonstrative jerk to anyone who even slightly disagreed with him. Don't go down that path. 

[TerraPrime]

One problem, and it's a common one, in internet discussions on race issues is that those on the liberal side who are well-versed in the topic use terminology that the other side either is not aware of or that they refuse to accept. 

The term "racism" means different things to the different audience. To white people, when a black person says mean things about white people, that's "racism." To us, that's not "racism" -- that's personal racial biases.  The struggle has many fronts, and while one front is on the personal level involving one-on-one interactions, the other front in addressing racial inequality is about structural and institutional racism. When black communities are disproportionately the targets of predatory loan practices, or when black youths are disproportionately murdered by LEOs, or when black entrepreneurs are disproportionately rejected for loans - those are the racism that we want to address and correct. I am not interested in correcting a random person's opinion about race issues, per se. In other words, if Sarah wants to think that black men don't make good fathers and would dissuade her daughter from dating one, that's really not what I lose sleep over. It's still wrong, of course, just like a black mother thinking her black daughter dating white men is unacceptable is wrong. 

 

So when people say that white people cannot experience racism, what we're saying is that there are no institutional racism directed against white people, because institutional racism was created by white people to protect white advantages. Does every single white person benefit from every single artifacts of institutional racism? Most likely not. But it is not wrong, in the specific context of institutional racism, to say that white people do not experience racism. 

 

[Kalbear]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That seems like a rather unfair interpretation of ME's larger argument, that free speech should largely be protected and that replacing free speech with political violence is almost always unacceptable.

Then maybe you should say that and also say that Nazis are the exception to it. 

Or that there is no remote possibility of Nazi speech being free speech and free from political violence, because its mere existence is political violence.

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

but you're never going to convince people that your view on the issue is the correct one if you start labeling people who disagree with you as Nazi sympathizers or other derogatory terms.

Again, it's not a derogatory term if it's describing things accurately. If you're saying that Nazis should have the right to speak freely you are, without a doubt, saying that you sympathize with them. If you are condemning violence made on them by others you are, without a doubt, saying that you sympathize with them. 

I'm not sure how this can be any clearer.

If that bothers you and you don't think of yourself as a Nazi sympathizer, perhaps you should figure out why that's the case. 

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Take old @NestorMakhnosLovechild for example. He no longer posts here, but I think he made a lot of interesting and correct arguments on SOME issues (others were just terrible). However, he rarely won people over, and that's by and large because he was demonstrative jerk to anyone who even slightly disagreed with him. Don't go down that path. 

Sometimes the goal of speaking against something is not to win anyone over. Point of fact, there is almost no chance of me winning anyone over on anything on the internet. I'm totally aware of this. 

Sometimes the goal is simply to show to others that yes, this kind of thing is unacceptable to talk about in this community, that it will not be unchallenged, and it will be countered. Sometimes the goal is to ensure that everyone reading sees that what this behavior is is not normal, is extremist, and is not okay. That if you're going to sympathize with Nazis for whatever reason - including lofty bullshit goals about freedom of speech when said speech is advocating extermination of myself and others - then yes, you're going to be called out as a Nazi sympathizer because you are indeed sympathizing with Nazis.

You are saying that it is more important for them to be able to say they want to kill me and it is more important for them to stalk me than it is for me to live a life fairly uninterrupted and safe from harassment. That my kids should be subjected to slurs and harassment because it is more important for someone to speak their mind about how my kids do not deserve to live based on their parentage.

So yeah, I'm going to call people who say that they should have that right sympathizers with that. 

 

[Rippounet]

28 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

To white people, when a black person says mean things about white people, that's "racism." To us, that's not "racism" -- that's personal racial biases.

Nvm.

[OldGimletEye]

I don’t really have a problem with the term “racism” meaning “prejuidice + power”. It seems like a sound enough concept to me because it seems likely that a dominant group would be able to enact it’s prejudice more severely than a group that is not dominant. 

What I do have a bit of a problem with is that sometimes I see some people on the left simply saying “well, that can’t be racism...”  and then not explaining very well why they are using that term in a particular way or why there is a need to have a very specific term which captures the essence of the prejudice + power concept.

I’m not a sociologist by training, so somebody, correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s my general understanding that the “prejudice + power” definition of the term racism started around the 1990s and has been generally accepted within the field of sociology since then.

But, it would seem, that the dictionary definition of that term seems to be mainly the one of just prejudice. And it would seem to me that many people, particularly those who may not have attended college, may often think of the term “racism” by its dictionary meaning. And that seems to me what causes the confusion and angst about that term.

It also seems to me that if you know lots of people think of the term “racism” by it’s usual dictionary meaning, then it might behoove you to slow down a bit and explain why the term should have a meaning beyond the way it’s usually defined in the dictionary and why it should have the “prejuidice + power” connotation, rather than just saying, “well, there can’t be racism against white people….”. 

And keep in mind, that some of the folks, who only know the dictionary meaning of racism and not its sociological meaning have not gone to college or maybe don’t have the best educations. So simply telling them that white people can’t be affected by racism, without explaining why we need a particular term that captures the prejuidice + power combination, comes off perhaps just slightly cl assist.

So, in sum, I’m fine with racism being defined as “prejuidice + power”, but realize there are some folks who have never heard that definition, and are thinking in terms of the dictionary definition, when you go to explain it.

[polishgenius]

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm not sure how this can be any clearer.

Well, you're insisting on using the word 'sympathiser' to mean something it doesn't, I'm not entirely sure why.  Enabler? Sure. Complicit? Maybe. Like I say I entirely agree that Nazis shouldn't be allowed to air their views and certainly not to march and protest. But 'Nazi sympathiser' specifically means someone who agrees with Nazi positions and neither ME nor Tywin have ever done that that I've seen. So I understand why they're resisting your use of the term.

So it could be clearer.

[Rippounet]

8 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

But, it would seem, that the dictionary definition of that term seems to be mainly the one of just prejudice. And it would seem to me that many people, particularly those who may not have attended college, may often think of the term “racism” by its dictionary meaning. And that seems to me what causes the confusion and angst about that term.

Thanks OGE. I corrected my previous post after realizing that the definition used was not the one I know.
And I've spent waaay too many years in college.

[TerraPrime]

13 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And keep in mind, that some of the folks, who only know the dictionary meaning of racism and not its sociological meaning have not gone to college or maybe don’t have the best educations. So simply telling them that white people can’t be affected by racism, without explaining why we need a particular term that captures the prejuidice + power combination, comes off perhaps just slightly cl assist.

So, in sum, I’m fine with racism being defined as “prejuidice + power”, but realize there are some folks who have never heard that definition, and are thinking in terms of the dictionary definition, when you go to explain it.

Not everyone has the time nor energy to explain this concept. I try to do it as much as I can, but even so, there are days that I just can't muster the energy. 

It's also worth remembering that this is not an issue of being informed and then followed by agreement. In almost all cases, the person who's being educated on the actual context of that statement will refuse to accept the definition being used and will proceed to argue about the definition, or to divert the discussion back to their own definition. 

Arguing about racism and educating people is heavy lifting work. Yeah, those who can, should do it. And for sure, the more people who can articulate this the better it will be in the long run. But, man, I totally get why some people will just refuse, or are unable, to explain and educate in the middle of an argument. 

 

[OldGimletEye]

On 10/4/2017 at 7:01 PM, TerraPrime said:

Not everyone has the time nor energy to explain this concept. I try to do it as much as I can, but even so, there are days that I just can't muster the energy. 

It's also worth remembering that this is not an issue of being informed and then followed by agreement. In almost all cases, the person who's being educated on the actual context of that statement will refuse to accept the definition being used and will proceed to argue about the definition, or to divert the discussion back to their own definition. 

Arguing about racism and educating people is heavy lifting work. Yeah, those who can, should do it. And for sure, the more people who can articulate this the better it will be in the long run. But, man, I totally get why some people will just refuse, or are unable, to explain and educate in the middle of an argument. 

 

I'd say though if you can't take the time to explain why you're using a term in a very precise and particular way, then probably you shouldn't bother to mention it.

And certainly, maybe the person you are talking to, might not at first accept the sociological meaning, but at least they know where you are coming from and understand the rationale why you are using the term in a particular way.

And I've been around the block enough to know, you're not always going to change somebody's mind during the first argument. But, you might, just might, get the wheels turning in their head a bit.

[Kalbear]

18 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Well, you're insisting on using the word 'sympathiser' to mean something it doesn't, I'm not entirely sure why.  Enabler? Sure. Complicit? Maybe. Like I say I entirely agree that Nazis shouldn't be allowed to air their views and certainly not to march and protest. But 'Nazi sympathiser' specifically means someone who agrees with Nazi positions and neither ME nor Tywin have ever done that that I've seen. So I understand why they're resisting your use of the term.

So it could be clearer.

How does sympathizer mean something other than 'give sympathy for'? I wasn't aware that nazi sympathizer meant someone who agrees with Nazi positions; I thought it meant 'someone who helps Nazis do what they want or supports Nazis'. I'm using it in the same kind of way that this WaPo article does, where some sympathizers were those who thought Nazis were cool, and others were those who didn't like them but simply thought they were going to win, and weren't going to oppose their viewpoints or their ability to say them. 

But sure, I'll be more specific if that makes it clearer. @Manhole Eunuchsbane, would you prefer Nazi Enabler or Complicit in Nazi Propaganda? You can use either, and it'll be extra funny if you put it as your custom title.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

I do as well, but I have zero hope with a Trump lapdog being in there. Which btw, idk if anyone saw this article yesterday, but he got slap down by Ginsburg lol. When I first saw the headline I thought she may have literally slapped him. 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ginsburg-slaps-gorsuch?mbid=social_facebook

Gorsuch is pure scum. He is as prickish as his reputation paints him to be and as scummy as his face shows him to be. He is also as shit as his supporters are.

Yeah, Gorsuch is awful. He manages to be worse than Scalia even, mainly by being even more pro police. He's not the swing vote here though, Kenney is, and so something big may come of this case. It's the only big case I have hope for this term. We are going to get royally screwed over and public unions are in trouble. But the gerrymandering case is likely the most important.

Partisan Gerrymandering Got the Sotomayor Treatment
The justice has a knack for crafting simple, devastating questions. She was at her best in Gill v. Whitford.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/10/sonia_sotomayor_s_simple_devastating_question_in_gill_v_whitford.html

The GOP’s Best Tax Reform Idea Is Dead, and Its Next-Best Idea Is Dying

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/10/gops-best-tax-reform-idea-is-dead-next-best-idea-is-dying.html

Mr. Monopoly Is the Consumer Protection Hero We Need

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/10/04/at_the_equifax_hearings_a_mr_monopoly_photobomb_is_drawing_attention_to.html

 

[TerraPrime]

So... I don't endorse slavery, and I object to it, but I fully support the Confederate States' right to impose their own set of laws regarding slaves. 

 

That sounds about right?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Kalbear said:

But you're totally cool with their right to threaten me and my family, right? At least in a general sense? 

At this point I'm really curious - what's your stance on banning firearms?

You're right, king of dipshittery is way classier.

No, of course not. On a personal level, I would understand you physically attacking a Nazi who threatened you or your family. I might be compelled to do the same thing under similar circumstance. I'm not cool with anyone being threatened in that manner.

To the second bit, I lost a bet in the NFL thread, which come to think of it might be the one way for you to see this suggestion reach fruition. I think I've lost more title bets than anyone else on that thread, and I'm not a welcher. So there's your in. Not sure when the old bet expires though.