US Politics: The Bully Culprit

[Rippounet]

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If hate speech is violence… then speech alone can be violent.  I would suggest protests have a duty to police this if they have participants who are engaging in anti-semitic hate speech if they believe such hate speech is violence.

Sure.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  See my point above.

Your point is all over the place, Scott - as we were talking about protests and refunding tuition - and you keep pulling us along before you finally get the point. So I will be frank as well in my discussion. The problem with protests for you seems not to be about what they say or do but, rather, the fact that they exist as an inconvenience. 

 

42 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

The black civil rights protestors of the 50s and 60s would have loved to sit down and have a serious discussion with state figures about rights. Unfortunately, black Americans in the South were brutalized for looking at white people the wrong way. There was no way to have that sort of discussion, and there was no way for their votes to count. So they took extreme measures.

Considering how inextricable the United States is with violence being committed by Israel in Gaza and pro-Israel lobbyists, do you think that protesters may feel like it is impossible to sit down and have a serious discussion about these issues? 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I’m never going to favor protesting.  I will sometimes agree the issues being protested are important and need to be addressed (Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians is absolutely an issue that needs to be addressed and the US should stop all arms sales to Israel because of it) but I will never think protesting is the best way to do it.

I can acknowledge it’s effectiveness during the civil rights movement.  But I see that as more of a clear cut issue than this one is.  The presence of pro-Hamas anti-Semitic protestors does bother me.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

The problem with protests for you seems not to be about what they say or do but, rather, the fact that they exist as an inconvenience. 

No.  I think with the civil rights movement coerced change was necessary due to the incredibly slow pace of change in the US.  But it is coercive and people react poorly to coercion.  So when we talk about coercive methods to force change blowback should be considered.

The evil corrected by the civil rights movement makes the blowback worth the cost.

 

Edited May 8 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  I think with the civil rights movement coerced change was necessary due to the incredibly slow pace of change in the US.  But it is coercive and people react poorly to coercion.  So when talk about coercive methods to force change blowback should be considered.

The evil corrected by the civil rights movement makes the blowback worth the cost.

....which tells me that you don't think that the evils that the US is empowering by Israel in Gaza are not worth the cost of any blowback. 

 

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m never going to favor protesting.

And there it is. The honest admission that this is ultimately about your dislike of protests. 

 

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I can acknowledge it’s effectiveness during the civil rights movement.  But I see that as more of a clear cut issue than this one is.  The presence of pro-Hamas anti-Semitic protestors does bother me.

A lot of issues like this feel a lot more "clear cut" now for many people because of hindsight. I personally know that there are many people in the South who now portray themselves as anti-segregation and pro-Civil Rights who definitely were NOT so during the 50-70s, who were against the protests by civil rights groups. They were also bothered by the presence of "extremists" in these groups. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m never going to favor protesting.  I will sometimes agree the issues being protested are important and need to be addressed (Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians is absolutely an issue that needs to be addressed and the US should stop all arms sales to Israel because of it) but I will never think protesting is the best way to do it.

I can acknowledge it’s effectiveness during the civil rights movement.  But I see that as more of a clear cut issue than this one is.  The presence of pro-Hamas anti-Semitic protestors does bother me.

At Brown, Evergreen College, and Middlebury then protests have gotten the administrations to agree to some of the student demands, including voting on divestment and making statements in support of a ceasefire.

So the idea that protest is always fruitless or irrational doesn't hold up.

The average person in the US can't do shit to stop what's happening in Gaza.  The tow people we can vote for that can do something are bad and worse on this issue.  The fact that we're so quick to crack down on people protesting genocide or something very like it, but so hesitant to do anything about it, should be revelatory.  

You don't like protests because they are inconvenient.  That's entirely the fucking point.  There is nothing in the electoral process that offers relief for the issue people are protesting.  This is the tool available to call attention to issues that are not being given any consideration.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

....which tells me that you don't think that the evils that the US is empowering by Israel in Gaza are not worth the cost of any blowback. 

 

And there it is. The honest admission that this is ultimately about your dislike of protests. 

 

A lot of issues like this feel a lot more "clear cut" now for many people because of hindsight. I personally know that there are many people in the South who now portray themselves as anti-segregation and pro-Civil Rights who definitely were NOT so during the 50-70s, who were against the protests by civil rights groups. They were also bothered by the presence of "extremists" in these groups. 

I appreciate your point.  I was born in 1971.  I’m 53.

[Larry of the Lawn]

41 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I have a point.  Is hate speech violence?

Then maybe just state your point instead of asking leading questions and then moving the goal posts.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

You don't like protests because they are inconvenient.  That's entirely the fucking point.  There is nothing in the electoral process that offers relief for the issue people are protesting.  This is the tool available to call attention to issues that are not being given any consideration.

I’ll repeat:

No.  I think with the civil rights movement coerced change was necessary due to the incredibly slow pace of change in the US.  But it is coercive and people react poorly to coercion.  So when we talk about coercive methods to force change blowback should be considered.

The evil corrected by the civil rights movement makes the blowback worth the cost.

[kissdbyfire]

21 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The presence of pro-Hamas anti-Semitic protestors does bother me.

Fair enough, they bother me as well. How do you feel about the presence of violent Zionist counterprotesters who keep trying to incite a violent response from the protesters? Like the man who, in the middle of the mess, yelled “kill the Jews” causing the police to react only for it to be shown later he was a Zionist activist?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Fair enough, they bother me as well. How do you feel about the presence of violent Zionist counterprotesters who keep trying to incite a violent response from the protesters? Like the man who, in the middle of the mess, yelled “kill the Jews” causing the police to react only for it to be shown later he was a Zionist activist?

Very troubled.  False flag crap.  

Edited May 8 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  I think with the civil rights movement coerced change was necessary due to the incredibly slow pace of change in the US.  But it is coercive and people react poorly to coercion.

Scot, there's a real problem about talking of progressive movements as "coerced change," as if any progressive cause should imply a cost-benefit analysis. It rests on the assumption that the baseline of society is a state in which people are "free" to go about their -economic- business without interference.
In other words, it implies that everyone should be "free" to be indifferent to other people's suffering, and that to forcefully bring their attention to it is "coercion."
It's not just that I don't adhere to such a view, I think it's patently false. A society in which people can systematically choose their own economic self-interest over collective social or moral issues is not "free," it's a dystopia that's hostage to the economic interests of the ruling classes.
It's also a society that can't be sustainable in the long-term, because of the loss of social coherence and trust implied by rising inequality, as well as the negative externalities of unregulated economic activity.
The individualism at the heart of such a society could easily be said to be un-christian . I would say it's in-human, because humans are social animals and human societies rest on the respect of the principles of equity and justice. Any society that promotes economic freedom at the expense of justice will sooner or later self-destruct - through unending social strife as well as unsustainable economic organization. Or, to put it differently, the proposition that "there is no such a thing as society" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the only thing it can lead to is turning Earth into hell for most of us.

We're already at that point I believe. I'm not the one saying it too, the analyses can be found in multiple works by "serious" organizations such as the CIA or the WEF.
Funnily enough, my defense of protest is far more relevant when talking about environmentalism, but if you can't even agree to protests against potential genocide, I don't think you could stomach the kind of protests that is necessary to transform our socio-economic structure.
 

Edited May 8 by Rippounet

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Scot, there's a real problem about talking of progressive movements as "coerced change," as if any progressive cause should imply a cost-benefit analysis. It rests on the assumption that the baseline of society is a state in which people are "free" to go about their -economic- business without interference.
In other words, it implies that everyone should be "free" to be indifferent to other people's suffering, and that to forcefully bring their attention to it is "coercion."
It's not just that I don't adhere to such a view, I think it's patently false. A society in which people can systematically choose their own economic self-interest over collective social or moral issues is not "free," it's a dystopia that's hostage to the economic interests of the ruling classes.
It's also a society that can't be sustainable in the long-term, because of the loss of social coherence and trust implied by rising inequality, as well as the negative externalities of unregulated economic activity.
The individualism at the heart of such a society could easily be said to be un-christian . I would say it's in-human, because humans are social animals and human societies rest on the respect of the principles of equity and justice. Any society that promotes economic freedom at the expense of justice will sooner or later self-destruct - through unending social strife as well as unsustainable economic organization. Or, to put it differently, the proposition that "there is no such a thing as society" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the only thing it can lead to is turning Earth into hell for most of us.

We're already at that point I believe. I'm not the one saying it too, the analyses can be found in multiple works by "serious" organizations such as the CIA or the WEF.
Funnily enough, my defense of protest is far more relevant when talking about environmentalism, but if you can't even agree to protests against potential genocide, I don't think you could stomach the kind of protests that is necessary to transform our socio-economic structure.
 

I will cogitat on this and respond after proper cogitation has been completed.  Thank you for giving me something to think about.

[Zorral]

Cause and effect?

KEY UPDATE
2:10 a.m. EDTU.S. paused shipment of thousands of bombs to Israel amid Rafah rift

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/05/08/israel-hamas-war-news-gaza-palestine/#link-WVYM7FR6IRAGHJIQFPFGYAXRRI

KEY UPDATE
17 min ago
Kerem Shalom crossing reopened, Israel says; U.N. says aid still held up

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/05/08/israel-hamas-war-news-gaza-palestine/#link-JWXUWQVSRFDVHKPWSD5AKI4JDI

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

And maybe sing kumabaya around a campfire, right? Everything will be great if we all just talk together, right? The Middle Eastern conflict has just been solved! 

Not to mention the divisions in the House.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I will never think protesting is the best way to do it.

How else will it stop?  Do not say, 'talk to each other'.  As it has been said forever, "Talk is cheap."  Good grief look at the 'talk' that comes out of the mouths and from the fingers of the current fascists just in the House.  You want violent?  They give you violent. And it gets other people riled up enough  to take their advised violent action.  And these sorts you aren't protesting, but kids on campus who have been all their lives subject to at the least that sort of gun violence that MTG and Ilks company are always advising and glorifying.  In my own personal experience, which happens to be ongoing right this minute in my own neighborhood, the violence doesn't come from the anti-Israel violence protestors but from the NYPD and the never say pro Israel violent, "counter protestors."

[Zorral]

The announcement early this AM that Biden has 'paused' the shipment of thousands of bombs to Israel -- do you honestly believe would have been made without the student protests?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The announcement early this AM that Biden has 'paused' the shipment of thousands of bombs to Israel -- do you honestly believe would have been made without the student protests?

My answer is I cannot know.  I think Biden cares about the Palestinians.  I think he cares about the Israeli civilians killed, raped, and kidnapped by Hamas.  But I’m glad he has taken this action.

Edited May 8 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Fez]

5 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The announcement early this AM that Biden has 'paused' the shipment of thousands of bombs to Israel -- do you honestly believe would have been made without the student protests?

Yep. I don't think Biden is making foreign policy decisions based on optics, or even based on polling. If he was, he never would've undertaken the Afghanistan withdrawal in 2021; which is the original issue that sank his approval ratings.

Messaging actions, like the various executive orders trying to forgive student loans, are based on polling I'm pretty sure. But that's it.

[Corvinus85]

7 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The announcement early this AM that Biden has 'paused' the shipment of thousands of bombs to Israel -- do you honestly believe would have been made without the student protests in an election year?

Added a bit to your post. We can't ever forget about the politics.