I can't see anything about this - Link? In what way were they anti - do they want to ban them or what?

Marxist-trained - they went to University? If you never encountered Marx, you're not educated; but what did they do, go to a reeducation camp or something?

And what aspects of their agenda have the Democrats adopted, that are objectionable? — Banno

Obviously you're not familiar with the group, but thank you anyway. Enjoyed the conversation!

Shit, I hate it when folk refuse to back up their claims.

I am familiar with the group. Just not with your claims about them. I went to the nominal web site and did a search, but found nothing that supported your claim, nor was there anything in the WIki article.

Help me out here.

Shit, I hate it when folk refuse to back up their claims. — Banno

I am trying to polite and nice so please don't play games with me. I know you know who they are, after all, who doesn't?

My original question was about why you believe the left has chosen to go to the extreme when the results of such is never good (right or left). What works is the center, a compromise including progressive and conservative ideas. Do you disagree?

You made the following claim:

According to their website (which was changed after getting some bad press), they were anti-nuclear family, a position that might be called a bit extreme. The three founders were Marxist-trained (whatever that means), another position that would be considered extreme in the U.S. Passively advocating violence, etc. — synthesis

Can you justify this with some evidence?

My original question was about why you believe the left has chosen to go to the extreme when the results of such is never good (right or left). What works is the center, a compromise including progressive and conservative ideas. Do you disagree? — synthesis

It's important that you back up your claim, because it would give me an indication of what you think the "extreme" left is; then I might be able to tell you if I think they are in the extreme left...

My theory is that what is considered centre in the USA is well to the right of what is considered centre elsewhere; specifically, the centre in Australia would generally be taken to be between the socialist Labour Party and the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party would be roughly equivalent to the Democrats, were their policies not distorted by pandering to conservatives.

So, yes, I'm all for stopping the game playing. Tell me specifically what it is that BLM want, that has been accepted by the Democrats, that is unacceptable to you?

Yes I would also like to know.

Tell me specifically what it is that BLM want, that has been accepted by the Democrats, that is unacceptable to you? — Banno

Defunding law enforcement perhaps? or legislation that makes them more accountable, or some civil rights reforms?

So, yes, I'm all for stopping the game playing. Tell me specifically what it is that BLM want, that has been accepted by the Democrats, that is unacceptable to you? — Banno

As far as I can tell, they wanted to get Trump out of office. Otherwise, they seem to be concerned about the 10-15 unarmed black men killed each year by white law enforcement officers and that's about it.

The effort by all the different factions (that wanted to get rid of Trump) certainly seemed to pay-off, but there is always a backlash when extreme measures are employed (terrorizing individuals and businesses in several U.S. cities).

I believe that the amazing progress that a great many in the black community have made over the past several decades has been dealt a severe blow by the entire systemic racism narrative for so many different reasons. Calling an entire race of people racist in the most un-racist country in the world seems a bit extreme, no?

As far as I can tell, they wanted to get Trump out of office. — synthesis

I've no problem with that, nor does the majority of US voters... so that's not extreme.

...they seem to be concerned about the 10-15 unarmed black men killed each year — synthesis

Not unreasonable, given the difference between deaths of unarmed black and white men at the hands of police... again, we might agree that this is not extreme.

...backlash... — synthesis

To what are you referring? What backlash? Folk voting for Trump? Folk invading the Capitol?

...terrorizing individuals and businesses... — synthesis

Riots? Yeah, not nice. But it gets attention.

systemic racism narrative... — synthesis

Hmm. Here we start to differ more directly. It seems to me beyond doubt that there is endemic racism in the US. Here, Too. I also think it needs to be called out. Is it systematic? Something systematic is wrong, given the disproportionate number of blacks in incarceration.

The figures on incarceration are worse for Indigenous Australians, and I support efforts here to identify systematic reasons for this and eradicate them.

Calling an entire race of people racist in the most un-racist country in the world seems a bit extreme, no? — synthesis

Sure. Who did that, then? Citation?

Defunding law enforcement perhaps? — praxis

If those funds buy social services instead of riot shields, that's not a bad thing at all.

From what I can understand, the US seems to be well behind - many decades behind - comparable countries in terms of taking care of its citizens.

...they seem to be concerned about the 10-15 unarmed black men killed each year
— synthesis

Not unreasonable, given the difference between deaths of unarmed black and white men at the hands of police... again, we might agree that this is not extreme. — Banno

What's extreme is they don't seem to care about the massive black-on-black carnage that's going on in several U.S. cities.

...backlash...
— synthesis
To what are you referring? What backlash? Folk voting for Trump? Folk invading the Capitol?

...terrorizing individuals and businesses...
— synthesis
Riots? Yeah, not nice. But it gets attention. — Banno

Not nice? Do you have any idea what went down here last summer? How about if it was your father that was murdered, or your house or business that was burned-down?

systemic racism narrative...
— synthesis
Hmm. Here we start to differ more directly. It seems to me beyond doubt that there is endemic racism in the US. Here, Too. I also think it needs to be called out. Is it systematic? Something systematic is wrong, given the disproportionate number of blacks in incarceration. — Banno

There is endemic everything everywhere. We are human beings and we all do lots of stupid stuff but (on the whole) things have improved drastically over the past decades. There is enough blame to go around but you do NOT blame an entire race of people for something that happened 99% in the past.

Calling an entire race of people racist in the most un-racist country in the world seems a bit extreme, no?
— synthesis

Sure. Who did that, then? Citation? — Banno

This is what the systemic racism narrative is, no? I cannot provide you with specific references but I've seen it time and time again in blogs, on TV, in the news, EVERYWHERE.

Look, everybody knows that blacks have had it harder everywhere in the world. And I have never met anybody who thinks this is a good thing or doesn't want to see the situation resolve itself, but you cannot blame innocent people and tell them they are racist. That will not end well and this is why I asked you why such an extreme posture was embraced by the left. Does the left really believe they can upend the entire world order overnight?

As far as I can tell, in the U.S., money is still green so that's really the only color that means shit here.

This is what the systemic racism narrative is, no? I cannot provide you with specific references — synthesis

Here's a reference: The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America by Richard Rothstein.

The 'color of law" doesn't refer to race. It means "under the cover of law", like the law under which the FHA operated for many years.

The Color of Law is a study of one large piece of racism which was systemic: the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) started in 1935 helped finance new suburban housing for white people and urban high-rise rental housing for blacks. Racially mixed neighborhoods were denied financial backing, which encouraged their slide into slums--mostly occupied by black people.

If you read much about urban history (Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis, Los Angeles, etc.) you will find other examples of systemic racism -- that is, racial discrimination that operated consistently and over time.

Urban history doesn't account for all racial disadvantage. Plenty of racial bias was and is unsystematic, individualized, inconsistent, and persistent.

What's extreme is they don't seem to care about the massive black-on-black carnage that's going on in several U.S. cities. — synthesis

Don't they? I don't have access to much information; so isn't this a different, albeit related, issue? Again, even if true, that wouldn't make them extreme, in my view, just focused.

Not nice? Do you have any idea what went down here last summer? How about if it was your father that was murdered, or your house or business that was burned-down? — synthesis

Yep. Not nice.

There is endemic everything everywhere. We are human beings and we all do lots of stupid stuff but (on the whole) things have improved drastically over the past decades. — synthesis

Yes, things get better; at least in part because of the efforts of activists.

There is enough blame to go around but you do NOT blame an entire race of people for something that happened 99% in the past....

This is what the systemic racism narrative is, no? I cannot provide you with specific references but I've seen it time and time again in blogs, on TV, in the news, EVERYWHERE. — synthesis

...so it should not be hard for you to find a citation.

...but you cannot blame innocent people and tell them they are racist. . — synthesis

I understand that recognising one's privilege is difficult. You and I benefited from racism, even if we did not participate. Again, who has blamed which innocent people? Something concrete on which we can continue the conversation.

That will not end well and this is why I asked you why such an extreme posture was embraced by the left. Does the left really believe they can upend the entire world order overnight? — synthesis

I'm still having trouble seeing what it is you see as extreme... voting Trump out?

As far as I can tell, in the U.S., money is still green so that's really the only color that means shit here. — synthesis

Is this in reference to my comments about social security? Seems to me that following the dollar has been taken to an extreme in the US. There's an interesting conversation to be had about the role of the myth of individual accomplishment here.

Edit: that you are here might indicate that you are interested in considering different perspectives. Well done. I like it here because just occasionally I am forced to reconsider my views. Show me something to make me reconsider.

Thanks.

It seems that folk fail to understand that systematic racism need not be intentional - although it can be.

I understand that recognising one's privilege is difficult. You and I benefited from racism, even if we did not participate. Again, who has blamed which innocent people? Something concrete on which we can continue the conversation. — Banno

Maybe we should make all tall people shorter, good looking people plainer, smart people dumber, so on and so forth? Yes, certain people have advantages.

The bottom-line...you cannot makes things better by making them worse. People are not equal and never will be. That does not mean you can not make things fairer and they are getting better. More importantly, you play the hand you are dealt with the greatest amount of effort and skill you can muster.

This entire racist thing was a political scam like it always is. After all, the Democrats in the U.S. have used black people for political gain since the 60's. If they really cared, would so many Democratically controlled cities look like they do? It's a disgrace.

...you cannot makes things better by making them worse... — synthesis

Again, who is making them worse? Read over this discussion again, and ask yourself how you went. Go back to here, were I asked you about the importance of science. Then there was

It seems as if the "left" has taken the extremist path — synthesis

and my asking you to explain what you saw as extreme. Did you succeed? The accusations that BLM are anti-family and marxist trained - unsupported and unverified, and not extreme even if they were. Voting Trump out - not extreme; utterly reasonable. This:

There is endemic everything everywhere. We are human beings and we all do lots of stupid stuff but (on the whole) things have improved drastically over the past decades. There is enough blame to go around but you do NOT blame an entire race of people for something that happened 99% in the past. — synthesis

Sure, we muddle along, trying to fix stuff up. That's what BLM are doing. But who is blaming an entier race?

How well supported is your rejection of what you call "the Left"?

Maybe we should make all tall people shorter, good looking people plainer, smart people dumber, so on and so forth? Yes, certain people have advantages.

The bottom-line...you cannot makes things better by making them worse. People are not equal and never will be. That does not mean you can not make things fairer and they are getting better. — synthesis

Isn't fairness a zero sum game? How can you make things fairer without increasing the advantages of the disadvantaged and decreasing the advantages of the advantaged?

This entire racist thing was a political scam like it always is. — synthesis

I think you are right. There will be white Democrats using the issue as leverage.

Do you think the BLM black supporters are part of that scam? Or do they think they have a real grievance?

Here's more good news: The gap between the number of blacks and whites in prison is shrinking

But this: Countries with the largest number of prisoners per 100,000 of the national population, as of June 2020
What's that about? Look at your competition, man!

Otherwise, they seem to be concerned about the 10-15 unarmed black men killed each year by white law enforcement officers and that's about it. — synthesis

BLM leaders made the strategic decision to focus on black deaths at the hands of the police, who are agents of civil power. That isn't the choice I would have made -- but I am not black or part of BLM. Simultaneously campaigning effectively against police abuse (which, to be fair, is larger than the issue of black deaths caused by police) and black-on-black killings is problematic. Problematic because the two issues run in opposite directions with different stakeholders. And, to be frank, young blacks killing other young blacks just isn't an issue around which one can build a very large coalition.

The Mad Dads (black men) have made black-on-black deaths their issue. They don't organize big marches and demonstrations; they focus on small interventions in neighborhoods involving dozens of people rather than thousands. It would be difficult for them to take on police abuse at the same time.

It takes very large, well funded organizations to attack multiple issues at the same time--say, the environment, distribution of wealth, over population, racism, sexism, and the role of social media in society. For that there are governments, political parties (for worse or for better), the UN, and big NGOs.

The whole point Hitler was making was about wanting to destroy inferior people. This captures the whole problem underlying prejudiced hatred, which is the belief that one is superior to others. — Jack Cummins

But you don't believe you are equal to the Nazis, or that the Nazis are equal to you, do you? Exactly.

He isn't condoning anything by saying George Floyd resisted arrest, anyone can see that he did. — Judaka

Pretending I disagreed with this point is trolling, please stop.

Science can be as political as every other institution, e.g., the story of BIG tobacco. — synthesis

That's industry.

Hmm, true, I misrepresented you there, my bad. Doesn't change my main* point though.

Hmm, true, I misrepresented you there, my bad. Doesn't change my main* point though. — Judaka

If your main point is that people who support far-right violent insurrectionists, who engage in baseless racist propaganda, and who promote propaganda about how whites are being oppressed are beyond naming or criticism or the contempt of decent people, your main point is wrong. If your main point is that counterpunch didn't do these things, you are also wrong. Either way, you seem to be continuing as you began.

You say that,
'You don't believe that you are equal to the Nazi's or that the Nazi's are equal to you. Exactly.'

I think you are suggesting that each of us believes in some kind of superiority, and would imply that I think that I am "better' than the Nazi's. Of course I don't condone what the Nazi's did. But I would say that it is still problematic when people do try to see themselves as better, including morally better, than others.

Of course I don't condone what the Nazi's did. But I would say that it is still problematic when people do try to see themselves as better, including morally better, than others. — Jack Cummins

But then this points right back at you. How do you respond to that?

I would say that obviously every one has to have a point of view or we would be like jellyfish floating in a sea of unknowing but the danger is moral or political arrogance. It is so easy evil on to to project onto others, whether it is Hitler or Bin Laden.

Really, what I have been trying to say in the brief snippets of discussion I have been having with you is that prejudiced hatred arises from projecting on to others. It is not an easy problem to address but our own sense of superiority can be damaging.

With the few comments I have made, you keep directing them back at me. I have awareness that any comment which I make about others has personal significance too. I am aware of that but I would say that I think that many ignore this dimension. I feel that you are going to tell me that I think that I am superior for saying that and I would say, absolutely not.

It has just been that is the way my own life experiences has led me to think and that I am coming more from a psychological angle than a political one. But I do believe that there is an important dialogue between politics and psychology. The psychological view can benefit from an understanding of the political and the political can gain from a psychological perspective.

A lot of right-wing speakers who aren't racist, fascist or alt-right disagree with the issues around systemic racism, George Floyd, political correctness and even on Trump. This is just politically motivated labelling by you. He hasn't said anything racist, he's said quite a bit which goes against the alt-right ideology and where does the fascism claim come from? Do you actually think you can back any of this shit up? I'm interested @Banno

But factually wrong. — Banno

Does this mean you could join me in telling kenosha kid to stop with the nonsense? Why is saying "he's factually wrong" not good enough? I mean you're the second last person I want to be asking but perhaps he'll listen to you, we don't need to call people "fascist" and "racist" or "alt-right" when they're not, just to make a point.

A lot of right-wing speakers who aren't racist, fascist or alt-right disagree with the issues around systemic racism, George Floyd, political correctness and even on Trump. — Judaka

No. There is not a valid right-wing opinion on how Floyd died that differs from the facts. I reject a defense of belittling all victims of racism on post-truth grounds as equally racist. If you have problems with the term "racist", easy solution: don't be it. We're not discussing economic philosophy here: this is racist propaganda that proceeds by the right wing MO of insisting that what we saw was not what we saw, that while the facts establish X, there are alternative facts we can invent that show !X, it just depends on your point of view. Kidding yourself this is fine is one thing; kidding yourself that everyone else will accept it as fine is just straight up dumb.

"He" here being @counterpunch?

The fact is, you don't know what the cause of death was, — counterpunch

Factually wrong.

Can you even prove the Floyd murder was racially motivated? You shouldn't call someone racist because they say things you don't like - when they're not racist. Just because it's not racist - that doesn't make it okay, you can still be angry just, maybe stop diluting the meaning of important words for political benefit?

@Banno Yes but does being factually wrong make him a racist fascist? What if he's just wrong?