Upsetting people is easy and people are selfish, you want to argue otherwise?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPaBXcEVpOE

James Baldwin makes two points in the fragment between 7:14-8:04.

Baldwin thereby shows a sense of self-awareness that is utterly lacking in today's protests.

Upsetting people is easy and people are selfish, you want to argue otherwise? — Judaka

No I agree systemic racism is pretty upsetting and if anyone gave a shit about their own self well-being they'd want to do everything in their power to see the end of it.

No I agree systemic racism is pretty upsetting and if anyone gave a shit about their own self well-being they'd want to do everything in their power to see the end of it. — StreetlightX

Very well, but what do we see as the predicted outcome of the current awakening to racial inequities? Is it that people will do as you suggest and throw their very being into its elimination, or will they march while the marches take place and then go back to business as usual, or will they hold their breath until all this passes, or will they recommit to protecting the institution that they never thought racist in the first place?

My prediction is that they will not do as you think they should, but that it will likely be one of the other approaches. Leaving aside the question of how bad and systemic the problem truly is, unless you are the one oppressed, it is unlikely you will spend the time trying to resolve the problem, whatever it is. Will the white middle class Democrat from the mid-west really vote for the person who wishes to defund the police department or who stands in unity with the person who riots in the streets? Will they kneel when the flag is raised? I seriously doubt it. What do you expect the Asian immigrants will do or even the Latino immigrant? Trump did not win the last election from just stirring up his base of FoxNews Republicans. He won by taking states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio.

There's all this talk about how much progress these riots have brought about. My point is that it is far from clear what the final result will be. The opposition to the riots has been largely silenced to where it has become politically incorrect to object, so much so that people pretend to care more than they do. The 2016 polls showed Trump didn't stand a chance. It's because those folks don't speak except at the polls.

The New England liberal, the black southerner, the west coast environmentalist, the union worker, and the Latino immigrant are all cobbled together under the same party. What is going on here is not a unifying issue, and how it plays out might be very different from how is expected.

The idea of educational opportunity in the OP (from a thread merged into this one Nuke) is a good one, imo. But it should be for all, again in my opinion. And the need for it is clear as day to anyone with eyes to see. Begrudge/deprive a person the resources/education to support themselves and you have even explicitly made a choice to either kill them or support them yourself. Your choice. No other options. — tim wood

As I stated in the post that you're responding to, public education is free for everyone and if you do well you can get a scholarship. There are so many different scholarships if you take the time to look. They're are even scholarships where the only qualification is that you have a particular color of skin - black.

If this isn't enough then what else are we asking for? We already have specific handouts for minorities and free education. So be specific in what else is needed. All I see are accusations, ad homs, generalities and platitudes, and no one is responding to what others are saying. Hypocrisy in cherry picking is what is dominating conversation.

Y'know - even if it were entirely true that the mention of race "scares off" potential allies - — StreetlightX

Your choice of words are so off the mark they fail to really exhibit the problem you are trying to get at.

It's not about race scaring off potential allies, it's about race being too narrow of an issue. Police brutality and corruption is a humanitarian issue, not a race issue. Racism is only a small part of police brutality. There are many other ways and people that police are corrupt, brutalize and take advantage of.

Take for instance some of the solutions currently being proposed.

- Banning chokeholds
- Banning no-knock warrants
- Establish a national database to track police misconduct
- Lower legal standards to pursue criminal and civil penalties for police misconduct

Notice how none of these are so narrow in scope as to address ONLY racism. These proposals are meant to address police brutality against all. These are the solutions I'm not "scared of", precisely because they are inclusive and not exclusive.

Are blacks supposed to be held to a different ethical standard than everyone else? If it is wrong to stereotype then it is wrong for everyone to stereotype which includes blacks stereotyping whites and police.

It is wrong to bite people. Lions don't know the difference between right and wrong. Biting is part of their nature. They are not held to the same ethical standards as humans that do possess this knowledge.

Is stereotyping part of a black person's nature so that the rest of us humans hold them to a lower ethical standard than the rest of us?

As I stated in the post that you're responding to, public education is free for everyone and if you do well you can get a scholarship. — Harry Hindu

I'm sorry, but if "it's free for everyone," then why are there scholarships? Apparently you know little about education in general and close to nothing about the realities of education in the US. Or perhaps you believe that a high school education in the US is all anyone needs - in the way of education - to build a good life on, in the US.

And you're further uninformed in that you apparently believe that all K-12 education in the US is at about the same level and quality.

If you want discussion free of "accusations, ad homs, generalities and platitudes, and [where] no one is responding to what others are saying. Hypocrisy in cherry picking is what is dominating conversation" - if that is what you want, then bring your arguments to an appropriate level, and don't do these things yourself.

And you did not address my completely non-racial point. If people are not educated to a level where they can support themselves, then others are going to have to support them. Agree? Disagree? It seems to me, then, that a free education - even through medical school for those who would be doctors - is nothing less than a good and sound investment. Period.

I am tired of the systemic Asian Supremacy of the United States. We need to stop the systemic Asian supremacy immediately.

I didn’t call you sleazy, I referred to your post as sleazy because it was elusive and deceptive in its meaning. Maybe not on purpose, though it seemed worded to combat previous posts.

I take it you agree then that white men, compared to women and black people, were in fact not disenfranchised or discriminated against in any meaningful numbers? — Benkei

You say white men and women weren’t disenfranchised or discriminated against, then add “In meaningful numbers” which is so subjective I couldn’t imagine being able to address your post. Nor could I be sure what was meant by disenfranchised.

At the time I was thinking of the tenant farmers and sharecroppers who most definitely were disenfranchised and victims of an economic plan that did not benefit them. Both white and black were caught up in this. Which is why I regard the issue of racism more in terms of poverty. All races are victims of greed and financial manipulation.

Are blacks supposed to be held to a different ethical standard than everyone else? If it is wrong to stereotype then it is wrong for everyone to stereotype which includes blacks stereotyping whites and police. — Harry Hindu

I find this deeply, deeply disingenuous - and thus either stupid/ignorant, or vicious. Discrimination is the point. And by discrimination I mean the ability to a) tell one thing from another, and b) on the basis of being able to to tell differences, to also know what things are and treat with each appropriately. There is, then, a big difference between stereotyping and discriminating. And I think you know that, which you should not in this context take as a compliment.

No I agree systemic racism is pretty upsetting and if anyone gave a shit about their own self well-being they'd want to do everything in their power to see the end of it. — StreetlightX

You aren't compelling or logical but if you get even angrier perhaps all of your political opponents will just yield in fear.

At the time I was thinking of the tenant farmers and sharecroppers who most definitely were disenfranchised and victims of an economic plan that did not benefit them. Both white and black were caught up in this. Which is why I regard the issue of racism more in terms of poverty. All races are victims of greed and financial manipulation. — Brett

On the basis of their skin colour?

I'll clarify by saying that my article did not preclude class injustices.

My prediction is that they will not do as you think they should, but that it will likely be one of the other approaches. — Hanover

Don't get me wrong, I think you're exactly right. I have no expectation, none whatsoever, that things will play out how I think they should. But I dare myself to be surprised. That's all. Everything I write is a a dare to be surprised. It's absolutely the case that 'the final result' will more than likely look different from what anyone expects. I'm under no illusions about that. No one expected these protests, the kinds of conversations they opened, the political atmosphere they birthed, the scale of what they are bringing about (perhaps never to be substantiated). Radical politics is not about fulfilling possibility so much as transforming what is possible - literally doing the impossible. The best I do here is keep a space for that kind of thinking alive. A better world is possible. If you think that's viable, then anything's on the table.

I asked you for specific solutions, but you don't have any other than to attack others for their ideas.

Are blacks supposed to be held to a different ethical standard than everyone else? If it is wrong to stereotype then it is wrong for everyone to stereotype which includes blacks stereotyping whites and police.
— Harry Hindu

I find this deeply, deeply disingenuous - and thus either stupid/ignorant, or vicious. Discrimination is the point. — tim wood

Exactly. Blacks are allowed to discriminate against whites and cops.

Exactly. Blacks are allowed to discriminate against whites and cops. — Harry Hindu

Where do you get "allowed to"? What exactly does that even mean? And keeping in mind my usage of
"discrimination," does it not seem to you that history tells us clearly that there is proper discrimination to be made by non-white persons about police and white people?

(And your first quote above does not appear to be mine.)

but what do we see as the predicted outcome of the current awakening to racial inequities? Is it that people will do as you suggest and throw their very being into its elimination, or will they march while the marches take place and then go back to business as usual, or will they hold their breath until all this passes, or will they recommit to protecting the institution that they never thought racist in the first place?

My prediction is that they will not do as you think they should, but that it will likely be one of the other approaches — Hanover

You mentioned four possible future outcomes, and you rejected the first one as least probable, because

Leaving aside the question of how bad and systemic the problem truly is, unless you are the one oppressed, it is unlikely you will spend the time trying to resolve the problem, whatever it is. — Hanover

Your first option may become much more probable if the momentum of the movement
“defund the police” can accelerate and bring the crash of the police as well as various affiliated
institutions. Likely, the whole movement is not just about the elimination of racial inequalities.
When we look at Seattle Autonomous Zone, it is difficult to imagine that we witness the radical
rupture, the “break with causality,” and the beginning of the revolution. So, all in all, you are right in your predictions. What will be the tangible broad social outcome of the current civil unrest? Will it break the framing of the one more large-scale media event? So far, as you mentioned, there is just one apparent result: the intensifying of political correctness. It is not clear if another decisive result will be Trump’s re-election. The domination of systemic racism
discourse makes Tramp's "Make America Great Again" rhetorics meaningless, so his campaign has to invent different one asap.

Where do you get "allowed to"? What exactly does that even mean? And keeping in mind my usage of
"discrimination," does it not seem to you that history tells us clearly that there is proper discrimination to be made by non-white persons about police and white people? — tim wood

We're not taking about history. We're talking about right now. How many cops and how many whites in the United States are racist. Give me an exact number or at least a percentage. What is it?

You keep making these accusations that blacks are legitimately scared of whites, but forget that far more blacks die at the hands of other blacks, and they are legitimately scared at their own race. If you want to point the statistics that blacks are killed by cops and a higher percentage relative to their population, then you should also acknowledge that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate relative to their population.

It is not clear if another decisive result will be Trump’s re-election. — Number2018

No predictions are really clear. It's all speculation, but I really can't see middle America finding anything acceptable about defunding the police. In fact, there is tremendous support for the police nationwide. It's just been silenced for the moment. I don't even think the African American leadership is totally comfortable with these attacks on police departments. Most big cities are Democratically controlled, meaning the mayors and police chiefs are typically Democrats and oftentimes minority. I'm not fully convinced that even inner city minority citizens want to see police withdrawal from their communities, as I've heard their complaints in the past were that it took too long in their communities for the police to arrive, if at all.

What is poised to take place is that in inner city communities with high crime rates, they will have fewer police, but in affluent communities where there is strong support for police, there will be more enforcement. How is it that this is a win for the inner city? It sounds like turning the clock back to me and abandoning those most in need.

No predictions are really clear. It's all speculation, but I really can't see middle America finding anything acceptable about defunding the police. In fact, there is tremendous support for the police nationwide. It's just been silenced for the moment. I don't even think the African American leadership is totally comfortable with these attacks on police departments. Most big cities are Democratically controlled, meaning the mayors and police chiefs are typically Democrats and oftentimes minority. I'm not fully convinced that even inner city minority citizens want to see police withdrawal from their communities, as I've heard their complaints in the past were that it took too long in their communities for the police to arrive, if at all. — Hanover

The domination of systemic racism
discourse makes Tramp's "Make America Great Again" rhetorics meaningless, so his campaign has to invent the different rhetorics asap.

The domination of systemic racism
discourse makes Tramp's "Make America Great Again" rhetorics meaningless, so his campaign has to invent the different rhetorics asap. — Number2018

What Trump needs to do is double down on his MAGA platform, and he will. There will be zero Trump supporters who will change their vote due to what you see as a major change in ideology.

What Trump needs to do is double down on his MAGA platform, and he will. There will be zero Trump supporters who will change their vote due to what you see as a major change in ideology. — Hanover

We will see. So far, we witness the complete pause. Trump, as well as GOP leaders are completely
silent for 9 days. Therefore, it is possible to assume that they are busy with rewriting of their regular
rhetorics. However, most likely, you are right again: rhetorics, as well as ideological platforms
are not important today.

Imagine if I put angry white faces in this thread.

It's really difficult to find any solutions to the present problem in this thread. It is mostly emotional rhetoric without any clear explanation of where the problem exists (system-wide or specific individuals who might or might not wield political power).

It's like asking a theist to define their god and they attack your for even questioning it's existence.

Take for instance some of the solutions currently being proposed.

- Banning chokeholds
- Banning no-knock warrants
- Establish a national database to track police misconduct
- Lower legal standards to pursue criminal and civil penalties for police misconduct — Harry Hindu

These are some of the solutions in the Democrat bill. Notice how there isn't a qualifier that these only apply to blacks or police actions against blacks. It is an All Live Matters bill.

If mandatory body and dash cams don't make it through then it is up to us to keep using our cameras every time we see police engaging with the public. You can even take out your camera and record your own interaction. "It's for your and my safety, officer."

If twice as many unarmed whites are killed than blacks then why aren't we seeing twice as many videos? Hmmmm?

How many cops and how many whites in the United States are racist. Give me an exact number or at least a percentage. What is it? — Harry Hindu

That is a fallacious statistical request. You should look at the statistics of how cops act towards black people.

You keep making these accusations that blacks are legitimately scared of whites, but forget that far more blacks die at the hands of other blacks, and they are legitimately scared at their own race. — Harry Hindu

They are scared of state police violence. They aren't scared of white or black people, they are scared about being killed based solely on the color of their skin by the violence monopoly of the state. In the worst neighborhoods, you could fend off violence with defensive violence, but you are not allowed to defend against the violence of the state. That's why no one can step in and save someone like George as he is slowly dying under the police officer's knee. If that had been done by someone else in the street, the people would have been able to save him.
"Black people were 24% of those killed despite being only 13% of the population."
https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/

If you want to point the statistics that blacks are killed by cops and a higher percentage relative to their population, then you should also acknowledge that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate relative to their population. — Harry Hindu

The differences in crime rates in terms of race is not an excuse for police killings. It's also ignoring the reasons for high crime rates within those communities. You seem to think that police violence is a detached form of systemic racism from the rest of society, but the very nature of systemic racism is that it exists throughout society. It's the systemic racism over the course of decades or hundreds of years that keep the segregation going, even though direct racist laws were abandoned decades ago.

You are arguing out of a notion of free will, when the deterministic nature of society is a proven fact. You cannot act or be acted upon in society without a deterministic causality link throughout history.

If the wealth built up in slavery is distributed among a majority of white people; if places like Tulsa, the "black wall street" gets destroyed, people killed in a massacre and their wealth stolen into the possession of white people: if housing laws segregated black people into parts of cities where the lack of wealth never increase the quality of life and no industries want to have shops... and so on, you will have a society that is built upon systemic racism since the system itself is governing how people "should" act within it.

A police officer is able to not be racist, but still enforce a racist practice of handling the job, because of the underlying systems.

To just claim that because crime is higher in black communities and because of that it's more common that black people get killed and that this is somehow a proof of there not being any systemic racism... is an extremely fallacious argument that ignores so many complex aspects of what systemic racism is about.

Your writing reflects a lot of what other people write, the surface level analysis of this issue. But in here, on this forum, I think there should be a demand for much better scrutiny of these questions than how the surface level Facebook-debates usually goes.

So first, are you a determinist or believer of free will? Do you think society acts separately from history and that history has no effect on the present events? Do you think that laws and regulations are the only forms of guidelines on which society behaves? Do you think that socioeconomic factors over long spans of time affect the conditions in which society acts and exists?

I see no such dive into these issues, only attempts at proving a point with biases and fallacious ideas. I think the discussion should get back into philosophical praxis, instead of these surface-level outbursts.

We're not taking about history. We're talking about right now. How many cops and how many whites in the United States are racist. Give me an exact number or at least a percentage. What is it?

You keep making these accusations that blacks are legitimately scared of whites, but forget that far more blacks die at the hands of other blacks, and they are legitimately scared at their own race. If you want to point the statistics that blacks are killed by cops and a higher percentage relative to their population, then you should also acknowledge that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate relative to their population. — Harry Hindu

99.9%. As to history, it's all history. And I make no accusations. But if you imagine there is no legitimacy to minority fear of police then you are very, very confused.

The question here is, are you gaslighting? Not a good thing if you are.

99.9%.

99.9% of white people are racist? Are you white? If so, then you're basically admitting that you're racist. Why should I listen to a racist on the subject of race relations? If you're not white then how do you know that virtually all whites are racist.

:mask:

How many cops and how many whites in the United States are racist. — Harry Hindu

How many are still tRump supporters? At least that many.

:clap:

That is a fallacious statistical request. You should look at the statistics of how cops act towards black people. — Christoffer

You're asking the same question. What percentage of cops are racist?

How many are still tRump supporters? At least that many. — 180 Proof

Evidence? No. I didn't think so. You surely would have provided it if you had it.

You're so much more capable if you'd just remove the politically patisan glasses.

You're like a top tier evolutionary scientist that still believes in creationism and intelligent design.

99.9% — tim wood

Racist.

99.9% of white people are racist? Are you white? If so, then you're basically admitting that you're racist. Why should I listen to a racist on the subject of race relations? If you're not white then how do you know that virtually all whites are racist. — BitconnectCarlos

He may say that he's part of the 0.1%. But it is still racist to generalize and stereotype individuals of any race. No matter what race you are.

Speaking truth to cower ...

Evidence? — Harry Hindu

A stupid question deserves a stupid answer. And evidence? Well, MAGAt, you certainly qualify (as per your racist apologia post history). :shade:

As his reply illustrated, your efforts are wasted.

Maybe not 99.9%. Maybe 100%, Or maybe 96.2%. And some more racist than others. The point is that you have not defined racist and I have. Being something-ist seems to be as water to a fish. Why do not you take a moment and try to figure out exactly what you think racism is - maybe you will understand then that it's all not-so-simple, although aspects of it certainly should be.