Yeah imagine why thinking in terms of individuals in a thread on systemic racism is not an utterly stupid thing to do? :chin:

Again, not a word from you about the changes that have already taken place, and more utter irrelevancies about other times and other places. — StreetlightX

Oh as if you read what I write?

I've persistently said that good things will come out of this and things have improved and the one of the biggest issues here is that there is a consensus here, the vast majority Americans do think that excessive force by the police is problem.

However if I then state that we have been here, we have had similar outrageous acts from the police, there have been various committees inspecting these incidents and police reform have been implemented yet these things happen, for some reason you get quite angry and tell me it's utterly irrelevant and I'm crazy.

I hope you realise how extreme the people you're debating in this thread are.

Baden and StreetlightX are batshit crazy leftists who say all kinds of stupid nonsense, Benkei is possibly even worse and Isaac seems no better. I mean you probably already noticed this by how they're giving you grief about saying random, unrelated people shouldn't have their lives ruined because people are angry about systemic racism.

These people don't think about things in terms of individuals and talking about things in these terms will get you nowhere here. — Judaka

:clap: :up:

However I wouldn't say their batshit crazy as then there isn't any reason continue any discussion. I do believe in the intellect of people in the PF, even if they have totally opposite views to me (which even that usually isn't the case). This issue gets tempers up and is prone to make people misunderstand others. However if on this site discussion is impossible, that's really an ominous sign of the times we live in.

Has it occurred to you yet that you're the most racist, classist, sexist, hateful poster on the forum? Nobody brings up race more, nobody brings up gender more, nobody brings up class more than you. Nobody prejudices against groups like you, nobody characterises people by their groups like you.

There's no reason to be charitable towards you just because you claim about the real issues. Same as there's no reason to be charitable towards people who burn and loot shit or beat or kill because they claim to care about the real issues. You can deludedly praise yourself while participating in the same group-based prejudicial bullshit that constitutes the problem, however, people shouldn't be wasting their time taking you seriously.


Each of them are different. StreetlightX is absolutely not worth talking to and you have 0% chance of making any progress with him.

The others, I don't know well enough to say, however, I think it's less about the forum and more about the people participating in this thread.

Why this obsession with consensus? Consensus is not a political value. It is completely agnostic as to whether things remain terrible, or whether things improve. Actually it's worse: insofar as the material situation is terrible, the call for 'consensus' is a call to stall change, to compromise on it, and to continue the shitty way things are. I mean it when I say: consensus is poison. Forget about it. Nobody wants 'consensus' with a society that kills black people at outrageous rates. Nobody but those brought up on Disney movies want that. Hell, even Disney movies kill their bad guys. Consensus is anti-political crap. To quote MLK:

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured."

Your arguments are those of the 'white moderate' who wants 'peace' - in your case, 'consensus' - for its own sake - a 'greater stumbling block than the Ku Klux Klanner'.

Has it occurred to you yet that you're the most racist, classist, sexist, hateful poster on the forum? Nobody brings up race more, nobody brings up gender more, nobody brings up class more than you. Nobody prejudices against groups like you, nobody characterises people by their groups like you.

There's no reason to be charitable towards you just because you claim about the real issues. Same as there's no reason to be charitable towards people who burn and loot shit or beat or kill because they claim to care about the real issues. You can deludedly praise yourself while participating in the same group-based prejudicial bullshit that constitutes the problem, however, people shouldn't be wasting their time taking you seriously. — Judaka

Good. I don't want charity from people like you. I want you to seethe and writhe and bitch.

Nobody prejudices against groups like you, nobody characterises people by their groups like you. — Judaka

Baden and StreetlightX are batshit crazy leftists who say all kinds of stupid nonsense, Benkei is possibly even worse and Isaac seems no better. — Judaka

Worth a chuckle. But let's get back on topic.

From page one, people have been condoning violence and you still have people condoning violence so has this thread ever not been talking about that?

What's absolutely obvious is that the US has a long list of unaddressed, systemic problems and social issues. There's either no progress on solving many of these issues or they're getting worse.

What's also obvious is that US policy disregards public opinion and there's a long history of that.

So yes it's pretty sad that groups like BLM are leading the charge on any issue but if the group was ideal it probably wouldn't make any difference. If the people dedicating their lives to making a difference aren't then us who discuss things on the forum definitely aren't.

Nonetheless, can't really ignore the leftist echo chamber who get stuck debating only the very worst of their ideologies because that's all they ever get challenged on. You can make any thread and make some good points and say some smart things but then you'll let slip some "white males" and the thread is done.

We'll see how well you stay on any topic that isn't about leftists condoning violence or leftists talking irresponsibly about groups. You'll get challenged on your bullshit then you'll debate it and you will never discuss anything of substance. Anyway, I'm out.

[Another off-topic and prejudicial rant about leftists]... Anyway, I'm out. — Judaka

:yawn:

Prejudicial? Please, spare me.

You can't be honest with yourself and what this thread is. That's fine, I didn't expect to make an impact.

I condone violence. Stand your ground, wimps! Someone violating your human rights? See the bastards to their graves pronto.

When I described the systemic issues in another thread, you agreed with my characterisation, and that the problems were incredibly severe and hard to shift. You still said I should be dismissed entirely. I don't know what to make of that. You agree the problems are severe, you agree that official channels have failed racialised communities in America, and by the looks of it you broadly agree with what tangible solutions and police redressals are being demanded and enacted.

Despite that, the overwhelming majority of your posts on the issues have been to condemn protesters doing property damage and to condemn the "crazy leftists" who are talking about the problems you agree exist rather than placing almost all the emphasis and attention on the actions of rioters.

The entire point of frustration is that you are placing all the emphasis on the actions of rioters, not on the problems. Despite alleging to want to discuss the problems leading to the riots.

It's a performative inconsistency which is extremely frustrating.

Congrats, you have achieved the necessary level of radicality for admission to the crazy batshit leftist club. @fdrake Mm, there's a sop thrown to the obvious problem and then every other effort made is to block conversation on dealing with it.

Actually it's worse: insofar as the material situation is terrible, the call for 'consensus' is a call to stall change, to compromise on it, and to continue the shitty way things are. I mean it when I say: consensus is poison. — StreetlightX

I disagree.

Consensus isn't about giving up, not faltering away from your objectives. It's not equivalent to compromise or upholding the status quo. Consensus is the true objective for real change to be successful. You want real change? That happens when there's a general consensus on what ought to be, what is wrong or right, when all those annoying people who otherwise don't agree with you do agree on a certain issue. That's true change. The left and the right will surely remain, yet on what they can agree on can and will change. That should be the objective.

Or you think you can just defeat the other side? You think that the other side can be terrorized into silence, that they fear so much to be silent? Nonsense, democracy will ensure that there will be voices both on the left and the right always. Peace, prosperity and successful policies won't eradicate the divide either. What works is when the other side accepts your point as his or her own.

Or do you think that cannot be reached? Oh we can change.

A conservative would hold earlier the view that the king or emperor has the power because it was given to him by God. And they would quote from the Bible:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good.

And do conservatives believe today in this? No. The above quote isn't from the "Founding Fathers" or any constitution. I could give example how leftist and socialist views have also changed, but I guess that would anger you too much.

Yeah, I engaged Streetlight because I was bored yesterday. I usually don't engage him, but when I did originally engage him yesterday it was just to try to flush out his own position as opposed to actually arguing with him. I wouldn't waste my time with that.

I had fun though. He's a quick responder and he's not stupid. It was kind of like talking with an antifa member; as long as you manage your expectations when it comes to an actual, productive conversation and don't get too hostile with him it should be kind of fun. He's not a dumb guy he's just an extremist.

I've also somehow been having productive conversations with Benkei lately.

I don't think I've talked that much about the rioters but I think I've been pretty consistent.

I don't think that public opinion in the US is the problem, if we had many posters here defending police violence then I would be likely to ignore our differences and argue against that with you.

StreetlightX actually posted an interesting MLK quote about the "white moderate" who is almost more of a problem than the overt racist even though they agree in principle.

My view of this thread is that the overwhelming majority of posters here already recognise there is systemic racism, recognise the need to do something about it. For me to spend my time talking about how there is systemic racism and there is a need to do something about it any more than I already have would be pointless.

For me, the leftist is like the "white moderate", you agree in principle with the same things that I do but your approach is a problem. So I have talked about this problem.

Quote to me the poster who is defending systemic racism or who is denying it exists and I will happily argue with that person with you.

As for starting a discussion on an issue of substance, you see posts here and there of people who are trying to do that but it's lost in the "offtopic" debates which are over 90% of the posts here.


Unenlightened is already a known crazy leftist, no need to invite him.


Fair enough, I don't think there is any hope for Benkei either but good luck.

Unenlightened is already a known crazy leftist, no need to invite him. — Judaka

And there was me trying to be a gun toting right wing libertarian!

Quote to me the poster who is defending systemic racism or who is denying it exists and I will happily argue with that person with you. — Judaka

I moved all of that to the other s.r. thread, which you should know about since you've posted there.

but it's lost in the "offtopic" debates which are over 90% of the posts here. — Judaka

Laughable. It's you who don't know what the topic is and are proposing we "happily argue" here about stuff I made an entire separate thread for. Also:

For me to spend my time talking about how there is systemic racism and there is a need to do something about it any more than I already have would be pointless. — Judaka

Yes, your posts have been pointless and off-topic and you won't be missed. Goodbye.

Again here's the topic of the thread: Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done? and it will be kept strictly on-topic (off-topic posts will be deleted) as there is actually plenty to say about it.

(In case it isn't obvious, the thread is primarily aimed at people who care about the problem and seek to offer an analysis of it and solutions for it rather than those who don't care and exclusively want to complain about the negative side effects of the popular response or crazy leftists or ANTIFA :scream: etc etc. You can go post on the other s.r. thread for that.)

I'm well aware of your separate thread and fdrake is literally talking about a discussion we had in that thread. But yeah, you got me big time, totally rekt.

You want real change? That happens when there's a general consensus on what ought to be, what is wrong or right, when all those annoying people who otherwise don't agree with you do agree on a certain issue. That's true change. — ssu

A good part of the population base their ideas of what ought to be on 'how things are'... which is the same as saying they will only change those ideas if they are confronted with changes in the world. So if nobody does anything to change things, they won't change their mind... and consequently nothing changes.

I've also somehow been having productive conversations with Benkei lately. — BitconnectCarlos

I thought so too.

It's a bit of a tangent but since you're coming now from the individualist side on these topics I'm wondering about how some things works in your moral framework. What do you make of the right to self determination?

You want real change? That happens when there's a general consensus on what ought to be, what is wrong or right, when all those annoying people who otherwise don't agree with you do agree on a certain issue. — ssu

So are you suggesting that the media have no influence, that discernable structures of subjugation have no influence on children growing up, that existing laws don't affect how people behave, that social roles don't influence opinion...because otherwise it's evident that changing any number of those thing will have the requisite impact on opinion. There's simply no need to convince each person one-by-one using rational persuasion. They don't even need to agree mostly. Once you've set up more egalitarian structures the next generation will be more egalitarian.

democracy will ensure that there will be voices both on the left and the right always. — ssu

The left and the right of what? All you're saying here is that opinion won't ever be homogenous. The homogeneity of opinion isn't relevant, what's relevant is the qualities of the average around which it diverges.

So if nobody does anything to change things, they won't change their mind... and consequently nothing changes. — ChatteringMonkey

Why think that seeking a consensus is doing nothing? Why think it wouldn't mean trying to change views?

There's simply no need to convince each person one-by-one using rational persuasion. — Isaac

So nobody has to persuade you? You just go with the flock or what?

The left and the right of what? All you're saying here is that opinion won't ever be homogenous. — Isaac

Many issues like income distribution as a political issue go far longer than just few hundred years and do go somewhat along the lines of what is considered politically left and politically right (remember the Gracchi brothers from the Roman Republic). I don't think the political juxtaposition will disappear.

So if nobody does anything to change things, they won't change their mind... and consequently nothing changes.
— ChatteringMonkey
Why think that seeking a consensus is doing nothing? Why think it wouldn't mean trying to change views? — ssu

I think at some point dialogue doesn't do much, that is when your basic premisses are totally different... no amount of argument will change that, because those basic values are not a matter of rational argument or dialogue to begin with.

EDIT: If someone aligns his ideas on how the world is (say for example a conservative) he won't change his mind bases on ideas about how the world should be (otherwise he would be an idealist or progressive), he will change his views if the world changes.

I think at some point dialogue doesn't do much, that is when your basic premisses are totally different... no amount of argument will change that, because those basic values are not a matter of rational argument or dialogue to begin with. — ChatteringMonkey

We usually believe that our basic premises are totally different, and we believe our own strawmen depictions of the other. Some people want and have to see their fellow people as enemies. Populism is a great way to do that.

Of course the alternative for political dialogue is violence.

Consensus is the true objective for real change to be successful. — ssu

Huh? No, the objective is that black people aren't murdered by cops in public on film - among other things. Not these shitty meaningless slogans that are made for kindergarten children.

So nobody has to persuade you? — ssu

I am, as has been pointed out, a 'batshit crazy leftist' and yet my government is lead by the political equivalent of Benny Hill, so no, nobody had to persuade me. They just had to use the usual tactics of lobbying, media dominance, bribery and lies.

You just go with the flock or what? — ssu

My views are a product of my mental activity and my environment. Why would it be either/or?

I am, as has been pointed out, a 'batshit crazy leftist' — Isaac

I've been pointed out to be far worse.

yet my government is lead by the political equivalent of Benny Hill — Isaac

Now there's an underestimated/underappreciated comedian, perhaps too sexist for these times.

My views are a product of my mental activity and my environment. — Isaac

That's a great start. Especially the mental activity.