While the Democrats are running their dog and pony impeachment hearings, they were making sure we continue living in a police state

[Jolly_Penguin]

Such arrogant and condescending attitude is at least partially responsible for how and why Hillary lost the last election.

Too bad she didn't lose or you might have had a miniscule point.

You remain strong in your denial.

Who do you think will win the Republican Primary to try to deny President Hillary Clinton her second term?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Such arrogant and condescending attitude is at least partially responsible for how and why Hillary lost the last election.

Too bad she didn't lose or you might have had a miniscule point.

You remain strong in your denial.

Objective facts cannot be denied. Well, not by intellectually honest people.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You remain strong in your denial.

Objective facts cannot be denied. Well, not by intellectually honest people.

Indeed. The only mystery is why you insist on such intellectual dishonesty.

 

[RVonse]

You remain strong in your denial.

Objective facts cannot be denied. Well, not by intellectually honest people.

Indeed. The only mystery is why you insist on such intellectual dishonesty.

When truth-tellers rattle our cages, we get upset over having our comfortable make-believe world disturbed and thus that is my take with Koy. I believe he is intelligent enough to know who the current POTUS is. But rather than condemn the messanger, the more mature response would be to condemn those (main stream media) who have lied to him and have Institutionalized his entire world view.

I actually feel a little sorry for him.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Indeed. The only mystery is why you insist on such intellectual dishonesty.

When truth-tellers rattle our cages, we get upset over having our comfortable make-believe world disturbed and thus that is my take with Koy. I believe he is intelligent enough to know who the current POTUS is. But rather than condemn the messanger, the more mature response would be to condemn those (main stream media) who have lied to him and have Institutionalized his entire world view.

I actually feel a little sorry for him.

Little transparent children thinking they're at the adult table. It would be cute if it weren't so consistently and demonstrably pathetic. What's truly bizarre is that you both seem to think no one can see through you or your endless fallacies. You have no idea you're in a zoo.

 

[KeepTalking]

I say to you what I said to Loren. I agree that the issues and concerns are sometimes exaggerated and even on occasion exploited, but that is no excuse for you or anyone to incessantly do the same in the opposite way. One skew is as bad as the other. Unreasonably and inaccurately playing something up is no better than unreasonably and inaccurately playing it down.

The problem is that when you have a group fighting a social problem the war never ends--even if it's won. They just keep pretending the problem still exists.

That's what's happened with antidiscrimination efforts--while there certainly are racists out there their power has been broken. When we see systematic racism it's against whites, not minorities.

"while there certainly are racists out there their power has been broken"

Go tell that to Stephen Miller.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I say to you what I said to Loren. I agree that the issues and concerns are sometimes exaggerated and even on occasion exploited, but that is no excuse for you or anyone to incessantly do the same in the opposite way. One skew is as bad as the other. Unreasonably and inaccurately playing something up is no better than unreasonably and inaccurately playing it down.

The problem is that when you have a group fighting a social problem the war never ends--even if it's won. They just keep pretending the problem still exists.

That's what's happened with antidiscrimination efforts--while there certainly are racists out there their power has been broken. When we see systematic racism it's against whites, not minorities.

"while there certainly are racists out there their power has been broken"

Go tell that to Stephen Miller.

Their power to hold other races back has been broken. The Stephen Millers of the world are like high grade doors next to unprotected windows.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Indeed. The only mystery is why you insist on such intellectual dishonesty.

When truth-tellers rattle our cages, we get upset over having our comfortable make-believe world disturbed and thus that is my take with Koy. I believe he is intelligent enough to know who the current POTUS is. But rather than condemn the messanger, the more mature response would be to condemn those (main stream media) who have lied to him and have Institutionalized his entire world view.

I actually feel a little sorry for him.

Little transparent children thinking they're at the adult table. It would be cute if it weren't so consistently and demonstrably pathetic. What's truly bizarre is that you both seem to think no one can see through you or your endless fallacies. You have no idea you're in a zoo.

Because Hillary losing the white house to Trump never happened. Ok. So who is going to challenge Hillary from her second term in 2020?

 

[ruby sparks]

"Today we remember Rosa Parks’ bold stand and her role in ending racism."

GOP tweet, December 2013.

 

[ruby sparks]

When we see systematic racism it's against whites, not minorities.

To clarify, there is some discrimination in favour of minorities, yes. As you know I prefer not to use the loaded label racism for that, but at a pinch I accept that it could, strictly-speaking, be used. This has a consequence that some others are adversely affected. Again, you can call that racism against those others, but I myself prefer not to use those terms there either, for reasons given many times in detail, mostly to do with clarity and making important distinctions between different types of discrimination and their consequences.

But, to say that there is no systematic racism against minorities, or that we don't see it, just highlights how ridiculous your position really is underneath. Such claims belong in The Twilight Zone because they are irrational, unreasonable and patently wrong.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"while there certainly are racists out there their power has been broken"

Go tell that to Stephen Miller.

Their power to hold other races back has been broken. The Stephen Millers of the world are like high grade doors next to unprotected windows.

The Stephen Millers have returned to the White House, a place that has been barron of his type for decades. The racists are coming back. No, they aren't lynching people or the KKK isn't marching in DC (...yet), but it is usually best not to ignore symptoms until it is too late.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When we see systematic racism it's against whites, not minorities.

To clarify, there is some discrimination in favour of minorities, yes. As you know I prefer not to use the loaded label racism for that, but at a pinch I accept that it could, strictly-speaking, be used. This has a consequence that some others are adversely affected. Again, you can call that racism against those others, but I myself prefer not to use those terms there either, for reasons given many times in detail, mostly to do with clarity and making important distinctions between different types of discrimination and their consequences.

But, to say that there is no systematic racism against minorities, or that we don't see it, just highlights how ridiculous your position really is underneath. Such claims belong in The Twilight Zone because they are irrational, unreasonable and patently wrong.

So it's only racism if you don't like it. The same thing the other way around isn't.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"while there certainly are racists out there their power has been broken"

Go tell that to Stephen Miller.

Their power to hold other races back has been broken. The Stephen Millers of the world are like high grade doors next to unprotected windows.

The Stephen Millers have returned to the White House, a place that has been barron of his type for decades. The racists are coming back. No, they aren't lynching people or the KKK isn't marching in DC (...yet), but it is usually best not to ignore symptoms until it is too late.

They are trying to bring it back and are thus dangerous but that doesn't they have succeeded.

 

[KeepTalking]

The Stephen Millers have returned to the White House, a place that has been barron of his type for decades. The racists are coming back. No, they aren't lynching people or the KKK isn't marching in DC (...yet), but it is usually best not to ignore symptoms until it is too late.

They are trying to bring it back and are thus dangerous but that doesn't they have succeeded.

They are succeeding, unless you believe that the Trump admin's immigration policy, guided by Stephen Miller, is not racist to the core.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So it's only racism if you don't like it.

What you're talking about is the equivalent of Goliath complaining that David called him a "Philistine." Is it technically "racism"? Only a fucking pedant would say so and then only to specifically further denigrate an already oppressed group in support of the oppressors of that group.

Is that fair to those merely associated with the oppressor group? No. Is racism fair at all? No.

Can a reasonably intelligent individual parse the difference?

Evidently not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So it's only racism if you don't like it.

What you're talking about is the equivalent of Goliath complaining that David called him a "Philistine." Is it technically "racism"? Only a fucking pedant would say so and then only to specifically further denigrate an already oppressed group in support of the oppressors of that group.

Is that fair to those merely associated with the oppressor group? No. Is racism fair at all? No.

Can a reasonably intelligent individual parse the difference?

Evidently not.

In other words, it's only racism if you don't like it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So it's only racism if you don't like it.

What you're talking about is the equivalent of Goliath complaining that David called him a "Philistine." Is it technically "racism"? Only a fucking pedant would say so and then only to specifically further denigrate an already oppressed group in support of the oppressors of that group.

Is that fair to those merely associated with the oppressor group? No. Is racism fair at all? No.

Can a reasonably intelligent individual parse the difference?

Evidently not.

In other words, it's only racism if you don't like it.

Do you not understand the difference between striking someone and someone striking you in self-defense? Yes, technically "striking" is a common denominator in both scenarios, but the circumstances are radically different and only a total fucking moron--or an intellectually dishonest agent--would equate the two.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In other words, it's only racism if you don't like it.

Do you not understand the difference between striking someone and someone striking you in self-defense? Yes, technically "striking" is a common denominator in both scenarios, but the circumstances are radically different and only a total fucking moron--or an intellectually dishonest agent--would equate the two.

Except your racism isn't defending anybody. It's more akin to the cycle of abuse we often see in families--the kids are abused and grow up into being abusers.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

In other words, it's only racism if you don't like it.

Do you not understand the difference between striking someone and someone striking you in self-defense? Yes, technically "striking" is a common denominator in both scenarios, but the circumstances are radically different and only a total fucking moron--or an intellectually dishonest agent--would equate the two.

Except your racism

isn't defending anybody.

Wrong. Racism is an attack by the oppressor power structure against the oppressed disempowered structure, not necessarily any one individual. That's the whole point, in fact; that there are no "individuals," they are all reduced to one single hated "other." A blow to one oppressed is a blow to all oppressed.

The reverse, however, is not the case. If an oppressed individual strikes back--either directly or indirectly--it is just the one oppressor that may be harmed, but it will then be the entire oppressed that will suffer the consequences.

Iow, a master can strike as many slaves as he desires, but if just one slave strikes a master--or a member of the master class--then ALL the slaves will suffer. It's the NATO of social relations.

It's more akin to the cycle of abuse we often see in families--the kids are abused and grow up into being abusers.

Fundamentally wrong. In that cycle, a parent abuses their child and then that child grows up to abuse their child, but that's the point; they can only abuse the vulnerable--i.e., their own children--and not turn around and abuse their parents, which is what one would intuitively think happens all the time, but in fact rarely does (because of the psychological side effects of this kind of abuse).

Even if you are never once racist yourself, the fact that you are white means you are a member of the oppressor class and thereby protected. You might be caught in the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time and pay the price, but then what happens? The oppressor class will strike back en mass and in overwhelming force in a myriad of different ways to keep the oppressed class oppressed en mass. It won't just be the individuals that struck you that's for sure; it will be the entire neighborhood at the very least that will get reprisals directly and then on a broader level, other ripples will be felt.

That can (and is) anything from economic to denying access to better schools and living situations and police treatment and just a general sense of you're not welcome here.

You want to reduce it to individual behavior, of course, because that's the excuse; that's the false equivalence, but it's never individualized at the oppressor level. It is always "they" not "this guy I know." Let's go get us some niggers to make an example of! Never, This one guy did me wrong and he needs to pay!

So you can't then turn around and omit that when focusing on reactive responses.

50 white pillars of the community in hoods routinely meet and go get themselves any nigger they can find every month to lynch as an example to all other black people in the community is in no way comparable to this one time last year, a black guy beat up a white guy in a bar just because he was white.

Particularly when you then later find out that the black guy was then caught by the 50 pillars in hoods and lynched for his actions.

 

[ruby sparks]

I agree with a lot of the above, but I would have three quite large caveats.

First, imo it's getting dangerously close to saying that white people (who we agree are the dominant/predominant class/group, especially in the 'west') can't be victims of racism. Imo they can. It is just that it is by and large of a different order of severity and extent, when it happens. In other words, they are protected, but not completely. How much they are protected depends on their circumstances. Poor, disadvantaged whites may not be protected very much. And I agree that this group have been somewhat neglected when it comes to public or social policies.

Second, are there still lynchings? We should keep our analysis up to date and relevant, I think, otherwise we are talking about the past. The past may have left relevant legacies to the present in various other ways however.

Second, my views on whether this or that act of discrimination is or isn't racism might be well-known to anyone who had read my many previous posts in the forum. For example, AA in the USA in favour of (for example) blacks ends up being discrimination against, for example, whites. Technically, it could be called racism, in the strict sense, but imo there are too many differences between it and what is commonly understood (and defined) as racism for it to be put on a par with or conflated with that, in its many forms, even in principle, let alone in terms of extent or severity.

Should we be unconcerned, either about racism against whites, or about discrimination against whites? Imo, no. But when discussions overwhelmingly dwell on this, as they often do on this forum, it is the tail wagging the dog. Furthermore what I would call actual racism, against blacks for example, is routinely minimised and sometimes even denied. The fiasco in the Long Island Estate Agent investigation thread is just one recent example of many.