:roll: This is a confusing answer. What task is over and when?I said "Elections are utterly trivial in political terms" as in the political task is over by the time of the election, the dye is already cast the election is just to see what colour the cloth turns out. — Isaac
Hence if the democratic system works, at least some party will respond to it. Or then the people can form their own political movement.The populace demanding it, however, is far from trivial. — Isaac
No. What just rang to ear was this attitude that elections are trivial and nothing happens without people protesting in the streets. That it has to be a precursor for any change simply doesn't show much if any trust in the democratic system. Or then you simply have come to the conclusion that democracy doesn't work in your country. I would agree that there are many problems, but is all lost so much that elections are trivial?You seem to have decided (without any prior reason) to have interpreted ambiguity in my comment from the presumption that I'm probably a totalitarian dictator. Seems a bit uncharitable. — Isaac
So I can't help feeling that we'd just jump from Orwell to Kafka if we did involve the public more in national politics? — Isaac
Because when you say that "elections don't matter" and representative democracy doesn't do anything at systemic racism, the fact is that you aren't looking at countries were that representative democracy works at least SO MUCH that the majority of the people actually are satisfied with it. — ssu
What task is over and when? — ssu
Hence if the democratic system works, at least some party will respond to it. Or then the people can form their own political movement. — ssu
if a state does not tend to change its behaviour based on expressions of the public will, then that's a defeater for it being a representative democracy. — fdrake
It seems to me that when a state's populace isn't in uprising, the default state tends towards serving the interests of wealthy private interests; which is problematic for calling that state a representative democracy. It's more of a "We'll fuck you as hard and as long as we can get away with-ocracy" — fdrake
But is this a historical fact?(2) It takes an uprising to change state behaviour marginally and slowly; even widespread violent expression of public will is not enough for the state to get its shit together and address the problems adequately. — fdrake
The majority of Americans DO support change.Yes. If they demand it. The question here is what if they currently don't. — Isaac
Most Americans, including a majority of President Donald Trump’s Republican Party, support sweeping law enforcement reforms such as a ban on chokeholds and racial profiling after the latest death of an African American while in police custody, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Thursday.
82% of Americans want to ban police from using chokeholds, 83% want to ban racial profiling, and 92% want federal police to be required to wear body cameras.
It also found that 89% of Americans want to require police to give the people they stop their name, badge number and reason for the stop, and 91% support allowing independent investigations of police departments that show patterns of misconduct.
I think people should take more action against it than they currently take. So what are my legitimate options to bring that about? Elections won't do that - they are just going to return the current state of affairs, the one I already would like to change. — Isaac
How have you established that the electorate is not against systemic racism? You have only said that elections don't work, people aren't interested, politicians won't do anything. It might be good to explain this.Political campaigns won't do that because they are focused on appealing to the very electorate I've just established are not taking as strong a stance against systemic racism as I would like them to. — Isaac
And what would be your options in a fully functioning democracy? You are not above others, you know. If you want to change peoples thinking and influence the community, yes, you have a hell lot of work to do!So what are my options? Deface a statue, occupy the street, shut down a supermarket. Now the media pay attention. Now I get a voice. Now I get a chance to persuade people that they should take this issue more seriously. Did I have any other realistic choice? — Isaac
The majority of Americans DO support change. — ssu
So basically what you are saying is that nothing changes in elections. — ssu
How have you established that the electorate is not against systemic racism? You have only said that elections don't work, people aren't interested, politicians won't do anything. It might be good to explain this. — ssu
And what would be your options in a fully functioning democracy? You are not above others, you know. If you want to change peoples thinking and influence the community, yes, you have a hell lot of work to do! — ssu
Please elaborate, I'm not such an expert on American history. — ssu
Isaac, the the whole issue of democracy is to get a majority support something, even if it is the rights of a small minority and hence an issue that doesn't effect the majority at all.That's irrelevant to the argument. Firstly the fact that most Americans support change doesn't have any bearing on the argument about which courses of action are legitimate in the case that they don't. — Isaac
And that change usually happens through political movements that even can organize themselves into political parties. That's how the system ought to work.The question is how to bring about that change. — Isaac
And the question is what to do about it? How? A simple issue like to be against excessive use of force from authorities is a genuine start. You have to say what is needed to change. Or you just oppose 'systemic racism' just like a Republican opposes socialism, or better yet, cultural-marxism, which is created as this catch-all term for everything. Which naturally doesn't even imply any real suggestions what to do etc.Because there is still systemic racism. — Isaac
Isn't this taught in school?Indeed. I'm asking you what that work consists in if not protest. — Isaac
Hmm. I did mention the March on Washington in 1963, or to be more correct to say "March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom", where King did deliver his famous speech. At least that I did know about US history.I think that there was a really big organised labour movement driving it. That famous picture of the March on Washington: — fdrake
It takes an uprising to change state behaviour marginally and slowly; even widespread violent expression of public will is not enough for the state to get its shit together and address the problems adequately. — fdrake
But the question is, that was peaceful, wasn't it? And king promoted non-violence in the protests. So why say then: — ssu
The question is how to bring about that change. — Isaac
And that change usually happens through political movements that even can organize themselves into political parties. That's how the system ought to work. — ssu
You have to say what is needed to change. Or you just oppose 'systemic racism' just like a Republican opposes socialism, or better yet, cultural-marxism, which is created as this catch-all term for everything. Which naturally doesn't even imply any real suggestions what to do etc. — ssu
You can organize into associations, you can form political parties, you can join political parties and be active through them. You can run in elections in your community or so. — ssu
You can write opinions etc. to the media. You can write to the Parliamentary Ombudsman here and engage with authorities directly. You can speak to members of Parliament or elected officials in the community. — ssu
you can hold political demonstrations. — ssu
So was for Gandhi too: tactics. But those tactics did work. Or are you dissappointed that there wasn't more bloodshed?I think for him it was a question of tactics? boethius had original source stuff regarding MLK and nonviolence. — fdrake
Sure. Nonviolent actions would likely not have deterred Stalin from annexing my puny country to the Soviet Empire in 1939, so yes, there are those political circumstances when the system doesn't work without violence: passive resistance didn't work, we can look at what happened to the Baltic States. But are you genuinely saying here that the situation in the US cannot be improved without violence?Keep in mind; the possibility of success of nonviolent actions in a political circumstance is not an argument for the necessity of nonviolent actions in any political circumstance. This is effectively an independent question of the utility of violent (against property!) protest right now. — fdrake
Using other's stuff? Oh yes, just like it isn't "car theft" anymore but "illegal use of a vehicle". :shade:You seem to be saying that political parties can 'protest' (called an election campaign) using their own suff, but protests groups can't protest using anyone else's stuff. So it seems to be entirely about the sanctity of property ownership. — Isaac
How much do you believe in your democracy to be able to function without relying to violence or breaking the law? — ssu
So is your argument here that you cannot make a change without braking the law? That those constitutional rights that I and you have isn't enough or what? That the existing laws are so bad, so outdated and wrong, that there is ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER WAY than to resort to breaking the law? — ssu
Some cases.Yes. In some cases that is absolutely my argument. — Isaac
If we glorify violence, if we think it's the only option and aren't careful, we really can get violence and lawlessness on a far larger scale that we ever did imagine in our now seemingly peaceful society. — ssu
Follow this link (and the next) and keep in mind that the genealogy of US Policing begins about 1701 with establishment of SLAVE PATROLS and continues at the end of the Civil War and then Reconstruction in 1877 with the rise of KLU KLUX KLAN vigilante-terrorists (mostly, but not exclusively, below the Mason-Dixon Line) and which, even after the demise of Legal Segregation, has culminated today in the militarization of most large metropolitan police departments since the early 1970s chiefly driven by Federal "War on Drugs" policies that predominantly target - TERRORIZE - Nonwhite & Poor urban communities.The night a NYC grand jury failed to indict any of the 6 police officers who, in broad daylight with witnesses present and video recorded, summarily executed Eric Garner, I tried to think through (some reasonable) National Reforms to US Policing, and then wrote the following on another forum: [ ... ] — 180 Proof
...The population (be they politicians, wealthy elites, or just ordinary people) who just sat back and let systemic racism lead to thousands of deaths each year...those people, they're not just lacking a pamphlet on the matter. They're not just about to dismantle the institutions which perpetuate this violence as soon as they receive a stern letter to that effect. They're not going to do anything unless there's some serious threat to their comfortable status quo. — Isaac
Clearly, in the Deceleration of Independence "all men are created equal" with the parenthesis that denotes (except people of color). — Anaxagoras
However, to ultimately change any residual affect that racism can creep its ugly head in, generations must die.
What I mean by generational death is the fact that generations that have propagated racism along with those who have suffered under racism must die. The reason behind my idea is because those who were raised in a racist household and live must eventually die and those who are influenced by such individuals must die as well. To those who suffered under racism they too must die to prevent any ideas of racial retribution through dissent. — Anaxagoras
The reason behind my idea is because those who were raised in a racist household and live must eventually die and those who are influenced by such individuals must die as well. — Anaxagoras
Belief systems are what must die my friend. — creativesoul
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.