|
|
Post by daneaux on Nov 25, 2020 7:58:31 GMT -6
In your FACTS you cherry-pick stats and fail to show that blacks are shot by police at a much higher rate than whites. You can look up the racial make-up of the US and figure that out which I suspect that you did, but it didn't make your point so you left it out.
In your GREAT IDEA, you mention what is a great idea and not news to me. But it is not something that Blacks have the power to do. It's not even close to an alternative to rioting. And yes, it was poor messaging that doomed that effort to fail. If properly deivered, the message should not be "Defund the Police" but more like "Stop Making the Police do Jobs that don't like and are not good at".
But once again, you have failed to illustrate a single new alternative to violence. One that hasn't already been tried. One that Blacks can take on themselves because they cannot trust Whites to do it. Saying that progress takes time is particualry insulting to their cause. \
And if you can't even understand the purpose of me pressing you to admit that Blacks have reason to be angry, maybe you should go waaay back to this summer and wonder abut Trump's relationship with White Supremacists. It should have gone without saying, but when he repeatedly refused to say it, people began to believe the opposite was true.
And you say that progress takes time? Is 400 years not enough time? How much time does it take when people like you can't or won't even understand the problem?
You still refuse to acknowledge the problem. Blacks are greatly disadvantaged and don't see a way to improve that. That is why they resort to violence. Just like Trump, you refuse to say the simple words. And just like Trump, people have started to believe the worst.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mahatma__Ganhdi on Nov 25, 2020 9:38:31 GMT -6
"In your FACTS you cherry-pick stats"
Not really. I was making a different point and used the stats necessary to demonstrate that point, i.e., police killing people is a problem that affects all communities and therefore should be an issue that whites want to solve. This is important to understand from a messaging point of view. I will show you why further down in this response.
For the record, in debates, you should employ the principle of charity where you try to interpret the other's statements in the strongest way possible. It makes it easier to come to an understanding. This is hard to do, which is why messaging becomes very important. But we are both intelligent adults that can easily get past the desire to slam the other with shoddy reasoning by twisting a statement into something different that can be attacked.
" it didn't make your point so you left it out."
It was not relevant to the point I was making and has been posted several times in this thread already. Cherry-picking is when a stat IS relevant to the point you are making and then you leave it out.
"In your GREAT IDEA, you mention what is a great idea and not news to me. But it is not something that Blacks have the power to do."
It is a great idea, and blacks do not have the power to do it alone. That is why they need to get other communities on their side. I completely understand why one activist organizer focuses on cops shooting blacks, but when asked why she did not address police violence against whites, said it was a problem but that she didn't have time to organize against every societal problem. There is an economic principle about focusing on one thing. Everything from the division of labor to charitable giving; you get better results when you focus on one thing. That is why I pick one charity for all my annual charitable giving. A larger gift to one organization does more good than many small gifts to several organizations. My only argument is that dividing the problem by race to the point of leaving out groups that would provide synergy violates the principles of the network effect. She should seek out groups with a larger umbrella on the issue of police violence and network with them, and I'm sure she does.
"Saying that progress takes time is particualry insulting to their cause."
It is just a statement of fact.
"One that Blacks can take on themselves because they cannot trust Whites to do it."
What are you suggesting?
"And if you can't even understand the purpose of me pressing you to admit that Blacks have reason to be angry"
I never argued the point about their right to be angry. I argued their anger should not be turned to violence, and rioting and looting are not justified. I refuse to say it is justified because I do not believe it is justified.
"Trump's relationship with White Supremacists. It should have gone without saying, but when he repeatedly refused to say it, people began to believe the opposite was true."
To quote Joe Biden, "C'Mon Man!" Trump explicitly denounced white supremacists on several occasions and despite him saying it I still believe the opposite is true.
"And you say that progress takes time? Is 400 years not enough time?"
Obviously not. Not my decision. I was raised to judge people by the content of their character and I practice it to this day. My charity for the last 7 years has been to an inner-city scholarship fund. When I was a manager I made it a point to hire minority applicants. I think I was around a 75% minority hire rate. I am not the problem. I am not the arbiter of how long it will take. I do my part to help facilitate progress. When I see progressives hindering the progress they want with shoddy arguments and alienating needed partners, I try to bring them back round to logical reasoning and looking at the problem clear-eyed.
"You still refuse to acknowledge the problem. Blacks are greatly disadvantaged and don't see a way to improve that."
There are ways to improve it and the fact they are not seeing it is a problem. Your excusing violence is not helping.
|
|
|
|
Post by daneaux on Nov 25, 2020 10:18:17 GMT -6
One suggestion that we both neglected to mention was probably spelled out best by Barrack Obama in a speech he gave in September 2018. In it he said that the solution to every problem was to Vote.
2018 was an off-year election, but people did turn out to vote in higher numbers.
Moving on to this year, voter turnout was far higher than in 2016. What drove the vote out?
Voting against Trump was likely the biggest motive, but racism and cops killing blacks at a much higher rate than whites wasn't new. What was new was that there were on-going protest all summer long and those frequently turned violent. Because they turned violent, they made the news. Because they made the news, people learned about the issues. Because they learned about the issues, they came out and voted.
So without picking which statistics that I include to back up my thought, I would challenge the idea that violence is never the answer. Violence is how we had one Revolution to overthrow the oppression of white people. It was a great success. In just about 25-30 years, we began to challenge the authority of the Crown to tax us without representation and then proceeded to overthrow the mightiest Empire in the world. At last, White men were free of the tyranny and allowed to prosper on their own.
Then we had another war only this time to free enslaved Blacks. In just about the same amount of time, White people were able to wage war on their fellow citizens in the south and gain freedom for Blacks.
Only instead of getting their freedom, the fight had just begun. And it still rages today.
So we as a country have resorted to violence to protect our own citizens rights twice. Once for Whites which took about 25-30 years and once for Blacks that is now running on 200 years since the fight began in earnest. 400 years in total.
We have made huge progress quickly with violent protests and crept along at a snails with other means. Demanding patience from Blacks because "Progress takes a long time" may not have been intended as an insult, but it is just the same. When Whites won their war, they were free. Now we expect patience from them 157 years after we granted their freedom.
Check your privilege.
"One that Blacks can take on themselves because they cannot trust Whites to do it."
What are you suggesting?"
I'm suggesting that 157 years after White people granted Blacks their freedom and they still don't have it, they might just not trust us all that much. Did you really need that explained?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mahatma__Ganhdi on Nov 25, 2020 15:43:15 GMT -6
"One suggestion that we both neglected to mention was probably spelled out best by Barrack Obama in a speech he gave in September 2018. In it he said that the solution to every problem was to Vote."
I did mention it. "The way you get legislation passed is to get people with similar ideas and a willingness to serve to run for office and get them elected."
"was new was that there were on-going protest all summer long and those frequently turned violent. Because they turned violent, they made the news. Because they made the news, people learned about the issues. Because they learned about the issues, they came out and voted."
I have a different view. My thesis is that violence turned out the other side, depending on who did the deed. The turnout was a mix of things. Here is what I think drove the turnout and the predominant effect it had.
1. Covid gave people time to get into politics to a degree they normally wouldn't have had the time to achieve. This turned out more voters from both sides. Because of the general anti-Trump vibe in the country due to his mangling of the Covid response, this had a net benefit for the left.
2. The lockdown lead to measures that made it easier to vote. More voting always favors the left. That is why the right tries to restrict voting.
The last two major contributors regarding the protests, the messaging, good and bad, I'd attribute the following effects:
3. The violence of the riots and the looting made a lot of people want more law and order. This brings out more right-wing voters.
4. The State used violence against peaceful protests. That stoked up the left and drove them to the polls, or mailbox, in large numbers. Benefit to the left.
My thesis explains why Trump got over 70 million votes and I don't think your explanation adequately explains the turnout for him.
"Because they turned violent, they made the news."
It made the news regardless. Every night.
"I would challenge the idea that violence is never the answer. Violence is how we had one Revolution to overthrow the oppression of white people."
I didn't say violence is never the answer. Here is my quote, "If you choose violence then you need to understand how that method works and what it is called and how you win with it."
And in another post I said, "...my point that progress is hampered by violence, not facilitated. Except in acts of war, of course, where the goal is to kill people and destroy things in order to subjugate your target or run out an invading force, or otherwise coerce a group to some purpose."
So yes, you can go the violence route but you have to understand for that approach to be effective means you are going to war. That requires logistics, money, tech, equipment, manpower, etc. and you had better be stronger than the state you are fighting, in this case, the most powerful army in the world, and not an 18th-century style military.
"At last, White men were free of the tyranny and allowed to prosper on their own."
A few did but most were in poverty and lived a life that makes most of the poverty in this nation look almost appealing.
"We have made huge progress quickly with violent protests" and "the fight had just begun. And it still rages today."
You contradicted yourself. You said 'huge progress quickly' and then talk about how it is 200 years and still not done.
"Demanding patience from Blacks because "Progress takes a long time" may not have been intended as an insult, but it is just the same."
To 'insult' means to speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse. My pointing out the fact that progress has been slow is simply a fact. Our system of government is designed to be slow. If you accuse someone of insult for pointing out a fact then you will end up with a fact-free discussion and will not be able to address things properly.
"Check your privilege"
No one has ever been able to explain what they mean by that in the context of the conversation ongoing. And if you ask they usually come back with, See? You don't even know. Talk about poor messaging. I suspect it is just a non sequitur to end the discussion.
"Did you really need that explained?"
You misunderstood my question. I am asking you for a suggestion for a new alternative to violence that blacks can take on by themselves because they cannot trust Whites to do it?
|
|
|
|
Post by daneaux on Nov 26, 2020 6:34:13 GMT -6
check your privilege means that you should take a step back and recognize the inherent advantage that being white has gives us.
When you got pulled over by the police and let go, that was likely white privilege. When you go to a store and no one looks at you like a shoplifter, that is white privilege. When you are allowed to go into a restaurant without being properly attired while blacks are not, that is white privilege. Every time a white person gets away with something that a black doesn't, it is white privilege.
When you attend public schools in affluent areas that are better than public schools within the same system that are in areas that are predominantly black, that is white privilege.
When chain grocery and drug stores will operate in your neighborhood but not in black neighborhoods, that is white privilege.
Denying that it exists or feigning ignorance of what it is is also White privilege.
|
|
|
|
Post by daneaux on Nov 26, 2020 6:40:12 GMT -6
"Did you really need that explained?"
"You misunderstood my question. I am asking you for a suggestion for a new alternative to violence that blacks can take on by themselves because they cannot trust Whites to do it?"
You asked me a question and I answered it but I misunderstood your question?
As you rephrased it, it is the same as my question to you. I don't have a suggestion as to what they should do but to vote. The difference is that I can recognize that they have already tried everything to very little avail so far and that they have chosen violence as a last resort, not a starting point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mahatma__Ganhdi on Nov 26, 2020 9:01:17 GMT -6
"check your privilege means that you should take a step back and recognize the inherent advantage that being white has gives us" I know what it means. I asked what it meant in the context of this conversation. We are talking about what black people need to do to better their situation. In that context, CYP is a non sequitur. In my experience, it seems to be randomly trotted out when someone is ready to end the conversation. "I don't have a suggestion as to what they should do but to vote." Which I also suggested. "The difference is that I can recognize that they have already tried everything to very little avail so far" I have argued that they have had great successes in the past and can have even greater successes in the future by similar means and modern tech. I think it is clearly better for that population now than it was in, say, the 1950s, and has improved in every decade - even more rapidly in the last two decades. This is not to say there are not systemic problems that run deep. My argument is for them to not try to do it alone at this point, at least politically. You need the network effect and you get that by building bridges, not burning them down. That sounds hokey and cliched but it is the only thing that will work. Taking money from militarizing the police and investing in mental health squads and community policing are all great ideas that have not been implemented at scale so you can't say everything has been tried. There is a long list of ideas you can find online that have not been tried at scale but have had benefits in test cases. You know this, surely, because you seem to truly care about the problem and you're an intelligent person so I don't believe you haven't researched some of these policy ideas in some detail. My argument was they have to get more people from different communities on board and the way you get them is to network with them, grow that network, and find common ground, not burn and loot. The latter only serves to rile up a resistance. The network effect is exponential growth, by the way. That is how you win the vote. You think the things that worked to get legislation passed in the past will not work again. I think they can be enhanced because of modern technology, in many different ways, and produce results much more quickly. In short, you are a pessimist and that attitude is one of, "blow the thing down, I'll understand," and I am an optimist with the attitude of "Yes we can." I cannot take credit for that quote. In the end, I find your excusing the violence (and even thinking it is a net benefit to the cause) to be misguided, and I hope that I have demonstrated that there is a better way. Ideally, you want to do everything to help further your cause and grow that support and not do things that hinder it and excite your opposition and grows their numbers. You are more likely to win elections by increasing your turnout and not increasing theirs. “The arc of the moral universe is long and bends toward justice.” --MLK I think that is true. With modern technology, I think that bend will be exponential. But to get that exponential function you have to be sure of the inputs you add to that formula. Rioting and looting flatten the curve.  Slow gradual progress---------------->Sudden exponential progress |
|
|
|
Post by x on Nov 26, 2020 22:38:35 GMT -6
Okie has now been mathematically eliminated from this discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by daneaux on Nov 27, 2020 10:55:52 GMT -6
"My argument was they have to get more people from different communities on board and the way you get them is to network with them, grow that network, and find common ground, not burn and loot. The latter only serves to rile up a resistance. The network effect is exponential growth, by the way. That is how you win the vote."
And mine is that throughout history, exceedingly slow progress has been realized by peaceful means, while rapid progress has been achieved by violent means. Desperate people do desperate things. 157 years of empty promises will make you violent and with good reason.
Checking your privilege is very appropriate in this context because it could be very enlightening to try to imagine what it would have been like to have lived the life of a black person. Maybe if you took some time to think about the things that you take for granted that are denied to a black man. What if when you got pulled over on vacation while drinking you had been black. Likely, you would have at least been arrested instead of getting turned loose with a warning and griping about getting that.
And a big part of White Privilege is denying that you benefit from it.
We've put a fine enough edge on this discussion. I get your point, but you refuse to accept mine. That's usually the way isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mahatma__Ganhdi on Nov 27, 2020 11:50:02 GMT -6
"will make you violent and with good reason."
It might make you violent, we disagree about the reasonableness of it. You killing my brother and then my friends getting angry and burning a building and stealing some shoes is not a reasonable response.
"it could be very enlightening to try to imagine what it would have been like to have lived the life of a black person."
Not the topic of discussion.
"We've put a fine enough edge on this discussion"
Let me whittle a little more. A great example that Okie brought up but in the wrong context -- Consider the history of Bloody Sunday. MLK was pushing for voter's rights but Johnson felt he had spent all his political capital on the civil rights act. He said he didn't have the power. MLK told his team, we will get him the power. The march from Selma led by John Lewis was designed to get the political capital. How it achieved this goal was simple non-violence in the face of certain violence. The Sunday Movie people were watching that day was Judgment at Nuremberg, and as people sat contented on their sofas the movie was interrupted to show live scenes of white cops beating peaceful marchers with clubs. That was the motivating force behind the success of the voting rights act. Johnson had his political capital.
Voting is the key and that is why I mentioned it early on. I think there should be an amendment to the constitution making it a requirement to vote.
Most people are not paying attention to what is really the main goal with the Trump debacle ongoing in the courts. He knows he lost and will leave on Jan 20. The point is not to overturn the election, it is to drive the idea of voter fraud so there is the political will to make voting harder rather than easier. If it stays as easy as it was this year to vote then the GOP will be in trouble in national elections for years to come. They know this and that is why they are trying to restrict voting. This is not new but this latest effort is particularly insidious.
Stacey Abrams said, "I don't have to break the law to make my point." Most, if not all, the leaders in the black voter movement and civil rights movement disavow illegal activity in their protests and political actions. I stand with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by daneaux on Nov 27, 2020 13:11:21 GMT -6
"We've put a fine enough edge on this discussion"
"Let me whittle a little more."
You don't need to mix my metaphors for me. I can do it just fine on my own.
|
|
|
|
Post by x on Dec 2, 2020 0:38:38 GMT -6
Here come the pardons!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mahatma__Ganhdi on Dec 2, 2020 16:00:20 GMT -6
Cannot pardon for state crimes. New York will not stop investigating Trump even if he tries to pardon himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by daneaux on Dec 3, 2020 9:29:22 GMT -6
I keep hearing comparisons to Nixon and thinking that if Trump was going to do the honorable thing like Nixon did, and just disappear, I'd be fine with a pardon. Even though his crimes are far more extensive and harmful to the country than Nixon's.
Even if honor was within Trump's make-up, it wouldn't work because like Shat said, he can't escape state and local jurisdictions. It's not a matter of whether he is prosecuted or not. It's a matter of who gets first crack at him. My money is on Vance but after deposing Ivanka yesterday, DC is moving up fast on the outside. It's going to be neck and neck down the stretch.
I remember in the late 70's the Gov. of the Three States of Tennessee straight-up sold pardons to murderers and got away with it until they inaugurated the new Gov. a few days early to stop some of them.
His administration is already under investigation for bribery-related matters regarding pardons for spending at Trump related places. (I might be mixing scandals there. There is one under investigation by the DOJ and one that is talk in the press.)
But yeah, he's probably made a whole lot of promises to protect people loyal to him so there will be pardons. They will make Mark Rich look like Mr. Clean.
On another Trump-related subject:
Did you know that Trump cannot legally reside at Mar-A Lago? His contract with the city says that no one can spend more than so many days there, or reside there. Yet his lists it as his place of residence.
Does that make his vote illegal?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mahatma__Ganhdi on Dec 4, 2020 15:10:04 GMT -6
That is what I call widespread voter fraud. No one committing fraud has a wider spread than his arse.
|
|
